Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part a motion to seal exhibits, requiring four exhibits to be filed publicly.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc.; the order determines which exhibits will remain sealed and requires AviaGames to publicly file four exhibits.
What happened
In Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., AviaGames submitted a statement supporting the sealing of exhibits attached to Skillz’s motion to reopen discovery and request sanctions. The court applied the less demanding “good cause” standard because those materials were only indirectly related to the case’s merits.
The court granted sealing for highlighted portions of three exhibits and the entire Skillz letter, finding confidential business information that could harm competitive standing. It denied sealing for four other exhibits—ECF Nos. 207-18, 207-19, 207-21, and 207-22—because AviaGames said they could be filed publicly, and ordered AviaGames to file them on the public docket within 10 days.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that Skillz’s administrative motion was granted in part and denied in part. The order concerned only whether these exhibits should remain sealed; it did not decide the underlying dispute between the companies.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
AviaGames submitted a statement supporting the sealing of certain exhibits attached to Skillz’s motion to reopen discovery and for sanctions. The court had previously granted in part and denied without prejudice Skillz’s administrative motion to seal because AviaGames had not filed the required statement under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). The new order considered AviaGames’ later statement.
Legal standard
The court explained that filings connected more than indirectly to the merits of a case generally require “compelling reasons” to be sealed, while filings only indirectly related to the merits may be sealed for “good cause.” Because the exhibits were submitted with a motion to reopen discovery and for sanctions, the court applied the good-cause standard. The court also noted that confidential source code is a trade secret and that confidential business information may be sealed when disclosure could harm a party’s competitive position.
Ruling
The court ruled as follows:
- ECF No. 207-2: sealing of the highlighted portions was granted because they contained confidential business information whose release could harm a party’s competitive standing. - ECF No. 207-3: sealing of the highlighted portions was granted for the same reason. - ECF No. 207-4: sealing of the highlighted portions was granted for the same reason. - ECF No. 207-20: sealing of the entire document was granted because it contained confidential business information whose release could harm a party’s competitive standing. - ECF Nos. 207-18, 207-19, 207-21, and 207-22: sealing was denied because AviaGames submitted that these documents could be filed publicly.
The court ordered AviaGames to file ECF Nos. 207-18, 207-19, 207-21, and 207-22 on the public docket within 10 days of the order. The court therefore ordered that Skillz’s administrative motion be granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.