Wolfire Games LLC v. Valve Corporation

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 Defendant’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 198). 16 Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS in part 17 and DENIES in part the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 Plaintiffs Wolfire Games, LLC, Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc., and Dark Catt Studios 19 Interactive, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) moved for the certification of a class of game 20 developers and/or game publishers who paid Defendant for the use or sale of the 21 developers/publishers’ games on Defendant’s game platform. (See generally Dkt. No. 181.) That 22 motion, along with various supporting exhibits, includes information Defendant categorizes as 23 confidential financial information; business, decision-making, operational documents and 24 communications; details regarding certain third-party contracts and related communications; 25 third-party financial information; third-party business information and communications; and/or 26 personally identifiable information. (See generally Dkt. No. 198.) Defendant contends the 1 disclosure of this information would harm either Defendant’s or third-parties’ competitive 2 standing. (Id.) On this basis, Defendant asks to maintain unredacted versions of documents 3 containing this information under seal. (See generally id.) 4 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 5 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 6 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 7 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). As a result, one “seeking to seal a judicial record . . . ‘must articulate 8 compelling reasons [to keep a record sealed] supported by specific factual findings.’” Id. at 1179 9 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).1 10 The documents presently before the Court (Dkt. Nos. 181, 182, 182-1–182-84) are 11 voluminous. To provide the parties with timely guidance, so as to allow them to propose 12 redactions to anticipated submissions, (see Dkt. No. 228) (order establishing a framework for 13 future sealing requests for those submissions), the Court has considered only those redactions 14 and sealing requests associated with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 181) and 15 Professor Joost Rietveld’s expert report (Dkt. No. 182-2). 16 Much of the information Defendant seeks to shield from public view, as contained in 17 these documents, ostensibly, is a generalized description of Defendant’s alleged anti-competitive 18 conduct, as provided by Plaintiffs. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 225-1 at 15–19.) There is no compelling 19 reason to shield such information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The mere fact that the 20 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 21 further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”). Nevertheless, to 22

1 While courts have created an exception to this standard in certain instances, see, e.g., Ctr. for 23 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016), that exception would 24 not apply here. This is because much of the information Defendant seeks to shield from public view pertains to allegedly anti-competitive business practices—an issue clearly aligned with the 25 merits of the case. Therefore, disclosure of this information is required absent the demonstration of compelling reasons not do so. (See Dkt. No. 224 at 1–2) (prior guidance from the Court 26 regarding application of this standard here). 1 the extent Plaintiffs’ allegations are specific and either implicate a third party’s business 2 practices or Defendant’s alleged competitive (i.e., permissible) business practices, a compelling 3 reason exists for maintaining them under seal. See, e.g., J.R. Simplot Co. v. Washington Potato 4 Co., 2016 WL 11066581, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2016). To provide the parties with specific 5 rulings on each item contained in these documents, the Court includes Exhibits A and B to this 6 order. Those exhibits, which shall be maintained under seal, are unredacted versions of 7 Plaintiffs’ class certification motion and Professor Rietveld’s report, with Court-applied 8 highlights. Those highlights represent the material which Defendant has established a compelling 9 reason to maintain under seal.2 The Court rejects the remaining proposed redactions. 10 Accordingly, within 14 days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer and file final 11 public redacted versions of Docket Numbers 181 and 182-2 (based on the highlighting provided 12 in Exhibits A and B).3 In the meantime, the Clerk is DIRECTED to continue to maintain Docket 13 Numbers 181, 182, and 182-1–182-84 under seal. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to 14 maintain Exhibits A and B to this order under seal (and provide the parties a copy 15 electronically). 16 So ORDERED this 30th day of Mary 2024. A 17 18 19 John C. Coughenour 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21

22 2 This is as compared to Defendant’s proposed voluminous redactions. (See Dkt. Nos. 225-1, 23 225-3.) 3 The Court will address the proposed redactions and sealing requests for the remaining 24 documents in support of Plaintiffs’ class certification motion (Dkt. Nos. 181-3–181-84) by a 25 separate order. If the parties require additional guidance before then, they may so advise by filing a joint status report, and the Court will endeavor to provide such guidance in a timely fashion. 26