Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part one sealing motion and granted the other.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc.; the ruling determines which portions of their amended complaint, amended answer, and exhibits remain sealed or publicly accessible.
What happened
In Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., Skillz asked to seal information in its amended complaint, while AviaGames asked to seal information in its amended answer. Each motion concerned business information that the other party had marked confidential.
The court allowed sealing of specified portions of the amended complaint and Exhibits 2 and 3 because disclosure could cause competitive harm. It denied sealing Exhibits 1 and 4 in their entirety because the requests were not narrow enough, but allowed a new motion with properly limited redactions. The court granted AviaGames’ motion to seal specified portions of its amended answer.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that the plaintiff’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, with the denial without prejudice to refiling within 21 days, and that AviaGames’ motion was granted.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 9, 2023
Background
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc. filed administrative motions asking the court to decide whether confidential information designated by the other party should be sealed. Skillz’s motion concerned its amended complaint and four exhibits. AviaGames’ motion concerned highlighted portions of its amended answer.
Legal standard
Because the requests concerned pleadings, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, sealing may be allowed when disclosure of confidential business information would harm a party’s competitive position. The court also applied Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires sealing requests to explain the interests supporting secrecy, the harm from disclosure, why less restrictive measures would not work, and why the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. When material was designated confidential by another party, the party that designated it had to provide the supporting justification.
Rulings on Skillz’s motion
The court granted sealing for the highlighted portions of Skillz’s amended complaint at paragraphs 72 and 74–80, finding that they contained confidential business information whose release would cause competitive harm.
The court denied sealing for the entirety of Exhibit 1 and the entirety of Exhibit 4 because those requests were not narrowly tailored. The denials were without prejudice to filing a new motion using redacted versions that seal only material eligible for protection. The court granted sealing for the entirety of Exhibits 2 and 3 because they contained confidential business information whose release would cause competitive harm.
Ruling on AviaGames’ motion
The court granted AviaGames’ motion to seal highlighted portions of its amended answer at paragraphs 90–91 and 93–95, and at paragraphs 98, 110, 112, and 118–119. The court found that the material contained confidential business information whose release would cause competitive harm.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part Skillz’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The denial was without prejudice to refiling a new motion with redacted versions of Exhibits 1 and 4 within 21 days. The court granted AviaGames’ administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.