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. 294). 16 Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS in part 17 and DENIES in part the motion as explained herein. 18 This order disposes of one in a series of sealing motions associated with Plaintiffs’ class 19 certification motion. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 198, 201, 223, 227, 228, 236, 253, 258, 307, 20 308) (motions to seal and resulting orders). The parties, after briefing the instant motion, appear 21 to largely agree on what materials should be sealed and/or redacted. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 22 294, 324, 325, 325-1.) But disputes remain. (See Dkt. No. 325-1.) As to those, the Court largely 23 concurs with Defendant’s assessment: compelling reasons justify shielding much of these 24 materials from public view.1 However, the Court does take exception with a few of Defendant’s

25 1 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 26 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 1 proposed redactions and sealing designations. Attached to this order is an exhibit addressing 2 those exceptions. It outlines the permissible redactions only for those materials, as described by 3 Defendant in Updated Appendix 1 (Dkt. No. 325-1). For the materials described in Updated 4 Appendix 1 not discussed in the attached sealed exhibit, no public disclosure—other than that 5 Defendant already proposes—is required. 6 Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: 7 • It DENIES Defendant’s revised request(s) to seal (Dkt. No. 294) for the entries described 8 in Defendant’s Updated Appendix 1 (Dkt. No. 325-1), as outlined in the sealed exhibit 9 attached to this order, and 10 • It GRANTS the revised request(s) to seal (Dkt. No. 294) for all other entries in 11 Defendant’s Updated Appendix 1 (Dkt. No. 325-1). 12 Within 14 days, the parties SHALL meet and confer and file final public redacted versions of the 13 materials at issue in this motion, (see id.), in accordance with this order. The Clerk is 14 DIRECTED to maintain the following materials under seal: Docket Numbers 182-1, 229, 230 et 15 seq., 231 et seq., 232, 233 et seq., 242, 298 et seq., 305 et seq., 324, and 325. 16 So ORDERED this 6th day of August 2024. A 17 18 19 John C. Coughenour 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 25 597 (1978)). As a result, one “seeking to seal a judicial record . . . ‘must articulate compelling reasons [to keep a record sealed] supported by specific factual findings.’” Id. at 1179 (quoting 26 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003))