Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
`
`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
`
`
`
`AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`The Court issues this Order with respect to several items on the docket:
`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
`WITHDRAWN: PX-0009, PX-1164, PX-1165, PX-2090 PX-2118, PX-2174,
`PX-2309, PX-2337, PX-2350, PX-2378, PX-2500, PX-2508, PX-2534, PX-
`2535, and PX-2826.
`
`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 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`2. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC Administrative Motion for Clarification Re:
`Trial Order No. 7 (Sealing Request Clarification) (Dkt. No. 739)
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC has filed an administrative motion for clarification of
`Trial Order No. 7, specifically regarding DX-3660. Having reviewed Trial Order No. 7, the Court
`finds that there was a typographical error in Trial Order No. 7. Thus, the Court AMENDS the
`ruling on Sony’s sealing request as to DX-3660 and the last bullet point to read as follows: “The
`remainder of the document is otherwise appropriately sealed.” This sentence shall replace the last
`bullet point regarding DX-3660. Accordingly, the Court clarifies that the sentence defining
`“Competitive Platform” shall be unredacted, but the remaining proposed redactions are
`appropriately sealed.
`3. Final Sealing Requests
`The Court has received several final requests to seal from the parties, as well as
`declarations in support of these requests from the parties and non-parties. As the Court explained
`in Pretrial Orders 7 and 9, as well as Trial Orders 1, 5, and 7:
`
`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”).
`
`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
`
`
`1 Litigants are advised that if the Court ultimately decides that certain information is
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`(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:
` Paragraph 88: these proposed redactions shall be unsealed and unredacted.
`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:
` PX-1922, PX-1017
`o The proposed redactions are appropriately sealed at this time. Apple is on
`notice that the Court may cite to sealed portions in these documents in any
`final order on the merits.
` PX-2302.
`o 2302.12: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The first sentence
`and the last sentence in the notes are appropriately sealed. The second and
`third sentences shall be unredacted.
`o 2302.22: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The notes shall be
`
`
`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
`
`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 794 Filed 06/09/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`unreacted except that the percentage referenced shall remain redacted at this
`time.
`o 2302.41: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The notes shall be
`unredacted.
`o 2302.42: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The first paragraph
`in the notes section shall be unredacted except that the referenced monetary
`amount shall be redacted and sealed.
`o The remainder of the proposed redactions in this document are
`appropriately sealed at this time.
` The remainder of the proposed redactions are appropriately sealed.
`c. Epic Games’ Administrative Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 731)
`The motion is GRANTED as to the Epic Games’ request to partially seal DX-4133. Epic
`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
`contracts, Google LLC consumer survey reports, and other documents involving Epic Games. To
`the extent that the Court has not already ruled on these requests, these requests to seal are
`GRANTED as so requested by the parties or non-parties.
`This Order terminates Docket Numbers 699, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739, 740, 741, and 747.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: June 9, 2021
`
`
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`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
`
`