Raner v. The Fun Pimps Entertainment LLC
3:22-cv-05718
| W.D. Wash. | Mar 11, 2024Background
- The case involves Ryan Raner (plaintiff) and The Fun Pimps Entertainment LLC, along with its principals (defendants), regarding Raner's compensation for his involvement in developing the video game “7 Days to Die.”
- Both parties submitted materials (including financial information and business records) under seal in connection with cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The disputed materials include details about company profits, revenues, compensation structures, contracts with third parties, and internal communications regarding game development.
- All sealed documents were designated as "Confidential" or "Attorney’s Eyes Only" under a stipulated protective order.
- Defendants attested that disclosure of these materials would harm their competitive position with other industry participants.
- Neither sealing motion was opposed; both motions were evaluated under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motion-related records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confidential business information submitted with summary judgment motions should be sealed | Sought to file Defendants’ designated confidential financial and business documents under seal pursuant to protective order | Argued public disclosure would competitively harm the company; information has been kept confidential and is proprietary | Motions to seal were granted; compelling reasons shown to outweigh public interest in access |
Key Cases Cited
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of public access to court records)
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (compelling reasons standard for sealing applied to dispositive motions)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulation of compelling reasons supported by factual findings required to seal judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (court records may be sealed when disclosure could harm a litigant’s competitive standing)
- Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. District Court, 798 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1986) (potential for improper use of trade secrets supports sealing)