Case 3:20-cv-05671-JD Document 163 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 3

1234

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation

78

Case No. 21-md-02981-JD
ORDER RE SEALING OFCOMPLAINTS

910

United States District Court
Northern District of California

111213In this multidistrict antitrust litigation, the four plaintiff groups -- (1) Epic Games., Inc.,

14(2) the Consumer Plaintiffs, (3) the Developer Plaintiffs, and (4) the Plaintiff States -- have filed

15motions to seal portions of their amended complaints. The motions are not based on Plaintiffs’

16belief that anything in the complaints should be kept out of the public eye. They were filed in

17

response to confidentiality designations made by defendant Google LLC. Dkt. Nos. 62, 63, 64;

18

Utah v. Google LLC, Case No. 21-5227-JD, Dkt. No. 93.1 Google says that sealing portions of the19complaints is warranted. Dkt. No. 74. The Court does not agree, and the sealing requests are20denied.

21A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court

22records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Public

23

access maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the24

integrity and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done25

in open court.

262728

1Docket number references are to the MDL docket unless otherwise specified. Where documents
were filed on both the MDL docket and the individual case docket, the Court will refer to theMDL docket number only.

Case 3:20-cv-05671-JD Document 163 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 3

1On occasion, there may be a good reason to limit the public access that law and long

2tradition demand. Court filings that expose a person’s sensitive medical information, for example,3

or a business’s trade secrets, are candidates for sealing. See Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler

4Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
No similarly sensitive information is at stake here. Complaints are the beating heart of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

56every lawsuit, and Google had the burden of presenting a compelling reason for sealing the7documents that are integral to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at 1101-02. That is all the more

8

true because the complaints allege violations of the antitrust laws, which are matters where the9public interest is particularly strong. See Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v.

10California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 542 (1983); Radovich v. National Football

11League, 352 U.S. 445, 453-54 (1957) (Congress has determined that activities prohibited by12Sherman Act are “injurious to the public” and “[t]hese laws protect the victims of the forbidden

13

practices as well as the public.”).

14

Google says that sealing is warranted because it has a “strict practice” of treating its

15

internal business documents in a confidential manner, and that “[t]hese materials therefore have16

economic value from not being generally known to Google’s competitors, counterparties, or the17general public.” Dkt. No. 74-1 ¶¶ 4-5. But this is just Google’s conclusion, and not a statement of

18“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of

19access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

20447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). Google did not demonstrate how the21

unredacted complaints might cause it commercial harm, and permitting sealing on the basis of a22

party’s internal practices would leave the fox guarding the hen house. So too for the stipulated

23

protective order between Google and Epic, which Google says that Epic is not honoring. See Dkt.

24No. 161 at 1. The parties cannot curtail public access by agreement.

25//

26//

27//

28//
2

Case 3:20-cv-05671-JD Document 163 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 3

1Epic, the Consumer Plaintiffs, the Developer Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiff States are directed

2to file unredacted versions of their complaints on ECF within 7 days of this order. Civil L.R. 79-35(f).

45

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2021

67
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

8910United States District Court
Northern District of California

111213141516171819202122
23
24
25
26
27
28
3