Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05640
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Epic Games v. Apple, Judge Rogers denied Apple’s blanket courtroom-sealing request and granted its written-testimony requests in part while denying them in part.
The order affected Apple’s request to restrict public access to trial testimony and related materials, Epic Games’s presentation of its expert’s analysis, and the public’s access to the courtroom and written testimony.
What happened
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. concerns Apple’s request to close the courtroom while Epic Games’s accounting expert discussed the App Store’s profitability. Apple also sought to restrict related testimony, opening statements, and demonstratives.
The court rejected Apple’s request for a blanket closure, explaining that the expert’s profitability analysis was important evidence in the antitrust case and that disagreement with the analysis could be addressed through cross-examination. The court said it would consider short courtroom closures when necessary to discuss properly sealed financial information. For portions of the expert’s written testimony, the court granted Apple’s sealing requests in part and denied them in part, specifying which sentences or paragraphs would remain sealed or be made public.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on April 30, 2021, and terminated Docket Number 515.
The detailed version
- Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-05640
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
Apple filed a motion to seal the courtroom during presentation of certain confidential material at trial. It asked the court to close the courtroom during testimony by Epic Games’s accounting expert, Ned S. Barnes, concerning the App Store’s profitability. Apple also sought closure during fact or expert testimony addressing the subject of Barnes’s opinions or the documents he relied on, or adopting or responding to those opinions. In addition, Apple asked to prevent Epic Games from mentioning the subject in opening statements or demonstratives.
Apple justified the requested restrictions partly on the theory that investors might misunderstand the financial analysis. The court explained that courts protect nonpublic financial information because disclosure may cause competitive harm, not merely because investors might become confused.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that the question whether supracompetitive profits existed in a relevant market was evidence of market power and that the information was highly probative in the antitrust case. The court distinguished between underlying financial information that could properly be sealed and an expert’s conclusion based on the expert’s independent analysis. It stated that Apple could cross-examine Barnes and explain why his analysis was incorrect.
The court therefore denied Apple’s request for a blanket courtroom closure covering Barnes’s testimony. It stated that, if properly sealed financial information was necessary for cross-examination, it would consider closing the courtroom for short periods and would discuss other alternatives.
For Barnes’s written direct testimony, the court repeatedly ruled “GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.” The order identifies particular sentences, paragraphs, and a figure for which some material would remain sealed while other material would be unredacted. The text provided does not clearly preserve every corresponding passage or number from the order’s formatting, but the ruling consistently reflects partial grants and partial denials rather than complete sealing of the written testimony.
The order terminated Docket Number 515.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.