Wolfire Games LLC v. Valve Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00563
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CASE NO. C21-0563-JCC IN RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 10 ORDER 11 12 13 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on three motions to seal by non-parties Epic Games, 16 Inc. and Microsoft, Inc., along with Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc. and Dark Catt 17 Studios Interactive, LLC (collectively “movants”) (Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 201). Having thoroughly 18 considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motions for the 19 reasons explained herein. 20 Plaintiffs Wolfire Games, LLC, Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc., and Dark Catt Studios 21 Interactive, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) recently moved the Court for the certification of a 22 class of game developers and/or game publishers who paid Defendant for the use or sale of the 23 developers/publishers’ games on Defendant’s game platform. (See generally Dkt. No. 181.) That 24 motion, along with various supporting exhibits, included information that the movants now 25 describe as trade secrets, non-public business records, and other confidential information—the 26 dissemination of which would be harmful to movants’ businesses. (See Dkt. Nos. 189 at 2–3; 192 1 at 15, 21; 193 at 2; 182-27; 182-48.) This information was produced in accordance with the 2 protective order in this matter (Dkt. No. 95) and was designated for attorneys’ eyes only. (See 3 generally Dkt. Nos. 196, 197.) In addition, an exhibit to the class certification motion contained 4 what Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc. and Dark Catt Studios Interactive, LLC assert is 5 personally identifiable information, specifically, a gamer’s username. (See Dkt. Nos. 201 at 2, 6 182-74 at 3.) Accordingly, the movants ask the Court to maintain all of this information under 7 seal. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 201.) 8 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 9 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 10 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 11 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). As a result, one “seeking to seal a judicial record . . . ‘must articulate 12 compelling reasons [to keep a record sealed] supported by specific factual findings.’” Id. at 1179 13 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 14 However, courts have created an exception to this standard for materials contained in or 15 referenced in a motion only “tangentially related to the merits of the case,” which is often true 16 for non-dispositive motions. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 17 (9th Cir. 2016). In such an instance, only “good cause” need be demonstrated, rather than 18 “compelling reasons.” Id. 19 Here, no party has lodged an opposition to the movants’ motions to seal. Therefore, the 20 Court concludes that each have merit, regardless of which standard need be applied. See LCR 21 7(b)(2). Accordingly, the motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 201) are GRANTED. The Clerk is 22 DIRECTED to maintain under seal the portions of Docket Numbers 192, 182-27, 182-48, and 23 182-74 described in the movants’ motions. 24 // 25 // 26 // 1 DATED this 19th day of April 2024. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26