In re Valve Antitrust Litig.
In re Valve Antitrust Litig.
2024 WL 1329043 (W.D. Wash. 2024)
March 27, 2024
Coughenor, John C., United States District Judge
Summary
Valve Corporation sought documents from Riot Games, Inc. through a subpoena duces tecum in order to defend against an antitrust class action. However, Riot argued that Valve's request was untimely as it was submitted after the fact discovery cut-off date. The court declined to reach the merits of the motion due to its untimeliness and closed the case.
In re VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
CASE NO. MC24-0016-JCC
United States District Court, W.D. Washington
Filed March 27, 2024
Coughenor, John C., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 This matter comes before the Court on Valve Corporation and Riot Games, Inc.’s joint submission[1] regarding Riot's compliance with Valve's subpoena duces tecum (Dkt. No. 1). According to their submission, Valve asks the Court to compel Riot's production. (Id.) Valve seeks, amongst other things, documents establishing Riot's game sales from January 1, 2003, to present. (See generally Dkt. No. 1-2.) Valve contends it needs this information to defend against a putative antitrust class action in this District, where Valve is alleged to charge supracompetitive rates in the P.C. game market. (See generally id.) (citing In re Valve Antitrust Litigation, Case No. C21-0563-JCC, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 2021).
But as Riot rightly points out, Valve's request for this Court's involvement is untimely. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 19–26). Valve served its subpoena to Riot on January 18, 2023, and Riot lodged its objections February 1, 2023. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 19.) At the time, the cut-off for all fact discovery, including third-party discovery, was October 31, 2023. See Valve Antitrust Litigation, Case No. C21-0563-JCC, Dkt. No. 8. The Court later extended this to November 30, 2023. See id. Dkt. No. 130. Nevertheless, Valve waited until December 1, 2023, before seeking a court's involvement in its discovery dispute with Riot. (See Dkt. No. 1-22 at 3) (referencing C.D. of Cal. Local Rules 37-2.1–2.4.)
Valve contends that an extension of the deadline to take certain depositions also extended the fact discovery cut-off. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 5 n.2) (citing Valve Antitrust Litigation, Case No. C21-0563-JCC, Dkt. No. 172). In the stipulation at issue, the parties “request[ed] that the Court enter [an order] extending the deadline to complete depositions of fact witnesses as stipulated.” Valve Antitrust Litigation, Case No. C21-0563-JCC, Dkt. No. 172 at 3 (emphasis added). While they also stipulated to nonparty “productions after November 30, 2023,” the parties did not ask the Court to enter an order endorsing this change. Id. So it did not. And according to this District's local rules, a motion to compel must be served “on or before the discovery deadline.” LCR 16(b)(3).[2] Therefore, Valve's submission is indeed untimely.
For this reason, the Court declines to reach the merits of Valve's request. See Zouaoui v. Gonzales, 133 Fed. App'x 401, 403 (9th Cir. 2005) (declining to consider untimely motion); see also State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Lang, 2022 WL 18584199, slip op. at 2 (D.S.C. 2022) (declining to consider untimely motion to compel).
*2 The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
DATED this 27th day of March 2024.
John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Footnotes
The submission, which Valve and Riot made to the Central District of California pursuant to its Local Rule 37-2, is ostensibly a Rule 37(a)(1) motion, where Valve seeks to compel Riot's production. The submission was transferred to this District pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). (See Dkt. No. 22.)