Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

AviaGames filed an administrative motion to seal portions of the transcript from an October 5, 2023 hearing. The hearing involved argument on an emergency motion for a protective order. Skillz Platform Inc. opposed the sealing request.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be open to the public. Documents more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while material only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause,” meaning a sufficient specific reason for restricting public access. The court applied the good-cause standard because the transcript concerned a discovery-related hearing.

The court also noted that the district’s local rules require a sealing request to identify the reasons for sealing, the injury that would result from denying the request, why less restrictive measures would not work, and evidentiary support where necessary. Any proposed sealing must be narrowly tailored to cover only material that can properly be sealed.

Parties’ positions

AviaGames argued that portions of the transcript should be sealed because they discussed its source code, business practices, and business strategy. It also argued that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent harm or disclosure of confidential business information.

Skillz argued that the proceeding occurred in open court, that the proposed redactions did not address AviaGames’ source code, and that the information discussed at the hearing was already on the public docket.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court recognized that confidential source code and confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive position can satisfy the good-cause standard. It found good cause to seal specific evidence about the functionality of AviaGames’ products.

But the court concluded that AviaGames’ requested redactions were not narrowly tailored. Much of the material AviaGames sought to seal consisted of generalized allegations about its use of bots, rather than disclosures of source code. The court noted that those generalized allegations were already on the public docket and that AviaGames had not provided specific reasons showing good cause to overcome the presumption of public access for the proposed redactions.

The court therefore denied without prejudice AviaGames’ administrative motion to file the transcript under seal. AviaGames may file a renewed motion with more narrowly tailored redactions within 10 days of the order.