Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

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 RE: MOTIONS TO FILE 9 v. ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL UNDER SEAL ON REPLY BRIEFS TO 10 AVIAGAMES INC., SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF Nos. 186, 191]

12 13 Before the Court are two administrative motions to file another party’s material under seal 14 relating to the parties’ reply briefs to the motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 186, 191. 15 The Court has considered the motions and supporting statements. The Court’s ruling is laid out 16 below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 4 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 5 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 7 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 8 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 9 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 10 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 11 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 12 5(f)(3). Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Because the motion to seal pertain to the motions for summary judgment, the Court will 15 apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1177. The Court will 16 address each motion in turn. 17 A. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed Re: Reply in Support of Motion for 18 Summary Judgment (ECF No. 186) 19 Defendant filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material 20 should be sealed in connection with its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. ECF 21 No. 186. Defendant identifies the potentially sealable material to include Exhibit W, which 22 Plaintiff designated as Highly Confidential. Id. at 1. 23 Plaintiff filed a statement in support of the motion. ECF No. 204. Plaintiff states that the 24 Exhibit “contain[s] information conveying aspects of Skillz’s internal practices and strategy, 25 which include the design, development, structure, implementation, functionality, and operation of 26 Skillz’s games and platform.” Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff provides that publication of the information would 27 put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors. Id. It also states that the request is narrowly 1 The “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would 2 harm a party’s competitive standing. See Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878- 3 HSG, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for 4 “confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and 5 Defendant”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at 6 *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may 7 harm [a party’s] or third parties’ competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, 8 contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 9 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). 10 The Court rules as follows:

11 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 12 186-2 Exhibit W to AviaGames’ Entire document GRANTED, as containing Reply ISO Motion for confidential business information 13 Summary Judgment the release of which would cause competitive harm. 14 B. Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 15 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed Re: Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 191) 16 Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should 17 be sealed in connection with its reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. See 18 ECF No. 191. Plaintiff identifies the potentially sealable material to include highlighted portions 19 of its reply brief. Id. at 1. Plaintiff provides that this information was designated as Highly 20 Confidential by Defendant. Id. 21 Defendant filed a statement in support of the sealing. ECF No. 202. Defendant provides 22 that the highlighted portion “contain[s] aspects to AviaGames’ business practices and strategy, and 23 its products’ source code.” Id. ¶ 3. It states that release of this information would cause 24 competitive harm and that the request is narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 4. 25 Compelling reasons exist to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 26 “Confidential source code clearly meets the definition of a trade secret,” and it thus meets the 27 compelling reasons standard. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846- 1 LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). And the “compelling reasons” 2 || standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive 3 standing. See Jam Cellars, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2; Qualcomm, Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3; In 4 re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 569. 5 The Court rules as follows:

7 191-3 | Skillz’s Reply in Support | Highlighted GRANTED, as containing of Motion for Partial portion confidential business information 8 Summary Judgment and descriptions of source code, the release of which would cause 9 ieee "ce 10 || 1. ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 13 || Party’s Material Should be Sealed Re: Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 14 || No. 186) is GRANTED; and 2 15 2. Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 16 || Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed Re: Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary 2 17 || Judgment (ECF No. 191) is GRANTED. 18 19 || Dated: August 15, 2023 1 zl 20 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28