Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman denied two sealing requests without prejudice, granted two, and granted another in part while denying it in part.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc., particularly AviaGames regarding its confidential business information and the supporting statements it could file within seven days.
What happened
In Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., Skillz asked the court to keep parts of its oppositions to AviaGames’ motions in limine and attached materials under seal. The requests concerned information AviaGames had designated as highly confidential.
The court denied the requests related to motions in limine numbers 1 and 3 because AviaGames had not filed the required supporting statements or declarations. It denied those requests without prejudice, allowing AviaGames to provide the required support within seven days. The court granted the request related to motion number 5, granted the request related to motion number 4, and granted in part and denied without prejudice in part the request related to motion number 2 because some proposed redactions were broader than necessary.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that confidential source code and business information that could cause competitive harm may justify sealing, but redactions must be limited to material that qualifies for protection. The order addressed only access to court filings and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 16, 2023
Background
Skillz Platform Inc. filed five administrative motions asking the court to consider sealing material in Skillz’s oppositions to AviaGames Inc.’s motions in limine. Motions in limine are requests to exclude evidence at trial. The proposed sealed material included portions of oppositions, deposition transcripts, expert materials, translations, and other exhibits that AviaGames had designated as highly confidential.
Because motions in limine are closely related to the merits of a case, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires supporting explanations or declarations and requires sealing requests to be narrowly tailored.
Rulings
- Motion concerning AviaGames’ motion in limine number 1, ECF No. 405: The court denied Skillz’s administrative motion without prejudice. AviaGames had not filed the required statement or declaration supporting sealing. The ruling covered highlighted portions of Skillz’s opposition and the entire excerpted transcript of Jamie Leung’s May 17, 2023 deposition. AviaGames could file supporting material within seven days.
- Motion concerning AviaGames’ motion in limine number 3, ECF No. 409: The court denied Skillz’s administrative motion without prejudice for the same failure to file the required supporting statement or declaration. The ruling covered highlighted portions of the opposition and the entire documents identified as exhibits A, B, and C, including an excerpted supplemental expert report by Dr. Jose Zagal and two certified translations. AviaGames could file supporting material within seven days.
- Motion concerning AviaGames’ motion in limine number 5, ECF No. 414: The court granted Skillz’s administrative motion. It found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions of Skillz’s opposition and the entire excerpted October 20, 2023 deposition transcript of Vickie Chen because they contained confidential business information whose disclosure would cause competitive harm.
- Motion concerning AviaGames’ motion in limine number 2, ECF No. 423: The court granted in part and denied without prejudice in part Skillz’s administrative motion. It granted sealing for the highlighted portions of Skillz’s opposition because they contained confidential business information whose disclosure would cause competitive harm. It denied without prejudice the request to seal the entire supplemental report of Dr. Welch because AviaGames had not narrowly tailored the request; portions summarizing the expert’s qualifications and the ’564 Patent did not have compelling reasons for sealing. AviaGames could file a renewed statement seeking narrower redactions within seven days.
- Motion concerning AviaGames’ motion in limine number 4, ECF No. 426: The court granted Skillz’s administrative motion. It found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions of Skillz’s opposition because they contained confidential business information whose disclosure would cause competitive harm.
Effect of the Order
The order governed whether specified filings or portions of filings would remain sealed. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses, and it did not decide the motions in limine themselves.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.