Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corporation
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-02880
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corporation, Judge Corley granted in part and denied in part motions to seal expert materials.
The Federal Trade Commission, Microsoft Corporation, Activision, Sony, Nvidia, and the public’s access to the expert materials filed in the case.
What happened
In Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corporation, the parties asked the court to seal portions of expert testimony submitted for an evidentiary hearing. The materials included testimony from the Federal Trade Commission’s expert, Professor Robin S. Lee, and a declaration from the defendants’ expert, Dr. Dennis W. Carlton.
The court applied a demanding standard requiring compelling reasons to keep judicial records from the public. It denied sealing for information publicly discussed at the hearing, information not identified in a supporting statement, and information for which the designating parties did not show likely competitive harm. The court also denied as moot Sony’s request to seal trial exhibits connected to Professor Lee’s testimony.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted in part and denied in part the sealing requests. The parties must file redacted versions of the expert materials consistent with the order within seven days.
The detailed version
- Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corporation · No. 3:23-cv-02880
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 11, 2023
Background
The court considered administrative motions to seal portions of Professor Robin S. Lee’s direct testimony, submitted as the Federal Trade Commission’s expert testimony, and Dr. Dennis W. Carlton’s declaration, submitted as an expert declaration for the defendants. The materials were submitted for an evidentiary hearing. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 226, 227, 294, and 295.
Legal standard
The court reviewed the requests under the “compelling reasons” standard. That standard requires a party seeking to seal judicial records to show sufficiently strong reasons for secrecy to overcome the public’s presumed right to access those records. The court focused on whether particular portions of the expert materials could reveal competitively damaging information and whether the designating parties had supported their requests.
Rulings on Professor Lee’s testimony
The court granted Microsoft’s requests for certain identified portions of Professor Lee’s testimony, but only to the extent consistent with the redactions proposed in Docket No. 299. The court denied other Microsoft requests where the information had been publicly discussed during the proceedings or Microsoft had not shown competitive harm sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.
The court granted Activision’s requests for certain identified portions of the testimony, limited to the redactions proposed in Docket No. 296. It denied other Activision requests because the information had been publicly discussed or Activision had not met its burden to show competitive harm.
The court granted Sony’s request for specified portions of the testimony, denied Sony’s request for another specified portion because the information had been publicly discussed, and denied as moot Sony’s request to seal trial exhibits in its motion concerning portions of Professor Lee’s testimony. The court granted Nvidia’s request for specified sensitive information concerning its cloud-gaming business.
Rulings on Dr. Carlton’s declaration
The court granted Microsoft’s requests for specified portions of Dr. Carlton’s declaration. It also granted Activision’s requests for specified portions and granted the joint Microsoft-and-Activision request for specified portions. The court granted Sony’s requests for specified portions, but only to the extent consistent with the redactions proposed in Docket No. 303.
Disposition
The court expressly GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the requests for sealing. It ordered the parties to file redacted versions of Professor Lee’s direct testimony and Dr. Carlton’s declaration consistent with the order within seven days. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley signed the order on August 11, 2023.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.