Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman granted one sealing motion in part, denied it without prejudice in part, and granted another.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc.; the order determines which materials connected to Skillz’s discovery-and-sanctions motion may remain sealed.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. asked the court to seal materials connected to its motion to reopen discovery and seek sanctions, based on AviaGames Inc.’s confidentiality designations.
The court granted Skillz’s first sealing motion in part and denied it without prejudice in part. It granted sealing for documents containing confidential business information but denied sealing for other documents because AviaGames had not filed the required supporting statement or declaration. The court granted Skillz’s second sealing motion for the certified exhibits.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman allowed AviaGames 10 days to file support for sealing the documents whose sealing was denied without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
The court considered two administrative motions by Skillz Platform Inc. to determine whether materials connected to Skillz’s motion to reopen discovery and for sanctions should be filed under seal. Skillz identified materials that AviaGames Inc. had designated as highly confidential.
The court applied the “good cause” standard because the sealing requests concerned briefing on reopening discovery and sanctions, which was only tangentially related to the case’s merits. Under the court’s discussion of Civil Local Rule 79-5, a party designating another party’s material as confidential must timely file a supporting statement or declaration explaining why sealing is justified. Failure to do so may result in unsealing.
Rulings on ECF No. 207
The court granted in part and denied without prejudice in part Skillz’s motion concerning the motion to reopen discovery and for sanctions. It denied sealing for Skillz’s emergency motion, Exhibits A and B, and Exhibits P through T because AviaGames had failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). It granted sealing for Exhibits C through O because they contained confidential business information whose release would cause competitive harm.
The denials based on failure to comply with the local rule were without prejudice. AviaGames could file a supporting statement or declaration within 10 days of the order.
Ruling on ECF No. 219
The court granted Skillz’s motion concerning the certified copies of exhibits. AviaGames had filed a supporting statement explaining that the exhibits contained aspects of its business practices and strategy and described the operation of source code. The court found that confidential source code and confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive standing supported sealing under the good-cause standard. The court also treated AviaGames’s statement as supporting the corresponding uncertified versions.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed sealing only. It did not decide the underlying motion to reopen discovery or the request for sanctions. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on September 6, 2023.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.