Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
`
`TRIAL ORDER NO. 2 RE: (1) FACEBOOK
`INC. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`CLARIFY; AND (2) ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTIONS TO SEAL DEPOSITION
`DESIGNATIONS
`
`
`Dkt. Nos. 491, 505, 598, 601
`
`
`
`AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`The Court issues this Order with respect to several items on the docket:
`1. Facebook Inc. Sealing Request Clarification
`As the Court stated on the record, and as identified by counsel for Facebook Inc. (see Dkt.
`Nos. 598, 601), the Court had committed a typographical error with respect to Facebook’s sealing
`request in Trial Order No. 1. (Dkt. No. 594.) Regarding PX-2413 (Exhibit 2) at page EGFB-
`001160, the Court AMENDS the ruling on Facebook’s sealing request to read as follows: “The
`redaction at the bottom of the page in the email sent on March 2, 2020 at 6:25PM shall be
`unredacted. The remainder of the proposed redactions on this page shall be sealed.”
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`2. Administrative Motions to Seal Deposition Designations
`The Court is in receipt of defendant Apple Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Partially Seal
`Deposition Designations and plaintiff Epic Games, Inc.’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Four-Hour
`Deposition Designations. (Dkt. Nos. 491, 505.) 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)).
`Having carefully considered the parties’ motions and supporting declarations, the Court
`rules on the motions as follows:
`
`Deposition
`Designation
`
`Ruling
`
`Party Having
`Confidential
`Information
`Epic Games’ Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 491)
`GRANTED. This concerns Apple’s internal
`Apple
`projections of the rate of return on App Store
`search. The information relates to current
`confidential financial data that could result in
`competitive harm if disclosed. (Dkt. No. 505-
`1 ¶¶ 6-8.)
`DENIED. This concerns value of IAP vs. non-
`IAP customers to one third party. The
`information is relevant to the tying claim, and
`Apple has not articulated concrete harm from
`its release. (Dkt. No. 505-1 ¶¶ 6-8.)
`DENIED1
`DENIED
`DENIED
`
`Apple
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`Cue 109:4 - 110:17
`
`Cue 190:4 – 192:16
`
`Ong 9:10 - 9:12
`Ong 9:15 - 9:18
`Ong 9:22 - 10:12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
`1 Although Match initially designated certain material as confidential, much of the
`information has been made public and Match does not seek to seal the information denied here
`without comment. (See Dkt. No. 529.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 9
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to lines 28:11 and 28:15 only.
`This concerns concrete percentages of Match
`revenue that came from web and app versions
`of Tinder, respectively. Although relevant, the
`information could cause Match competitive
`harm, such as by helping competitors allocate
`marketing, and may be referred to in summary
`form at trial. (See Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 6.)
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to lines 45:15-16 and 46:1-2
`only, which disclose the proportion of users
`and revenue attributable to Match’s own
`payment system compared to the Google Play
`payment system. Although highly relevant,
`disclosure of the information may harm Match
`competitively, for example, if revealed to
`other app platforms, and may be referred to in
`summary form at trial. (Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 7.)
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to lines 49:1-2 and 49:11-17
`only, which concern Match’s internal process
`for providing the refund. The information is
`not directly relevant to any claim or defense
`and could cause Match harm by encouraging
`abuse of its policy. (Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 8.) The
`information also discloses Match’s data
`gathering efforts, which is not relevant to the
`present antitrust claims. The remainder of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ong 12:09 - 13:25
`Ong 17:03 - 17:15
`Ong 17:22 - 18:25
`Ong 20:15 - 20:22
`Ong 21:23 - 21:25
`Ong 22:10 - 23:05
`Ong 23:09 - 23:17
`Ong 24:17 - 25:05
`Ong 25:14 - 26:05
`Ong 28:09 - 28:22
`
`Ong 28:24 - 30:25
`Ong 31:22 - 31:24
`Ong 32:01 - 32:07
`Ong 32:10 - 32:22
`Ong 33:08 - 33:16
`Ong 33:18 - 34:07
`Ong 34:14 - 37:07
`Ong 37:25 - 38:11
`Ong 38:13 - 39:02
`Ong 39:16 - 39:24
`Ong 41:12 - 42:09
`Ong 43:04 - 44:19
`Ong 45:01 - 46:10
`Ong 46:13 - 46:15
`
`Ong 46:17 - 47:07
`Ong 47:15 - 48:01
`Ong 48:04 - 48:10
`Ong 48:14 - 48:19
`Ong 48:21 - 51:06
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`designated excerpt concerns publicly known
`information, including developers’ inability to
`provide refunds on Apple IAP. (See Dkt. No.
