Big Run Studios Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

Background

The court considered Plaintiffs’ administrative motions to file documents under seal at ECF 196, 208, 209, and 218, along with AviaGames Inc.’s unopposed administrative motion concerning whether another party’s material should be filed under seal at ECF 213. The submissions included statements supporting sealing from the parties and nonparty Playtika Santa Monica, LLC.

Legal standard

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a party seeking to seal court records must identify the private or public interests supporting sealing, explain the injury that could result from disclosure, and show why a less restrictive alternative would not be sufficient. Because the materials were submitted in support of nondispositive motions—motions that do not resolve the merits of the case—the court applied Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” standard. The court found that many of the materials contained confidential business information that could harm a litigant’s competitive position if disclosed.

Rulings on the sealing requests

The court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motions.

For ECF 196, the sealing requests for the identified motion, declaration exhibit, and Exhibit A were withdrawn, and the court denied those requests.

For ECF 208, the court granted sealing for the highlighted portions of Plaintiffs’ statement, other than paragraph 3, and for Exhibits B through H, based on confidential internal business communications and other sensitive business information. The request to seal paragraph 3 was withdrawn, making the proposed redactions moot. The request to seal Exhibit A was withdrawn, and the court denied that request.

For ECF 209, the court granted sealing for the highlighted portions of the statement other than paragraph 3 and for Exhibits B through H. The paragraph 3 request was withdrawn and therefore moot. The request to seal Exhibit A was withdrawn, and the court denied that request.

For ECF 213, the court granted sealing for the highlighted portions of AviaGames’ opposition to the motion to file a third amended complaint. It also granted sealing for Exhibits A through N, based on confidential financial information, market research, competitor analysis, internal development discussions, and other business information. The court denied the requests to seal Exhibits O, P, and Q because those requests were withdrawn. The court granted sealing for Exhibits S, T, and W, finding that they contained confidential information belonging to Playtika, Big Run Studios, or both.

For ECF 218, the court granted sealing for the specified portions of Plaintiffs’ reply concerning confidential development discussions and notes related to improving Skillz’s services. The requests for the remaining proposed redactions were withdrawn.

Additional orders and effect

The court ordered Plaintiffs to refile unredacted versions of ECF 196-3, 196-4, 196-5, and 208-3, and ordered AviaGames to refile unredacted versions of ECF 213-17, 213-18, and 213-19. Plaintiffs were also ordered to refile modified redacted versions of ECF 208-2 and 218-3. The parties had to complete those refilings by April 12, 2024. The court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to remove an incorrectly filed document at ECF 210 and directed the Clerk to seal ECF 209. The order addressed confidentiality and filing procedures, not the merits of the underlying dispute.