Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 794

POSTTRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: (1) ORDER GRANTING PENDING STIPULATION; (2) SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLCS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CLARIFY; (3) FINAL SEALING REQUESTS; AND (4) DEFERRED DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/9/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2021)

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

EPIC GAMES, INC.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR

vs.
APPLE INC.,

16

Defendant.

17

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

POSTTRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: (1) ORDER
GRANTING PENDING STIPULATION;
(2) SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
LLC’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CLARIFY; (3) FINAL SEALING REQUESTS;
AND (4) DEFERRED DOCUMENTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 699, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739,
740, 741, 747

18
19

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

20

The Court issues this Order with respect to several items on the docket:

21
22
23
24
25

1. Pending Stipulations
Having reviewed the pending stipulation on the docket, and for the good cause shown
therein, the Court GRANTS the following pending stipulation:


Dkt. No. 741
o Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the following exhibits are deemed

26

WITHDRAWN: PX-0009, PX-1164, PX-1165, PX-2090 PX-2118, PX-2174,

27

PX-2309, PX-2337, PX-2350, PX-2378, PX-2500, PX-2508, PX-2534, PX-

28

2535, and PX-2826.

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 4

1

2. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC Administrative Motion for Clarification Re:

2

Trial Order No. 7 (Sealing Request Clarification) (Dkt. No. 739)

3

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC has filed an administrative motion for clarification of

4

Trial Order No. 7, specifically regarding DX-3660. Having reviewed Trial Order No. 7, the Court

5

finds that there was a typographical error in Trial Order No. 7. Thus, the Court AMENDS the

6

ruling on Sony’s sealing request as to DX-3660 and the last bullet point to read as follows: “The

7

remainder of the document is otherwise appropriately sealed.” This sentence shall replace the last

8

bullet point regarding DX-3660. Accordingly, the Court clarifies that the sentence defining

9

“Competitive Platform” shall be unredacted, but the remaining proposed redactions are

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

appropriately sealed.
3. Final Sealing Requests
The Court has received several final requests to seal from the parties, as well as

13

declarations in support of these requests from the parties and non-parties. As the Court explained

14

in Pretrial Orders 7 and 9, as well as Trial Orders 1, 5, and 7:

15

Local Rule 79-5 provides that documents, or portions thereof, may be
sealed if a party “establishes that the documents, or portions thereof,
are privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). In general, a “strong
presumption in favor of access” to court records exists, especially
during trial. At times, compelling reasons which are “sufficient to
outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court
records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for
improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade
secrets.” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. WarnerCommc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to
serve as . . . sources of business information that might harm a
litigant’s competitive standing”).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Here, and importantly, the gravamen of this case is business
competition, including whether competition exists; if so, among
which players; and how such competition influences the market. The
Court understands that the standard is more lenient when the
information concerns third parties, but this is not dispositive. The
third-party information must be balanced with the Court’s ultimate
resolution of the instant dispute which should be transparent in its
analysis. Accordingly, the Court makes the following findings based
upon the current state of the record:1

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Litigants are advised that if the Court ultimately decides that certain information is
2

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(Dkt. No. 547 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 564 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 594 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 643 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 715
at 2-3.)2 With this prior framework in mind, the Court addresses the below administrative
motions to seal.
a. Epic Games Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Re: Ex. Expert 1 (Dkt. No. 699)
The Court GRANTS this administrative motion except as follows:


b. Apple Inc.’s Administrative Motions to Seal (Dkt. Nos. 729, 730, 735 ,740, 747)
These motions are GRANTED as to all documents except for:


10

PX-1922, PX-1017
o The proposed redactions are appropriately sealed at this time. Apple is on

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Paragraph 88: these proposed redactions shall be unsealed and unredacted.

notice that the Court may cite to sealed portions in these documents in any

12

final order on the merits.

13



14

PX-2302.
o 2302.12: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The first sentence

15

and the last sentence in the notes are appropriately sealed. The second and

16

third sentences shall be unredacted.

17

o 2302.22: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The notes shall be

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

important to disclose which has been sealed, it will provide an opportunity for the moving party to
respond.
2

The Court similarly stated in Trial Order No. 3:
Trial records enjoy a “strong presumption in favor of access” that can
only be overcome by “compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178- 79 (9th Cir. 2006). “In general,
‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court
files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the
use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,
circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).

(Dkt. No. 613 at 1.)
3

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 4 of 4

1

unreacted except that the percentage referenced shall remain redacted at this

2

time.
o 2302.41: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The notes shall be

3

unredacted.

4

o 2302.42: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The first paragraph

5
6

in the notes section shall be unredacted except that the referenced monetary

7

amount shall be redacted and sealed.
o The remainder of the proposed redactions in this document are

8

appropriately sealed at this time.

9
10



The remainder of the proposed redactions are appropriately sealed.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

c. Epic Games’ Administrative Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 731)

12

The motion is GRANTED as to the Epic Games’ request to partially seal DX-4133. Epic

13
14
15

Games is on notice that the Court may cite to sealed portions in any final order on the merits.
4. Previously Deferred Sealed Requests
The Court previously deferred consideration of several documents, including party specific

16

contracts, Google LLC consumer survey reports, and other documents involving Epic Games. To

17

the extent that the Court has not already ruled on these requests, these requests to seal are

18

GRANTED as so requested by the parties or non-parties.

19

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 699, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739, 740, 741, and 747.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: June 9, 2021
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4