Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

The court considered three sealing matters concerning briefing on motions in limine, a motion to strike, and trial briefs: ECF Nos. 596, 605, and 606. A sealing request asks the court to keep specified portions of a filing from public view.

Legal standard

The court stated that judicial records are generally available for public inspection. Documents more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for compelling reasons. Documents only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of good cause.

The court also explained that Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires a party requesting sealing to identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, provide declarations or other evidence when necessary, and narrowly tailor the request to seal only material that is sealable. When a party seeks to seal information designated confidential by another party, the filing party must file an administrative motion, and the designating party must file a supporting statement or declaration within seven days. Failure to do so may result in unsealing.

Rulings

Skillz’s motion concerning the reply supporting its motion to strike (ECF No. 596). Skillz sought to seal highlighted portions of its reply supporting its motion to strike the supplemental declaration of Peng Zhang because AviaGames had designated the information highly confidential. The court applied the good-cause standard because the motion to strike was only tangentially related to the merits. AviaGames had not filed the statement or declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). The court therefore denied the request to seal the highlighted portions of Skillz’s reply without prejudice. AviaGames could file a supporting statement or declaration within seven days.

AviaGames’ renewed sealing request concerning Skillz’s renewed motion in limine No. 1 (ECF No. 605). Because a motion in limine seeks to exclude trial evidence, the court applied the compelling-reasons standard. AviaGames identified confidential business communications, financial information, and descriptions of its source code. The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions of Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 to Christopher Campbell’s declaration, concluding that the material contained confidential business information, confidential source code, or both, and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. The court also found the request narrowly tailored. It granted AviaGames’ renewed sealing request and ordered AviaGames to file redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 4 on the public docket within seven days.

AviaGames’ sealing motions concerning its trial brief (ECF No. 606). AviaGames sought to seal highlighted portions of its trial brief, including information about confidential business communications and the operation of its source code. The court found compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions that referenced AviaGames’ source code and found the request narrowly tailored. AviaGames also identified information in footnote 2 that Skillz had designated highly confidential. Skillz had not filed the required supporting statement or declaration for that information. The court therefore granted in part and denied without prejudice in part AviaGames’ administrative motion to seal and administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The denial concerned the highlighted portions at footnote 2, and Skillz could file a supporting statement or declaration within seven days.

Classification and effect

This was a procedural order about public access to court filings, not a decision on the underlying dispute between Skillz and AviaGames. The order denied ECF No. 596 without prejudice, granted the renewed sealing request in ECF No. 605, and granted in part and denied without prejudice in part the request in ECF No. 606.