Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd
- Denise Cote
- 1:24-cv-01646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, counsel asked Judge Cote to protect Luke Findlay from a deposition subpoena.
Luke Findlay, a nonparty former Skillz employee, whose deposition was subpoenaed by Papaya; the filing also concerns Skillz and Papaya's discovery conduct.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming concerns a request involving Luke Findlay, a former Skillz employee who is not a party to the case. Skillz's lawyers said Papaya identified Findlay as a possible witness on March 12, 2025, and subpoenaed him to testify on March 28, despite learning that he was unavailable because of demanding work responsibilities.
The filing argued that the subpoena would create an unreasonable burden and could harm Findlay's career. It said Papaya could obtain the information from other Skillz employees and should have sought Findlay's testimony earlier. Papaya's lawyers allegedly refused to work out a different arrangement and expected Findlay to comply or face fees and costs.
The filing asked Judge Denise L. Cote to issue a protective order preventing the subpoena from requiring Findlay to appear on March 28. The provided text is a letter requesting relief, not a court order, and does not state that Judge Cote granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd · No. 1:24-cv-01646
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 25, 2025
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a March 24, 2025 letter submitted by Craig Carpenito of King & Spalding on behalf of nonparty Luke Findlay. It asks the court for a protective order concerning a deposition subpoena issued by Papaya Gaming, Ltd. and Papaya Gaming, Inc., collectively referred to in the letter as Papaya. The letter states that Skillz extended its lawyers' representation to Findlay for matters related to his deposition.
Background
Findlay is described as a former employee of Skillz Platform Inc. The letter says he was not a document custodian whose records were searched in discovery. Papaya allegedly did not identify Findlay as a potential deponent until March 12, 2025, less than three weeks before the close of fact discovery. Skillz's counsel informed Papaya on March 17 that Findlay could not take time away from his professional responsibilities as a data scientist for Meta.
Papaya nevertheless served a subpoena dated March 18 requiring Findlay to testify on March 28. According to the letter, Skillz later explained that Findlay had a high-priority product launch around March 27, ordinarily requiring more than 50 hours of work each week, with extensive work before and after the launch. The letter says counsel asked Papaya to discuss a solution, but Papaya's counsel refused and stated that Papaya expected Findlay to comply or face fees and costs.
Arguments and requested relief
The letter relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a person from whom discovery is sought to request protection from undue burden, and Rule 45, which requires a court to quash or modify a subpoena that creates an undue burden. It argues that the court should weigh Papaya's need for Findlay's testimony against the hardship imposed on him, including the claimed risk to his employment.
The filing also argues that Papaya had other possible sources for the information, including Skillz employees who worked with Findlay and some employees identified as document custodians or in Skillz's discovery disclosures. It contends that Papaya delayed identifying additional witnesses and could have scheduled Findlay's deposition earlier during the discovery period. The requested relief was a protective order against the subpoena's command that Findlay appear for a deposition on March 28, 2025.
Disposition
The provided text does not include a ruling or disposition by Judge Denise L. Cote. It therefore does not establish whether the requested protective order was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.