Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

The court considered two administrative motions involving documents filed with AviaGames’ opposition to Skillz’s motion to reopen discovery and for sanctions:

- AviaGames’ motion to seal portions of its opposition and attached exhibits, ECF No. 216. - AviaGames’ motion asking the court to decide whether materials designated confidential by Skillz should be sealed, ECF No. 217.

The court said the materials were only tangentially related to the case’s merits, so the less demanding “good cause” standard applied. Under that standard, the court explained that trade secrets, confidential source code, and confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive standing may be sealed. The court also required sealing requests to be narrowly tailored to protect only material that qualifies for sealing.

Rulings on ECF No. 216

The court found that some information AviaGames sought to seal qualified for protection, but that several proposed redactions were too broad. The court ruled as follows:

- ECF No. 216-3: The highlighted portions of AviaGames’ opposition were granted for sealing because they contained confidential business information whose release could harm competitive standing. - ECF Nos. 216-4, 216-5, and 216-6: The requests to seal the declarations of V. Chen, J. Leung, and P. Zhang in their entirety were denied as not narrowly tailored. - ECF No. 216-7: The highlighted portions of the declaration of M. Bombach were granted for sealing because they contained confidential business information whose release could harm competitive standing. - ECF Nos. 216-8 and 216-11: The requests to seal the identified source-code documents in their entirety were granted because they contained confidential source code. - ECF Nos. 216-9, 216-10, and 216-12: The requests to seal Skillz’s amended and supplemental discovery responses, the opening expert report of Jose P. Zagal regarding infringement, and the deposition transcript of Peng Zhang in their entirety were denied as not narrowly tailored.

The denials under ECF No. 216 were without prejudice to filing a renewed motion seeking to seal only properly specified material. The court’s final order described ECF No. 216 as granted in part and denied without prejudice in part, and allowed AviaGames 10 days to file a renewed motion.

Rulings on ECF No. 217

Skillz had designated Exhibits 2, 3, 6, 7, 16, 17, and 19 to the Bombach declaration as highly confidential. Skillz supported sealing Exhibits 2, 3, and 19 based on competitive harm and did not oppose sealing Exhibits 6, 7, 16, and 17, which included descriptions of AviaGames’ source code. The court ruled as follows:

- Exhibits 2 and 3: Granted for sealing because they contained confidential business information whose release could harm competitive standing. - Exhibit 6: Denied as not narrowly tailored. - Exhibit 7: Granted because it contained trade secrets. - Exhibit 16: Denied as not narrowly tailored. - Exhibit 17: Granted because it discussed trade secrets. - Exhibit 19: Granted for sealing because it contained confidential business information whose release could harm competitive standing.

The denials under ECF No. 217 were without prejudice to Skillz filing a renewed statement supporting the sealing of specified redacted portions. The final order described ECF No. 217 as granted in part and denied without prejudice in part, and allowed a renewed filing within 10 days.

Effect of the Order

The order addressed public access to particular filings and exhibits. It did not decide Skillz’s motion to reopen discovery, Skillz’s request for sanctions, or the parties’ underlying claims. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on September 18, 2023.