Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

AviaGames filed a renewed administrative motion to seal exhibits supporting its opposition to Skillz’s motion to reopen discovery and for sanctions. The court had previously denied requests to seal some of those exhibits because the proposed redactions were too broad or because sealing entire exhibits was not justified. Skillz did not oppose AviaGames’ renewed motion.

The court also considered statements by AviaGames supporting sealing requests concerning Skillz’s opposition to an earlier sealing motion and Skillz’s motion for sanctions. Under the Northern District of California’s rules, a party designating material as confidential must explain the private or public interests supporting sealing, the harm that would result from disclosure, and why narrower redactions would not be sufficient.

Legal standard

The court applied the less demanding “good cause” standard because the filings concerned discovery, sanctions, and sealing disputes that were only indirectly related to the merits of the case. The court stated that confidential source code and confidential business information whose disclosure could harm a party’s competitive position satisfy the stronger standard for sealing and therefore also satisfy the good-cause standard. The court also required redactions to be narrowly limited to sealable material.

Rulings on AviaGames’ renewed motion, ECF No. 290

The court granted the request to seal highlighted portions of six exhibits:

- ECF No. 290-1, the declaration of V. Chen, containing confidential business information. - ECF No. 290-2, the declaration of J. Leung, containing confidential business information. - ECF No. 290-3, the declaration of P. Zhang, containing confidential source code and business information. - ECF No. 290-4, Skillz’s amended and supplemental responses and objections to AviaGames’ second set of interrogatories, containing confidential source code and business information. - ECF No. 290-5, the opening expert report of Jose P. Zagal regarding infringement, containing confidential source code and business information. - ECF No. 290-6, the deposition transcript of Peng Zhang, containing confidential source code and business information.

The court also granted the request to seal highlighted portions of ECF No. 290-7, Exhibit 6 to the Bombach declaration supporting AviaGames’ opposition, because it contained confidential source code and business information. The court denied sealing highlighted portions of ECF No. 217-6, Exhibit 16 to the Bombach declaration, because AviaGames did not comply with the applicable filing requirement. The court ordered AviaGames to file the unredacted version of ECF No. 217-6 publicly.

In the order’s final disposition, AviaGames’ renewed administrative motion to file under seal, ECF No. 290, was GRANTED. AviaGames was ordered to file the redacted versions of the covered documents and the unredacted version of ECF No. 217-6 on the public docket within 10 days.

Rulings on Skillz’s motion concerning the sanctions filing, ECF No. 241

The court granted Skillz’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection with Skillz’s motion for sanctions under Rule 37. The court approved sealing highlighted portions of Skillz’s sanctions motion, ECF No. 241-2, and highlighted portions of a deposition transcript attached as Exhibit D to the declaration of M. Wood, ECF No. 287-2. The court found that the materials contained confidential business information whose disclosure could harm competitive standing.

The court’s final order states that Skillz’s administrative motion concerning the Rule 37 sanctions filing, ECF No. 241, was GRANTED. AviaGames was ordered to file a redacted version of ECF No. 287-2 publicly within 10 days.

Ruling on Skillz’s motion concerning its opposition to sealing, ECF No. 223

The court granted Skillz’s administrative motion concerning whether AviaGames’ material in Skillz’s opposition to AviaGames’ sealing motion should remain sealed. The court approved sealing highlighted portions of ECF No. 223-1 because they contained confidential business information whose disclosure could harm competitive standing.

The court’s final order states that Skillz’s administrative motion concerning its opposition to AviaGames’ sealing motion, ECF No. 223, was GRANTED.

Disposition

The order resolved sealing requests only. It did not decide Skillz’s underlying claims against AviaGames, the motion to reopen discovery, or the sanctions dispute on their merits.