Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Epic Games v. Google, Judge Donato denied requests to seal complaint portions and ordered unredacted filings within seven days.
Epic Games, Inc., the Consumer Plaintiffs, the Developer Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff States, Google LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the complaints.
What happened
Epic Games, the Consumer Plaintiffs, the Developer Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiff States asked to keep parts of their amended complaints from public view because Google had designated information as confidential. Google supported sealing, but the plaintiffs said their requests were based on Google’s designations rather than their own desire for secrecy.
The court explained that federal court records are generally open to the public, especially complaints in antitrust cases. It found that Google had not shown specific facts demonstrating commercial harm, and said the parties could not restrict public access through their confidentiality practices or an agreement.
The court denied the sealing requests and ordered the plaintiff groups to file unredacted complaints within seven days. Judge James Donato issued the order.
The detailed version
- Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC · No. 3:20-cv-05671
- James Donato
- Aug. 18, 2021
Background
This multidistrict antitrust litigation involved four plaintiff groups: Epic Games, Inc.; the Consumer Plaintiffs; the Developer Plaintiffs; and the Plaintiff States. Each group filed a motion to seal portions of an amended complaint. The motions were filed in response to confidentiality designations made by Google LLC. Google argued that portions of the complaints should remain sealed.
Legal standard
The court emphasized the strong presumption that court records should be accessible to the public. It explained that sealing may be appropriate for sensitive information such as medical information or trade secrets. Because the complaints were central to the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, Google had to show compelling reasons, supported by specific facts, that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court noted that this interest was particularly strong because the complaints alleged violations of antitrust laws.
Court’s reasoning
Google relied on its practice of treating internal business documents as confidential and asserted that the information had economic value because it was not generally known. The court found that this was only a conclusion and did not explain how filing the complaints without redactions would cause commercial harm. The court also rejected reliance on the parties’ stipulated protective order, stating that parties cannot limit public access to court records by agreement.
Disposition
The court denied the sealing requests. It directed Epic, the Consumer Plaintiffs, the Developer Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiff States to file unredacted versions of their complaints on the court’s electronic filing system within seven days of the order. This order addressed public access to the complaints and did not decide the underlying antitrust claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.