Full Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 IN RE VALVE ANTITRUST CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW 8 LITIGATION ORDER 9 10 11 12 13 The Court previously permitted Defendant Valve Corporation to file certain 14 documents in redacted form but denied its request to seal eight documents in their 15 entirety, with leave to renew. Valve’s renewed motion comes before the Court. 16 Dkt. No. 596. The motion is GRANTED IN PART, as set out below. 17 18 1. LEGAL STANDARD 19 When a party moves to seal documents attached to dispositive motions, it 20 must overcome the “strong presumption in favor of [public] access” by showing 21 “compelling reasons” to seal. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 22 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 23 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party moving to seal bears the burden of 1 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient 2 to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 3 when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as 4 the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 5 statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 6 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to 7 a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 8 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Ultimately, the moving party 9 “must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 10 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” 11 Id. at 1178–79 (citation modified). 12 Additionally, the moving party must comply with Local Civil Rule 5(g), which 13 requires it to “explore all alternatives to filing documents under seal.” Under the 14 local rule, the moving party must explain “the legitimate private or public interests 15 that warrant sealing,” “the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted,” 16 and “why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” LCR 17 5(g)(3)(B)(i)–(iii). 18 2. DISCUSSION 19 In its renewed motion, Valve asks to redact (rather than seal) certain email 20 exchanges with third-party game publishers and/or developers. The Court finds 21 compelling reasons to redact those exchanges to remove personal and third-party 22 identifying information. Thus, Valve may file its proposed, redacted versions of the 23 1 documents filed under seal at Dkt. Nos. 539-19, 539-20, 539-28, and 539-37.1 Valve 2 may also redact personal and third-party identifying information from the email 3 exchange filed under seal at Dkt. No. 539-24,2 which Plaintiffs do not oppose, Dkt. 4 No. 600 at 7. Regarding the rest of that email exchange, however, the Court finds 5 that Valve has not shown compelling reasons to redact it. Valve has not established 6 that any harm is likely to occur if the contents of this email exchange are disclosed. 7 Moreover, the email is relevant to Plaintiffs’ theory that Valve has a Platform Most 8 Favored Nations Policy, a central issue in this case. Accordingly, Valve has not 9 shown compelling reasons to adopt the redactions it proposes to the email exchange 10 filed at Dkt. No. 539-24, except as to identifying information. 11 Turning to the documents that Valve asks to seal in their entirety. The Court 12 finds compelling reasons to seal the email exchange at Dkt. No. 539-22, as it 13 contains a significant amount of information related to a third party’s business 14 goals and strategies. However, Valve has not shown compelling reasons to seal its 15 internal email exchange filed at Dkt. No. 539-35. See also Dkt. No. 597-7. Those 16 emails do not include sensitive third-party information, confidential financial 17 information, trade secrets, or other confidential proprietary information. Valve is 18 correct that the email thread illustrates how its employees made a marketing 19 decision. While such conversations may generally be private, Valve does not explain 20 21 1 The proposed redacted versions of these documents are at Dkt. Nos. 597-1, 597-2, 597-5, and 597-8, respectively. 22 2 The proposed redacted version is at Dkt. No. 597-4. 23 1 what specific harm will follow if this email exchange is not sealed. See LCR 2 5(g)(3)(B)(ii) (moving party must show “the injury that will result if the relief sought 3 is not granted”). And based on the contents of the email, it is unlikely to give Valve’s 4 competitors some unfair advantage if made public. Moreover, the Court rejects 5 Valve’s argument that the emails are irrelevant; they are relevant to the 2018 6 change in Valve’s revenue share policy, an issue Valve has repeatedly raised. 7 Accordingly, Valve has failed to show compelling reasons to seal Dkt. No. 539-35 in 8 its entirety. However, Valve may redact personal identifying information contained 9 in that email exchange. 10 Finally, Valve moves to seal a Steam Distribution Agreement (“SDA”) in its 11 entirety. See Dkt. No. 539-31; see also Dkt. Nos. 597-6; 182-18. Valve implies that 12 the Court has already granted a motion to seal this contract. Dkt. No. 596 at 8. But 13 based on the Court’s review of the record, Judge Coughenour did not rule on 14 whether the SDA should remain sealed before this case was transferred. See Dkt. 15 No. 223 at 2–3 (explaining that because the documents before the Court were 16 voluminous, the Court’s order considered only limited documents, which did not 17 include the SDA filed at Dkt. No. 182-18). Nor has this Court squarely addressed 18 the issue. To support sealing, Valve incorporates paragraphs 57–58 of Scott Lynch’s 19 sealed declaration (Dkt. No. 226), in which Lynch discusses the harms that third 20 parties and Valve could face if SDAs are disclosed. The Court agrees that game 21 developers who signed SDAs may potentially be harmed by the disclosure, as it 22 would reveal the terms on which they allowed Valve to distribute their games. But 23 this antitrust case is about those terms. And Plaintiffs, a class of game developers, 1 opposes the SDA’s sealing. Dkt. No. 596 at 2. So that is further reason to redact 9 those terms, not to seal the entire agreement. Accordingly, Valve has not shown 3 compelling reasons to seal the SDA in its entirety. 3. CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the renewed motion to seal IN PART. Dkt. 6 No. 596. The exhibit at Dkt. No. 539-22 remains SEALED. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this order, Valve must file its proposed redacted versions of Dkt. Nos. 539- 8 19, 539-20, 539-28, and 539-37, as well as redacted versions of Dkt. Nos. 539-24 and 9 539-35 that comply with this order. 10 The Court further DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer about potential i redactions to the SDA. Dkt. No. 539-31. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this le order, the Parties must file a proposed redacted version of the SDA under seal with ts their proposed redactions highlighted. If the Parties do not agree on redactions, they may file separate proposals. The Court will rule on the redactions. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Dkt. Nos. 539-19, 539-20, 539-22, 539- 16 24, 539-28, 539-31, 539-35, and 539-37 under seal. 17 18 Dated this 16th day of October, 2026. 19 21 United States District Judge 22 23