`407 ¶ 293(c).)
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to the numbers disclosed on lines
`56:6-10, 16-20 only, which concern a specific
`percentage of users driven to Match products
`by the Apple App Store versus user searches.
`Although relevant, the information could
`cause Match competitive harm, such as by
`helping rivals determine bids for keywords,
`and may be referred to in summary form.
`(Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 9.)
`DENIED
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to the numbers disclosed on lines
`58:25-59:2, 59:6, and 59:13 only, which
`concern a specific percentage of users driven
`to Match products by the Apple App Store
`versus user searches. Although relevant, the
`information could cause Match competitive
`harm, such as by helping rivals determine bids
`for keywords, and may be referred to in
`summary form. (Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 10.)
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to the number disclosed on line
`69:19, which identifies the percentage of
`Tinder revenue attributable to iOS. Although
`relevant, the information could cause Match
`competitive harm, such as in business
`negotiations with third parties or through rival
`allocation of marketing across platforms, and
`may be referred to in summary form at trial.
`(Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 11.)
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`
`4
`
`Ong 56:03 - 56:04
`Ong 56:06 - 57:01
`
`Match
`Match
`
`Ong 57:20 - 57:22
`Ong 58:08 - 58:10
`Ong 58:20 - 59:16
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`Ong 59:18 - 60:18
`Ong 60:20 - 60:23
`Ong 60:25 - 61:04
`Ong 61:06 - 61:18
`Ong 62:03 - 62:05
`Ong 62:07 - 62:16
`Ong 62:18 - 63:03
`Ong 63:05 - 64:16
`Ong 65:01 - 65:17
`Ong 65:19 - 65:25
`Ong 66:01 - 66:04
`Ong 66:12 - 66:24
`Ong 67:23 - 68:05
`Ong 69:17 - 69:21
`
`Ong 69:23 - 70:09
`Ong 70:11 - 70:15
`Ong 72:07 - 72:10
`Ong 74:08 - 74:10
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`Ong 74:12 - 74:12
`Ong 84:01 - 84:03
`Ong 84:05 - 84:06
`Ong 84:22 - 85:03
`Ong 85:05 - 85:07
`Ong 120:12 - 120:13
`Ong 120:16 - 120:21
`Ong 120:24 - 120:25
`Ong 121:02 - 121:04
`Ong 152:04 - 152:23
`Ong 158:04 - 159:14
`
`Ong 162:03 - 162:22
`Ong 167:01 - 167:04
`Ong 167:06 - 167:20
`Ong 169:24 - 170:08
`Ong 170:10 - 170:19
`Ong 171:14 - 172:16
`Ong 172:18 - 173:06
`Ong 182:20 - 183:25
`
`Kreiner 32:13-14
`Kreiner 32:25-33:4
`Kreiner 35:20-36:6
`
`Kreiner 37:4-8, 37:14
`
`Kreiner 39:11-13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
`2 Apple seeks to seal information designated as third-party confidential under the
`protective order. The Court denies the motion without comment sealing where no party filed a
`supporting declaration. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
`
`5
`
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`Match
`
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to the numbers disclosed on lines
`152:11 and 16, which refer to specific
`percentage of users driven to Match products
`by the Apple App Store versus user searches.
`Although relevant, the information could
`cause Match competitive harm, such as by
`helping rivals determine bids for keywords,
`and may be referred to in summary form.
`(Dkt. No. 529 ¶ 10.)
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`DENIED
`Match
`Apple’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 505)2
`DENIED
`Third-Party
`DENIED
`Third-Party
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`Sony
`pricing term between Sony and Epic Games.
