Big Run Studios Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Van Keulen
- 3:21-cv-04656
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Big Run Studios v. AviaGames, Judge Van Keulen granted sealing for one redaction, denied it for others, and ordered refiling.
The parties’ discovery-related filing and public access to the specified portions of that filing.
What happened
Big Run Studios Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. involved a request to keep parts of a filing about a discovery dispute from public view. The filing concerned AviaGames’ motion to compel further discovery.
The court applied a lower secrecy standard because the information was submitted with a discovery-related motion rather than a motion about the case’s merits. It found that one redaction protected confidential information about Big Run’s internal practices and business strategy, but that the other requested redactions were not supported because Skillz did not seek to keep that information secret.
Judge Van Keulen granted the request as to line 3:3, denied it as to lines 3:17, 3:19–20, and 3:22, and ordered the plaintiff to refile the joint statement with only the line 3:3 redaction by August 29, 2023.
The detailed version
- Big Run Studios Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-04656
- Van Keulen
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
The court considered an administrative motion to file under seal materials connected with a discovery dispute. The materials included a joint statement regarding AviaGames’ motion to compel further discovery.
Legal standard
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The standard for sealing depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. The court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) because the materials were submitted in connection with a discovery-related motion, not a motion addressing the merits. The court noted that a request to seal could receive a different result under a different standard or in a different context.
Ruling
The court granted the sealing request as to the redacted portion of line 3:3 of the joint statement. It found that this narrow redaction protected confidential information about Big Run’s internal practices and business strategy.
The court denied the request as to the redacted portions of lines 3:17, 3:19–20, and 3:22. The stated reason was that Skillz did not seek to seal that information.
Judge Susan Van Keulen instructed the plaintiff to refile the joint statement with only the redaction at line 3:3 by August 29, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.