Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. ( 2023 )

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 ON SEALING MOTIONS RE: 9 v. BRIEFING REGARDING RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL 10 AVIAGAMES INC., ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 442, 448, 462] 12 13 Before the Court are the parties’ briefing regarding Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Motion 14 for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge. ECF Nos. 442, 448, 462. The 15 Court has considered the motions, and its rulings are laid out below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 19 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 21 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 22 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 23 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 24 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 26 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 27 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 1 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 2 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 4 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 5 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 6 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 7 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 8 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 9 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 10 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 11 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 12 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 13 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Courts in this district have applied the “good cause” standard to sealing motions connected 16 to motions for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Baird v. 17 BlackRock Institutional Tr. Co., N.A., No. 17-CV-01892-HSG, 2019 WL 11499520, at *2 (N.D. 18 Cal. Oct. 16, 2019); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2018 WL 19 2317835, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2018); Williamson v. Google LLC, No. 15-CV-00966-BLF, 20 2018 WL 1730725, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018). As such, the Court will apply the good cause 21 standard to the sealing motions below. 22 A. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Materials Relating to Ex Parte Application to Stay Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 442) 23 AviaGames filed an administrative motion to seal highlighted portions of its ex parte 24 application to stay the magistrate judge’s order pending the resolution of AviaGames’ motion for 25 relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge. ECF No. 442. AviaGames 26 argues that good cause exists to seal the highlighted portions because they describe or quote from 27 a provisionally sealed order and court documents. Id. ¶ 3. However, all the information that 1 AviaGames seeks to seal has since been unsealed. For example, the line on page 3 of AviaGames’ 2 ex parte application includes information that was not sealed because it was discussed in the 3 Court’s public order continuing trial. See ECF No. 521 at 1. Similarly, AviaGames seeks to seal 4 its discussion of the magistrate judge’s order following in-camera review of AviaGames 5 documents, but the magistrate judge’s order was unsealed in its entirety. See ECF No. 515. 6 Therefore, the Court will DENY AviaGames’ motion because the information that AviaGames 7 seeks to seal is on the public docket. 8 The Court rules as follows: 9 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 10 442-2 AviaGames’ Ex Parte Highlighted DENIED because the Application To Stay Portions information that AviaGames 11 Magistrate Judge’s seeks to seal is public Order Pending information. 12 Resolution of Motion For Relief From 13 Nondispositive Pretrial 14 Order 15 B. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Relating to Its Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 448) 16 AviaGames filed an administrative motion seal seeking to seal highlighted portions of its 17 motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge. ECF No. 448. 18 AviaGames argues that good cause exists to seal the highlighted portions because they describe or 19 quote from a provisionally sealed order and court documents. Id. ¶ 3. As stated above, the 20 provisionally sealed order that AviaGames discusses in its motion for relief from a nondispositive 21 pretrial order of magistrate judge has since been unsealed. See ECF No. 515. Therefore, the 22 Court will DENY AviaGames’ motion because the information that AviaGames seeks to seal is on 23 the public docket. 24 The Court rules as follows: 25 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 26 448-2 AviaGames Inc.’s Highlighted DENIED because the Motion For Relief Portions information that AviaGames 27 From Nondispositive seeks to seal is public Magistrate Judge 1 C. Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 2 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed Relating to Its Opposition to AviaGames’ Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate 3 Judge (ECF No. 462) 4 Skillz filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should 5 be sealed in connection with its opposition to AviaGames’ motion for relief from a nondispositive 6 pretrial order of magistrate judge. ECF No. 462. Skillz identified its opposition as containing 7 information that AviaGames has designated as highly confidential. Id. at 1. 8 AviaGames filed a statement in support of the motion. ECF No. 488. No party has filed 9 an opposition to the statement. AviaGames requests that the highlighted portions of Skillz’s 10 opposition should remain under seal because they discuss or include confidential business 11 communications that discuss AviaGames’ source code and the operation of AviaGames’ products. 12 Id. ¶¶1, 4. 13 Good cause exists to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Confidential source 14 code and confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing meet 15 the compelling reasons standard, and thus also meet the “less exacting” good cause standard. See 16 Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see also Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11- 17 CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (finding that “[c]onfidential 18 source code clearly meets the definition of a trade secret,” and meets the compelling reasons 19 standard); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878-HSG, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 20 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for “confidential business and proprietary 21 information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and Defendant”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. 22 Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-cv-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding 23 compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may harm [a party’s] or third parties’ 24 competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade 25 secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business 26 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). 27 The Court finds good cause to seal some of the information identified in the highlighted 1 or quotes from the magistrate judge’s unsealed order. See ECF No. 515. As such, AviaGames’ 2 || request is not “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 3 The Court rules as follows: * || [EGE No. PortionstoSeal | Ruling 5 462-3 Skillz’s Opposition to | Highlighted DENIED as not narrowly AviaGames’ Relief Portions tailored. 6 from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of 7 Magistrate Judge (Dkt. g 449) 9 The above denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to AviaGames filing a renewed statement that seeks 10 to seal only sealable material. ll I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: B 1. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Materials Relating to 4 Ex Parte Application to Stay Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 442) is DENIED. 15 2. Defendant AviaGames Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Relating to Its Motion 16 for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 448) is DENIED. 7 3. Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 18 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed Relating to Its Opposition to AviaGames’ Motion for 19 Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 462) is DENIED 20 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AviaGames may file a renewed statement in support of sealing within 7 days of the date of this Order. 22 73 Dated: December 4, 2023 24 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28