Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

The court considered three administrative sealing motions related to briefing about AviaGames’ motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. A nondispositive pretrial order is a pretrial ruling that does not finally resolve the case. The court applied the “good cause” standard used in this district for sealing requests connected to such motions.

The court explained that filings connected more than tangentially to the merits generally require “compelling reasons” to be sealed, while filings only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed for “good cause.” Local Rule 79-5 also requires sealing requests to explain the interests supporting secrecy, provide evidence when necessary, and narrowly limit sealing to material that can properly be kept from public view.

AviaGames’ First Sealing Motion

AviaGames asked to seal highlighted portions of its ex parte application to stay the magistrate judge’s order. AviaGames argued that the highlighted material described or quoted provisionally sealed orders and court documents. The court found that all of the information AviaGames sought to seal had since been unsealed or was already available on the public docket. The court therefore denied AviaGames’ administrative motion to seal, ECF No. 442.

AviaGames’ Second Sealing Motion

AviaGames separately asked to seal highlighted portions of its motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. Because the order discussed in that motion had since been unsealed, the court found that the information was public. The court denied AviaGames’ administrative motion to seal, ECF No. 448.

Skillz’s Motion Concerning AviaGames’ Confidential Material

Skillz asked the court to decide whether material designated by AviaGames as highly confidential should remain sealed in Skillz’s opposition to AviaGames’ motion for relief. AviaGames supported sealing portions discussing or including confidential business communications, its source code, and the operation of its products. The court stated that trade secrets and confidential source code or business information that could harm competitive standing may satisfy the good-cause standard.

The court nevertheless found that AviaGames’ request also covered material discussing or quoting the magistrate judge’s order, which had been unsealed. Because the request was not narrowly limited to sealable information, the court denied Skillz’s administrative motion, ECF No. 462, without prejudice. AviaGames was allowed to file a renewed statement seeking to seal only material that was properly sealable, within seven days of the order.

Disposition

The court denied AviaGames’ motion concerning its application to stay the magistrate judge’s order; denied AviaGames’ motion concerning its motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s pretrial order; and denied Skillz’s motion concerning AviaGames’ designated confidential material without prejudice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order addressed only the sealing requests, not the merits of AviaGames’ request for relief from the magistrate judge’s order.