Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Skillz v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part both motions to seal materials filed with summary-judgment replies.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc.; the order determines which portions of their summary-judgment reply filings and exhibits may remain sealed and allows renewed motions for narrower redactions.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc. asked the court to seal portions of their reply briefs and exhibits supporting summary-judgment motions. They cited confidential source code, personnel information, and sensitive business information.
The court granted some requests and denied others because the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored. The denials allowed the parties to file renewed motions seeking to redact only specific portions.
In Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., Judge Beth Freeman granted in part and denied in part both administrative motions. Any renewed motions had to be filed within 21 days.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 11, 2023
Background
The court considered two administrative motions to file materials under seal in connection with the parties’ reply briefs supporting motions for summary judgment. Neither party opposed the other’s sealing motion.
Because the materials were related to summary-judgment motions, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, materials connected to the merits may be sealed only when specific facts show that sealing is necessary. The court also required any sealing request to be narrowly tailored, meaning it could cover only material that needed protection.
AviaGames’s Motion
AviaGames sought to seal highlighted portions of its reply brief and Exhibits R through V. It identified confidential proprietary source code, personnel details, and sensitive business plans and strategy.
The court ruled as follows:
- The highlighted portion of AviaGames’s reply brief, ECF No. 185-3, was granted because it described confidential source code. - Exhibit R, ECF No. 185-4, was granted because it contained confidential business and personnel information whose release could cause competitive harm. - Exhibits S, T, U, and V, ECF Nos. 185-5 through 185-8, were each denied because sealing the entire exhibits was not narrowly tailored.
The denials were without prejudice to filing a renewed motion seeking to seal specified redacted portions.
Skillz’s Motion
Skillz sought to seal highlighted portions of its reply brief and Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 5. Skillz stated that the materials contained sensitive, nonpublic business information whose disclosure could harm Skillz and nonparties.
The court ruled as follows:
- The highlighted portion of Skillz’s reply brief, ECF No. 190-3, was granted because it contained confidential business information whose release could cause competitive harm. - Exhibit 1, ECF No. 190-4, was denied because sealing the entire exhibit was not narrowly tailored. - Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, ECF Nos. 190-5 through 190-7, were each granted because they contained confidential business information whose release could cause competitive harm.
The denial concerning Exhibit 1 was without prejudice to filing a renewed motion seeking to seal specified redacted portions.
Ruling
Judge Beth Freeman ordered that AviaGames’s administrative motion, ECF No. 185, was granted in part and denied in part, and Skillz’s administrative motion, ECF No. 190, was also granted in part and denied in part. The order stated that any renewed motions with narrowly tailored redactions had to be filed within 21 days.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.