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 v. Papaya Gaming, Papaya asked Judge Cote to compel an expert’s discovery; the text contains no court ruling.
Skillz Platform Inc., Papaya Gaming, Ltd., and Skillz’s testifying expert, Dr. Andreas Groehn, are directly involved in the discovery dispute.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd. concerns Papaya Gaming’s request for discovery from Skillz’s testifying expert, Dr. Andreas Groehn. The provided text is a letter to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a court decision.
Papaya said Dr. Groehn had conducted or designed additional consumer studies that were not disclosed, including a possible conjoint analysis. Papaya argued that these studies were relevant to Dr. Groehn’s opinions and had to be produced under the federal discovery rules. Skillz’s lawyers instructed Dr. Groehn not to answer questions about the studies, asserting that the information was protected and irrelevant.
Papaya asked the court to order production of documents identifying the studies, their methods, and their results, and to allow up to 1.5 additional hours of deposition questioning. Judge Denise L. Cote’s ruling is not included in the provided text, so no motion was granted or denied here.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd · No. 1:24-cv-01646
- Denise Cote
- May 22, 2025
Nature of the document
The provided text is a May 19, 2025 letter from Papaya Gaming’s counsel to Judge Denise L. Cote. It requests an order compelling discovery. It does not contain a judicial ruling or disposition.
Background
Skillz offered Dr. Andreas Groehn as an independent testifying expert in consumer research. According to the letter, Dr. Groehn gave opinions about consumers’ perceptions of Papaya’s advertising and the effect of bots on consumer behavior in skill-based mobile games. His reports relied on two disclosed consumer surveys that he designed. He also submitted a rebuttal report criticizing survey experts offered by Papaya.
Discovery dispute
Papaya’s letter states that questioning at Dr. Groehn’s May 15 deposition suggested he had designed or conducted additional undisclosed studies as part of his work in the case, including a possible conjoint analysis. The letter says these studies may have addressed the importance of mobile-game features, consumer demand, bots, or the parties’ advertising.
Papaya asserted that Skillz’s counsel repeatedly instructed Dr. Groehn not to answer questions about the studies. The letter describes Skillz’s stated grounds as attorney work-product protection and lack of relevance to Dr. Groehn’s opinions. Papaya argued that, because Dr. Groehn was a testifying expert, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) required disclosure of facts or data he considered in forming his opinions. Papaya also argued that the studies could not be shielded merely by describing Dr. Groehn’s work as consulting work if the materials informed his expert reports.
Requested relief
Papaya asked the court to order Dr. Groehn to produce documents sufficient to identify all the studies and describe their methodology and results. It also requested up to 1.5 hours of additional deposition time concerning the studies. Papaya proposed a production deadline of the morning of May 27, followed by the remaining deposition before expert discovery closed. Alternatively, Papaya asked the court to review the study materials privately to determine whether they related to the subjects of Dr. Groehn’s reports.
Disposition
The provided text does not state what Judge Denise L. Cote did with Papaya’s request. No ruling, grant, denial, or other disposition appears in the text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.