Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION SKILLZ PLATFORM INC., Case No. 21-cv-02436-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS ON 9 v. REPLY BRIEFS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS 10 AVIAGAMES INC., [Re: ECF Nos. 185, 190] 11 Defendant.

13 Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal relating to the parties’ reply briefs to the motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 185, 190. The Court has considered the motions and supporting statements. The Court’s ruling is laid out below.

16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

25 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”

3 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

5 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 5(f)(3). Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

12 II. DISCUSSION 13 Because the motion to seal pertain to the motions for summary judgment, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1177. The Court will address each motion in turn.

16 A. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibits to Its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 185) Defendant filed an administration motion to seal, seeking to seal highlighted portions of its reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, as well as several exhibits thereto.

ECF No. 185 at 2. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Defendant states that the information should be sealed because it includes descriptions of its “highly confidential proprietary source code,” personnel details, and/or “sensitive business plans and strategy.” Id. Compelling reasons exist to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

“Confidential source code clearly meets the definition of a trade secret,” and it thus meets the compelling reasons standard. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846- LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). And the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing. See Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878-HSG, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for “confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and Defendant”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may harm [a party’s] or third parties’ competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).

8 Courts have also found compelling reasons to seal certain personnel information. See Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. C 11-0954 CW, 2012 WL 2711032, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2012).

10 The Court rules as follows: ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 12 185-3 AviaGames’ Reply ISO Highlighted GRANTED, as describing Motion for Summary portion confidential source code.

13 Judgment 185-4 Exhibit R to AviaGames’ Entire document GRANTED, as containing 14 Reply ISO Motion for confidential business and Summary Judgment personnel information the release of which would cause competitive 16 harm.

185-5 Exhibit S to AviaGames’ Entire document DENIED, as not narrowly 17 Reply ISO Motion for tailored.

Summary Judgment 185-6 Exhibit T to AviaGames’ Entire document DENIED, as not narrowly 19 Reply ISO Motion for tailored.

Summary Judgment 20 185-7 Exhibit U to AviaGames’ Entire document DENIED, as not narrowly Reply ISO Motion for tailored.

21 Summary Judgment 185-8 Exhibit V to AviaGames’ Entire document DENIED, as not narrowly Reply ISO Motion for tailored.

23 Summary Judgment Defendant seeks to seal the identified exhibits in their entirety. The Court finds this is not warranted as to certain exhibits. The denial as to these exhibits is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a renewed motion that seeks to seal specified redacted portions of these exhibits. The Court notes that redactions must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. B. Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re: 1 Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 190) 2 Plaintiff filed an administration motion to seal, seeking to seal highlighted portions of its reply brief in support of its motion for partial summary judgment, as well as several exhibits thereto. ECF No. 190. Defendant does not oppose the motion. Plaintiff states that the information should be sealed because it “contain[s] sensitive and non-public business information that would harm Skillz and nonparties to the case if made publicly available.” Id. at 1.

7 As stated above, the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing. See Jam Cellars, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2; Qualcomm, Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3; In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 569; see also Koninklijike Philips N.V. v. Elec-Tech Int’l Co., Ltd., No. 14-cv-02737-BLF, 2015 WL 581574, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015) (finding compelling reasons for “contracts regarding the terms and conditions of employment, as well as information regarding non-public recruitment efforts and business practices of [defendant]”); 14 The Court rules as follows: ECF No. Document Portions to Ruling 16 Seal 190-3 Skillz’s Reply ISO Motion Highlighted GRANTED, as containing 17 for Partial Summary portion in blue confidential business information Judgment the release of which would cause 18 competitive harm.

190-4 Exhibit 1 to Skillz’s Reply Entire DENIED, as not narrowly ISO Motion for Partial document tailored.

20 Summary Judgment 190-5 Exhibit 3 to Skillz’s Reply Entire GRANTED, as containing 21 ISO Motion for Partial document confidential business information Summary Judgment the release of which would cause competitive harm.

23 190-6 Exhibit 4 to Skillz’s Reply Entire GRANTED, as containing ISO Motion for Partial document confidential business information 24 Summary Judgment the release of which would cause competitive harm.

25 190-7 Exhibit 5 to Skillz’s Reply Entire GRANTED, as containing ISO Motion for Partial document confidential business information Summary Judgment the release of which would cause 27 competitive harm.

1 as to Exhibit 1. The denial as to Exhibit 1 is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a renewed || motion that seeks to seal specified redacted portions of this exhibit. The Court notes that redactions must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L-R. 79-5(c)(3).

4 || I. ORDER 5 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibits to Its Reply || in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 185) is GRANTED IN PART and || DENIED IN PART; and 9 2. Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re: Reply || in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 190) is GRANTED IN PART and || DENIED IN PART.

12 || The denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling renewed motions that include exhibits with 13 narrowly tailored redactions. Any such motions SHALL be filed within 21 days.

15 Dated: August 11, 2023 ETH LABSON FREEMAN 17 United States District Judge