Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied without prejudice in part sealing motions, requiring narrower or supported requests.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc. were affected because the order determined which portions of their pleadings and exhibits could remain sealed and gave them opportunities to submit narrower or supporting sealing requests. The order also affected public access to those court filings.
What happened
In Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., the parties asked the court to keep parts of their pleadings and attached documents from public view. AviaGames supported sealing information that it said revealed confidential business information, including server operations and source code. Skillz did not file the required statement supporting the confidential information it had designated in AviaGames’ answer.
The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions of Skillz’s second amended complaint because releasing the information could cause competitive harm. But it denied the requests to seal three exhibits in their entirety because the requests were not limited to only sealable material. It also denied AviaGames’ request to seal highlighted portions of its answer because Skillz had not filed the required supporting statement or declaration.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied without prejudice in part Skillz’s sealing motion. She denied without prejudice AviaGames’ sealing motion and allowed Skillz seven days to file the required supporting materials; AviaGames may also renew its request with specified redactions.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 4, 2023
Background
The court considered two administrative motions about sealing court filings. Skillz Platform Inc. asked the court to decide whether portions of its second amended complaint and attached exhibits should remain sealed based on AviaGames Inc.’s confidentiality designations. AviaGames separately asked to seal highlighted portions of its answer to Skillz’s second amended complaint based on Skillz’s confidentiality designation.
Because the motions concerned pleadings, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, information connected more than tangentially to the merits may be sealed only when compelling reasons support sealing. The court also required compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including a narrowly tailored request and, when one party designated another party’s material as confidential, a supporting statement or declaration from the designating party.
Skillz’s motion, ECF No. 481
AviaGames supported sealing the highlighted portions of Skillz’s second amended complaint and the entirety of certain attached exhibits. AviaGames stated that the material included information about the backend operation of its servers and source code. The court held that confidential source code and confidential business information that could harm competitive standing can provide compelling reasons for sealing.
The court therefore granted sealing for the highlighted portions of Skillz’s second amended complaint, finding that the information was confidential business information whose release could cause competitive harm. It denied the requests to seal Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 in their entirety because the requests were not narrowly tailored to seal only material that could properly be kept from public view. The court stated that the denial concerning Exhibit 4 was without prejudice to AviaGames filing a renewed statement seeking to seal specified redacted portions. The order’s final disposition states that Skillz’s motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
AviaGames’s motion, ECF No. 516
AviaGames sought to seal highlighted portions of its answer, including paragraphs 101–102, 104–106, 109, 121, 123, and 129–130. Skillz had designated the material as highly confidential but, as of the order’s date, had not filed the statement or declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3).
The court denied AviaGames’s motion because Skillz had not complied with that rule. The denial was WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Skillz filing a statement or declaration supporting sealing. The court gave Skillz seven days from the date of the order to file the supporting material.
Effect of the order
The order did not decide the parties’ patent-infringement claims. It decided which portions of the identified filings could remain sealed under the court’s rules. Some highlighted portions of Skillz’s complaint were approved for sealing, while the challenged requests to seal entire exhibits were denied without prejudice in part. AviaGames’s request concerning its answer was denied without prejudice because the required supporting filing was missing.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.