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 AviaGames’s request to pause a document-disclosure order while reviewing its challenge.
AviaGames Inc. received a temporary stay of the document-disclosure order while its Rule 72 challenge was considered. Skillz Platform Inc.’s response deadline and the timing of any document production were also governed by the order.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. concerns AviaGames’s challenge to a magistrate judge’s order requiring it to produce documents after a private court review. AviaGames argued that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.
AviaGames asked the district court to pause the order while it filed a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The court found that the challenge raised serious legal questions about whether the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied and that disclosure could cause harm that could not be undone.
Judge Freeman granted AviaGames’s request and paused the magistrate judge’s order until November 6, 2023. The order set deadlines for AviaGames’s challenge and Skillz’s response and required AviaGames to produce the documents on November 6 if the challenge was denied.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 2, 2023
Background
AviaGames Inc. asked the district court to stay, meaning temporarily pause, Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen’s order following an in-camera review of AviaGames documents. AviaGames said it intended to challenge that order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The order required AviaGames to produce documents that it claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The underlying order involved whether the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied to certain AviaGames documents. The court did not decide that privilege question in this order.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the four-factor standard used for a stay pending review: the applicant’s likelihood of success, the risk of irreparable harm without a stay, possible harm to other interested parties, and the public interest. The court found that AviaGames had raised serious legal questions about the crime-fraud exception, satisfying the first factor.
The court also found that AviaGames would suffer irreparable harm if it had to disclose allegedly privileged documents before the court ruled on the Rule 72 challenge. Disclosure could not be undone, and a later appeal would not provide an adequate remedy for an erroneous disclosure. The court found that Skillz Platform Inc. would not be substantially prejudiced by a brief stay and that protecting attorney-client privilege served the public interest.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted AviaGames’s application to stay Magistrate Judge van Keulen’s order. The order was stayed until November 6, 2023. AviaGames was ordered to file its Rule 72 motion by November 2 at 5:00 p.m.; Skillz was ordered to respond by November 6 at 10:00 a.m.; and no reply was permitted. The court set a hearing for November 6 and stated that, if it denied AviaGames’s Rule 72 motion, AviaGames had to be prepared to turn over the documents by 5:00 p.m. that day.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.