Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman terminated one sealing motion, granted another, and granted in part and denied without prejudice in part a third.
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc., particularly the parties’ public access to filings containing confidential business information and source code.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. and AviaGames Inc. filed motions asking the court to keep parts of filings about AviaGames’ request to postpone the trial from public view. AviaGames later filed a corrected version of one motion with fewer redactions.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman applied the lower “good cause” standard because the filings concerned postponing the trial and were only indirectly related to the case’s merits. She found good cause to protect confidential source code and business information that could harm competitive standing, but ruled that sealing entire expert reports and other materials was too broad.
Judge Freeman terminated AviaGames’ original sealing motion, granted AviaGames’ corrected sealing motion, and granted in part and denied without prejudice in part Skillz’s motion concerning AviaGames-designated material. AviaGames may submit narrower redactions within seven days.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 4, 2023
Background
The court considered three administrative motions to seal filings related to AviaGames Inc.’s motion to continue the trial:
- AviaGames’ original motion to seal its motion to continue the trial, supporting declaration, and an exhibit (ECF No. 438). - Skillz Platform Inc.’s motion asking the court to decide whether AviaGames’ confidential-designated material in Skillz’s opposition and attached exhibits should remain sealed (ECF No. 465). - AviaGames’ corrected motion to seal portions of its motion to continue the trial, a supporting declaration, and an exhibit (ECF No. 506).
AviaGames said the material included confidential business information, source code, business practices and strategy, products, source-code algorithms, and information that could harm its competitive standing if made public. Skillz did not oppose AviaGames’ corrected motion. No party opposed AviaGames’ statement supporting continued sealing of the material identified in Skillz’s filing.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records are generally available to the public. Materials more than indirectly related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while materials only indirectly related to the merits may be sealed for “good cause.” Because the motions concerned postponing the trial, the court applied the good-cause standard.
The court also applied Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires sealing requests to explain the private or public interests supporting secrecy, provide evidence when necessary, and narrowly limit sealing to material that can properly be kept confidential. When one party seeks to seal another party’s confidential-designated material, the designating party must provide the required explanation and supporting statement or declaration.
Rulings
ECF No. 438
The November 17, 2023 corrected motion superseded AviaGames’ October 31, 2023 motion. The court therefore TERMINATED the original motion.
ECF No. 465
The court found good cause to seal portions of Skillz’s opposition and several attached exhibits because they contained confidential source code and business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also ruled that some requests to seal entire exhibits were not narrowly tailored. The court therefore GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART Skillz’s motion. The denials concerned material for which AviaGames could seek narrower redactions, including expert-report material. AviaGames could file a renewed statement seeking to seal specified redacted portions within seven days.
ECF No. 506
The court found good cause to seal the highlighted portions of AviaGames’ motion to continue the trial and supporting declaration, as well as the entire attached deposition-transcript excerpt. It found that the requested sealing was narrowly tailored. The court therefore GRANTED AviaGames’ corrected motion.
The order did not decide AviaGames’ underlying request to continue or bifurcate the trial, and it did not resolve the merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.