Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

The court considered renewed motions and statements asking to seal portions of briefing and exhibits related to the parties’ motions in limine. Motions in limine ask the court to exclude evidence or arguments from trial. The materials included expert reports, deposition transcripts, declarations, infringement contentions, translations, proposed orders, and other exhibits.

The renewed requests followed earlier orders that denied sealing requests without prejudice in part because the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored. In the renewed filings, the parties proposed redactions rather than seeking to seal entire documents in most instances. AviaGames identified confidential business information, source-code and product information, responses to user complaints, and licensing information. Skillz identified confidential information about software development and operations and business discussions and agreements involving Skillz, AviaGames, and third parties. The opinion states that Skillz did not oppose AviaGames’s requests in ECF Nos. 510, 512, 513, and 519, and that AviaGames did not oppose Skillz’s request in ECF No. 514.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally available for public inspection. Because motions in limine are more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, sealing requires a strong justification. The court stated that trade secrets, confidential source code, and confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive standing can satisfy this standard. It also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires sealing requests to explain the justification for secrecy, provide supporting evidence when necessary, and narrowly limit sealing to material that is sealable.

Rulings

The court ruled as follows:

- The requested sealing in AviaGames’s renewed statement concerning Skillz’s motions in limine, ECF No. 510, was GRANTED. AviaGames was ordered to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 510-1 through 510-6 and 511 on the public docket within seven days. - AviaGames’s renewed administrative motion concerning its motions in limine, ECF No. 512, was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. AviaGames was ordered to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 512-2 through 512-6 and an unredacted version of ECF No. 351-5 on the public docket within seven days. - AviaGames’s renewed administrative motion concerning motions in limine Nos. 2 and 4, ECF No. 513, was GRANTED. AviaGames was ordered to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 513-2 through 513-5 within seven days. - The requested sealing in Skillz’s renewed statement concerning AviaGames’s motions in limine, ECF No. 514, was GRANTED. Skillz was ordered to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 514-1 through 514-11 within seven days. - The requested sealing in AviaGames’s renewed statement concerning Skillz’s oppositions to AviaGames’s motions in limine, ECF No. 519, was GRANTED. AviaGames was ordered to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 519-3, 519-5, and 519-8 within seven days. - The court again ordered AviaGames to file unredacted versions of ECF Nos. 397-1, 397-2, 397-4, 397-5, 397-6, 397-8, and 397-9 on the public docket within seven days because it had not yet done so after an earlier order.

This order addressed access to and sealing of court filings; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.