Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 24, 2022
• Docket: 5:21-cv-02436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SKILLZ PLATFORM INC., Case No. 21-cv-02436-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING SEALING 9 v. MOTIONS

10 AVIAGAMES INC., [Re: ECF No. 85, 91] 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s (“Skillz”) Administrative Motion to 14 Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed at ECF No. 85; and (2) Defendant 15 AviaGames Inc.’s (“AviaGames”) Motion to Seal its Reply Brief at ECF No. 91. The parties move 16 to seal portions of and exhibits to their briefing related to AviaGames’ Motion to Stay Case Pending 17 Inter Partes Reviews, which contain information AviaGames designated as confidential pursuant to 18 the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order at ECF No. 58. AviaGames indicates that the information 19 is confidential business and financial information of AviaGames and its investors Makers Fund, 20 Powerhouse Capital, and Washington Harbour Partners. 21 Based on the below reasoning, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ sealing motions. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 24 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 25 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 26 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 27 of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to non-dispositive motions bear the burden 2 of showing “good cause” for sealing such records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. A protective order 3 sealing the documents during discovery may reflect a court’s previous determination that good cause 4 exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective 5 order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial 6 scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79- 7 5(c) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 8 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 9 sealable.”). 10 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 11 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 12 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 13 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 15 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 16 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). 17 Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been 18 designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party 19 must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local 20 Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof 21 for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the 22 Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in 23 [Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). “If any party wishes to file a response, it must 24 do so no later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.” 25 Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court finds that AviaGames has shown 1 financial and business information they contain. See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 2 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm 3 a litigant’s competitive strategy”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 4 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product 5 development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal 6 reports[.]’”) (quoting In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 5:19–MD–02827–EJD, 7 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019)); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., 8 No. 11–CV–00640–LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (granting sealing 9 request of “long-term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive 10 analyses”). 11 The Court rules as follows on the parties’ sealing motions: 12 Sealing Document to Portions to Designating Declaration Ruling 13 Motion Be Sealed Be Sealed Party ISO Sealing 14 ECF No. 85 Skillz’s Highlighted AviaGames Wang Decl., GRANTED, Opposition to portions at: ECF No. 88 as 15 AviaGames’ • 9:8–12 ¶ 5 confidential Motion to • 9:16–17 business and 16 Stay Case, financial ECF No. 84 information 17 of 18 AviaGames ECF No. 85 Skillz’s Highlighted Washington Wang Decl., GRANTED, 19 Opposition to portions at: Harbour ECF No. 88 as AviaGames’ • 8:11–13 Partners and ¶ 5 confidential 20 Motion to • 8:17–18 AviaGames business and 21 Stay Case, • 9:3–5 financial ECF No. 84 information 22 of Washington 23 Harbour Partners and 24 AviaGames 25 26 27 Sealing Document to Portions to Designating Declaration Ruling 1 Motion Be Sealed Be Sealed Party ISO Sealing 2 ECF No. 85 Skillz’s Highlighted Makers Fund Wang Decl., GRANTED, Opposition to portions at: and ECF No. 88 as 3 AviaGames’ • 9:20–22 AviaGames ¶ 5 confidential Motion to business and 4 Stay Case, financial ECF No. 84 information 5 of Makers 6 Fund and AviaGames 7 ECF No. 85 Skillz’s Highlighted Powerhouse Wang Decl., GRANTED, Opposition to portions at: Capital and ECF No. 88 as 8 AviaGames’ • 8:18–19 AviaGames ¶ 5 confidential Motion to business and 9 Stay Case, financial 10 ECF No. 84 information of 11 Powerhouse Capital and 12 AviaGames 13 ECF No. 85 Yang Decl., Entire AviaGames Wang Decl., GRANTED, ECF No. 84- Document ECF No. 88 as 14 1, Exs. 6–7 ¶ 6 confidential business and 15 financial information 16 of 17 AviaGames ECF No. 85 Yang Decl., Entire Makers Fund Wang Decl., GRANTED, 18 ECF No. 84- Document ECF No. 88 as 1, Ex. 8 ¶ 7 confidential 19 business and financial 20 information 21 of Makers Fund 22 ECF No. 85 Yang Decl., Entire Powerhouse Wang Decl., GRANTED, ECF No. 84- Document Capital ECF No. 88 as 23 1, Ex. 9 ¶ 8 confidential business and 24 financial 25 information of 26 Powerhouse Capital 27 1 Sealing Document to | Portionsto | Designating | Declaration Motion Be Sealed Be Sealed Party ISO Sealing 2 ECF No. 85 Yang Decl., | Entire Washington | Wang Decl., | GRANTED, ECF No. 84- | Document Harbour ECF No. 88 | as 3 1, Ex. 10 Partners 9 confidential business and 4 financial information 5 of 6 Washington Harbour 7 Partners ECF No. 91 AviaGames Redacted Makers Fund | Wang Decl., | GRANTED, 8 Corrected Portions at | and ECF No. 91-1 | as 9 Reply in | 5:4-6 Washington | 47,9 confidential Support = of Harbour business and 10 Motion to Partners financial Stay Case information 11 Pending Inter of □□□□□□ Db Partes Fund and Review, ECF Washington 13 No. 92 Harbour = Partners

© 15 Il. ORDER

a 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ administrative oO = M7 motions are GRANTED. 18 19 Dated: March 24, 2022 ty) 20 NV 21 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28