`To the Court’s knowledge, this information
`has not been publicly disclosed, and disclosure
`may harm Sony in future negotiations. (Dkt.
`No. 576-22 ¶¶ 6-7.)
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`pricing term between Sony and Epic Games.
`To the Court’s knowledge, this information
`has not been publicly disclosed, and disclosure
`may harm Sony in future negotiations. (Dkt.
`No. 576-22 ¶¶ 6-7.)
`DENIED
`
`Sony
`
`Third-Party
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`Kreiner 40:2-41:9
`
`Sony
`
`Kreiner 41:21-42:8
`
`Sony
`
`Kreiner 42:21-23
`Kreiner 47:20-48:3
`
`Third-Party
`Sony
`
`Kreiner 48:20-49:13
`
`Sony
`
`GRANTED. The information concerns a
`confidential term and related negotiations in
`Sony’s agreement with Epic Games. To the
`Court’s knowledge, this information has not
`been publicly disclosed, and disclosure may
`harm Sony in future negotiations. (Dkt. No.
`576-22 ¶ 9.)
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`pricing term between Sony and Epic Games.
`To the Court’s knowledge, this information
`has not been publicly disclosed, and disclosure
`may harm Sony in future negotiations. (Dkt.
`No. 576-22 ¶¶ 6-7.)
`DENIED
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`pricing term between Sony and Epic Games.
`To the Court’s knowledge, this information
`has not been publicly disclosed, and disclosure
`may harm Sony in future negotiations. (Dkt.
`No. 576-22 ¶ 11.)
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`pricing term between Sony and Epic Games.
`To the Court’s knowledge, this information
`has not been publicly disclosed, and disclosure
`may harm Sony in future negotiations. (Dkt.
`No. 576-22 ¶ 11.)
`DENIED. This information has already been
`disclosed to the public.3
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED. The Court denied sealing for a
`generic distribution agreement between
`Nintendo and the Switch platform developers.
`The existence of an Epic specific agreement is
`not sealable.
`DENIED. Nintendo seeks to seal lines 81:16-
`20, 82:6-83:11, and 83:12-22, which are
`
`Kreiner 51:12-52:19,
`52:23-53:14
`Kreiner 54:15-16
`Kreiner 57:10-16
`Kreiner 60:18-61:11
`Kreiner 64:3-4,
`64:10-14
`Kreiner 75:9-12,
`75:15-76:8
`Kreiner 77:6-78:6
`Kreiner 80:1-2
`Kreiner 80:9-12
`
`Sony
`
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Nintendo
`
`Third-Party
`
`DENIED
`
`Kreiner 81:6-83:22
`
`Nintendo
`
`
`3 See, e.g., https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22417560/sony-ps4-cross-play-
`confidential-documents-epic-games-agreements.
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`Kreiner 85:13-86:21
`
`Nintendo
`
`Kreiner 87:6-21
`
`Nintendo
`
`Kreiner 88:14-15,
`88:25-89:1
`Kreiner 91:1-19
`Kreiner 92:9-93:1
`
`Third-Party
`
`Third-Party
`Microsoft
`
`Kreiner 93:7-22
`Kreiner 94:23-95:20
`Kreiner 96:7-11
`Kreiner 96:22-97:1
`Kreiner 97:13-98:4
`Kreiner 107:15-
`108:12
`Kreiner 114:15-115:8
`Kreiner 116:16-25
`Kreiner 130:11-12
`Kreiner 136:21-
`137:17
`Kreiner 137:24-138:3
`
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`
`Nintendo
`
`Kreiner 138:7-10
`
`Third-Party
`
`already disclosed elsewhere, including in the
`generic agreement for which sealing was
`denied.
`DENIED. Nintendo seeks to seal lines 85:21-
`86:6 and 86:14-21, which concern contractual
`provisions disclosed in the generic agreement
`for which sealing was denied.
`DENIED. Nintendo seeks to seal lines 87:7-8,
`which concern contractual provisions
`disclosed in the generic agreement for which
`sealing was denied.
