Wolfire Games LLC et al v. Valve Corporation

Filing 351

ORDER re Plaintiffs' 341 Surreply. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to strike (Dkt. No. 341 ) except that Plaintiffs may submit a supplemental brief and expert surreply report. That submission is due 9/9/2024. The Court will entertai n no further response or reply from Defendant on this issue, following Plaintiffs' submission. The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony (Dkt. No. 232 ) and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 181 ) to 9/9/2024. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (KRA)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

In re VALVE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

CASE NO. C21-0563-JCC
ORDER

11
12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ surreply (Dkt. No. 341), asking the

16 Court to strike portions of Defendant’s reply (Dkt. No. 337) and the entirety of Defendant’s reply
17 expert report (Dkt. No. 338-1). For the reasons described below, the Court DENIES the motion
18 but will allow Plaintiffs to provide the Court with a supplemental submission.
19

As to the issue of a new argument allegedly raised for the first time on reply—the Court

20 disagrees with Plaintiffs’ assessment. Defendant raised each issue now subject to Plaintiffs’
21 surreply, (see Dkt. No. 341 at 2–4), either directly or by reasonable implication, in its original
22 motion. (See Dkt. No. 232 at 9, 13; 233-1 at 115) (motion and supporting exhibit addressing (a)
23 impact of Steam Key sales and (b) relevant facts in assessing whether the Steam platform is best
24 analyzed as a one-sided versus two-sided market). Therefore, the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs’
25 request to strike argument on these issues is without merit.
26

As to the issue of Defendant’s reply expert report, the applicable scheduling order is
ORDER
C21-0563-JCC
PAGE - 1

1 silent. (See generally Dkt. No. 176.) Given that the order (as proposed by the parties and adopted
2 by the Court) is not clear on this particular issue, rather than strike the offending report, the
3 Court will permit Plaintiffs the same opportunity as Defendant. They may submit a rebuttal
4 (surreply) expert report. (See Dkt. No. 341 at 4.)
5

For the reasons described above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Dkt. No.

6 341) except that Plaintiffs may submit a supplemental brief 1 and expert surreply report. That
7 submission is due September 9, 2024. The Court will entertain no further response or reply from
8 Defendant on this issue, following Plaintiffs’ submission.
9

The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony (Dkt.

10 No. 232) and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 181) to September 9, 2024.
11
12

DATED this 30th day of August 2024.

A

13
14
15

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiffs’ brief shall be limited to four pages of argument and may only address the issues
identified above, as further described in Plaintiffs’ surreply (Dkt. No. 341).
ORDER
C21-0563-JCC
PAGE - 2