Virtru Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation
2:23-cv-00872
| W.D. Wash. | May 12, 2025Background
- The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington involving plaintiff Virtru Corporation and defendant Microsoft Corporation.
- Both parties filed multiple motions to seal documents related to expert testimony and confidential materials during pretrial motions (Daubert and motions to exclude testimony).
- The requests primarily concern documents that include allegedly sensitive financial information, source code, internal business plans, and settlement agreements, all marked as confidential or highly confidential under the Protective Order.
- The court applied the "compelling interest" standard to determine if the materials, which relate to substantive matters, should be sealed from the public docket.
- For each motion, the court balanced the public's right of access against the parties’ interests in confidentiality and determined which materials, if any, merited sealing.
- Sealing was largely granted for technical, financial, and settlement information, but the court denied limited blanket requests where no specific harm or justification was demonstrated, directing some exhibits to be publicly filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sealing Dr. Rubin’s expert report | No opposition to public filing after initial confidentiality claim | Support for sealing based on Plaintiff's designation as confidential | Denied; unsealed as Plaintiff does not object |
| Sealing Microsoft technical/source code docs | Supported necessary, limited redactions for Microsoft’s protection | Confidential source code and technical data require sealing | Granted; narrowly tailored sealing allowed |
| Sealing expert/depo financial and settlement info | No opposition or supported sealing to protect business information | Detailed financial, licensing, business strategies are competitively sensitive | Granted as to specific exhibits; not for blanket docs |
| Applying standard for motions to seal | Sealing warranted to protect business confidentiality | Same position; supported by declarations evidencing harm if disclosed | "Compelling interest" standard applied throughout |
Key Cases Cited
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (sets out standards for public access versus sealing in judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulates the compelling interest test and need for factual basis for sealing)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (clarifies requirements for protective orders and what qualifies as confidential).