`DENIED
`
`DENIED
`GRANTED. This concerns a provision of
`Microsoft’s licensing agreement with Epic
`Games. The Court has previously deferred
`sealing the underlying agreement. (See Dkt.
`No. 564 at 3.) In the deposition designations,
`Microsoft seeks to seal information related to
`section 2.5.2 only, which relates to timing of
`game distribution. (Dkt. No. 567 ¶ 6.) The
`information is not directly relevant to any
`claim and could harm Microsoft by impacting
`its negotiations with other customers. (Dkt.
`No. 567-1 ¶ 4.) Sealing for this provision is
`therefore granted.4
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`
`DENIED. The information concerns generic
`“discussions” and is far too general to warrant
`sealing.
`DENIED
`
`
`4 However, because Microsoft does not seek to seal provisions disclosed in the deposition
`designations related to section 2 generally, as well as sections 5.1 and 8.1 (see Kreiner Depo. at
`91:1-19, 93:7-22, 94:23-95:20), those sections shall be unredacted.
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 8 of 9
`
`Third-Party
`Samsung
`
`Third-Party
`Sony
`
`Nintendo
`
`Nintendo
`
`DENIED
`GRANTED as to line 141:13 only. Samsung
`seeks to seal lines 141:5-142:23, which
`involve a comparison of revenue sharing and
`commission rates charged by various
`platforms. (Dkt. No. 561-1 ¶ 10.) However, it
`has no basis to seal other parties’ confidential
`information. Accordingly, only Samsung’s
`specific information is sealed, for the reasons
`stated in Pretrial Order No. 9.
`Microsoft, Nintendo GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
`Microsoft seeks to seal lines 168:13-15 only.
`(Dkt. No. 567 ¶ 9.) This concerns specific
`prices paid for bundling consoles with gift
`cards in a few cases. The specific terms of the
`payments are not apparently relevant to any
`claim, and disclosure may harm Microsoft’s
`ability to negotiate with other publishers.
`(Dkt. No. 567-1 ¶ 5.) For similar reasons,
`Nintendo’s request to seal is granted as to
`lines 168:16-20. (Dkt. No. 568 ¶ 8.)
`
`The remainder of Nintendo’s request is
`denied.
`DENIED
`DENIED. This information has already been
`disclosed to the public.
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`pricing term between Nintendo and Epic
`Games. To the Court’s knowledge, this
`information has not been publicly disclosed,
`and disclosure may harm Sony in future
`negotiations. (Dkt. No. 568 ¶ 7.)
`GRANTED. This discloses a confidential
`pricing term between Nintendo and Epic
`Games. To the Court’s knowledge, this
`information has not been publicly disclosed,
`and disclosure may harm Sony in future
`negotiations. (Dkt. No. 568 ¶ 7.)
`DENIED. Epic Games files no declaration to
`keep the information sealed. See Civ. L.R.
`79(e)(1).
`DENIED
`DENIED. Epic Games files no declaration to
`keep the information sealed. See Civ. L.R.
`79(e)(1).
`DENIED. Epic Games files no declaration to
`keep the information sealed. See Civ. L.R.
`
`Epic Games
`
`Third-Party
`Epic Games
`
`Epic Games
`
`8
`
`
`
`Kreiner 138:13-16
`Kreiner 140:15-19,
`141:5-142:3
`
`Kreiner 168:7,
`168:11-20
`
`Kreiner 191:20-23
`Kreiner 215:7-23
`
`Kreiner 229:7-17
`
`Kreiner 229:19-23
`
`Kreiner 260:17-18
`
`Kreiner 267:4-25
`Malik 158:21-25
`
`Malik 181:10-20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 609 Filed 05/07/21 Page 9 of 9
`
`Rein 101:8-20
`Rein 102:14-20
`Rein 105:2-14
`Rein 107:6-7
`Rein 108:2-109:1
`
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`Third-Party
`
`79(e)(1).
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`DENIED
`
`This Order terminates docket numbers 491, 505, 598, and 601.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`May 7, 2021
`Dated:
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`