Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

The court considered AviaGames’ renewed statements supporting the sealing of portions of documents connected to three matters: Skillz’s opposition to AviaGames’ motion to continue trial; Skillz’s opposition to AviaGames’ motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order; and Skillz’s second amended complaint. The court had previously denied related sealing requests without prejudice in part because the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored. AviaGames renewed the requests with proposed redactions rather than seeking to seal entire exhibits. Skillz did not oppose these renewed statements.

The court also addressed documents that AviaGames had previously been ordered to file publicly in redacted form, as well as AviaGames’ request concerning its answer to Skillz’s second amended complaint. Skillz did not file the supporting statement the court had allowed it to submit concerning that answer.

Legal standards

Judicial records and documents generally are open to public inspection. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” The court also required sealing requests to be narrowly tailored and supported as required by the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 79-5.

The court applied the good-cause standard to the materials connected to the motion to continue trial and the motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. It applied the compelling-reasons standard to the materials attached to the second amended complaint. The court stated that trade secrets, confidential source code, and confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive position may justify sealing.

Rulings

The court granted AviaGames’ renewed sealing statement concerning Skillz’s opposition to the motion to continue trial. It allowed highlighted portions of two supplemental expert reports to remain sealed because they contained confidential business information and source code whose release could cause competitive harm. AviaGames was ordered to file redacted versions of those documents within 10 days of the order.

The court granted AviaGames’ renewed sealing statement concerning Skillz’s opposition to the motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. It allowed highlighted portions containing confidential business information to remain sealed and ordered AviaGames to file a redacted version within 10 days.

The court granted AviaGames’ renewed sealing statement concerning Skillz’s second amended complaint. It allowed highlighted portions of three exhibits to remain sealed because they contained confidential business information and source code whose release could cause competitive harm. AviaGames was ordered to file redacted versions within 10 days.

The court separately ordered AviaGames to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 512-2 through 512-6 and unredacted versions of ECF Nos. 351-5 and 516-2 on the public docket within 10 days. The court denied AviaGames’ sealing motion concerning ECF No. 516-2 because Skillz had not filed the supporting statement the court had permitted. The order did not decide the underlying claims between Skillz and AviaGames.