Opinion
21-cv-02436-BLF
09-18-2023
SKILLZ PLATFORM INC., Plaintiff, v. AVIAGAMES INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED
[RE: ECF NO. 241]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.'s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed in connection with Skillz's Motion for Sanctions. ECF No. 241. The Court has considered the motion, and its ruling is laid out below.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“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 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.
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 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 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.” 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).
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). A designating party's failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
II. DISCUSSION
Courts in this district apply the “good cause” standard when considering motions to seal in connection with motions for Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK PSG, 2013 WL 412864, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (applying the “good cause” standard to motions to file under seal in connection with motions for Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions); Howell v. Taicoa Corp., No. CV 12-3785-WHO, 2013 WL 5718527, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) (applying the “good cause” standard to motions to file under seal in connection with a motion for sanctions).
On September 2, 2023, Skillz filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed identifying its motion to for sanctions, ECF No. 242, and an exhibit attached to that motion as containing information that AviaGames has designated as highly confidential. ECF No. 207. As of the date of this Order, AviaGames has not filed a statement and/or declaration in support of this motion under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). See, e.g., Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 17-CV-04405-HSG, 2022 WL 1131725, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (denying motions to seal because the designating party failed to comply with Civ. L.R. 79- 5(f)(3)).
The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
Document
Portions to Seal
Ruling
241-2
Skillz Rule 37 Motion For Sanctions For Failure to Comply With A Court Order
Highlighted Portions
DENIED, as failing to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).
241-3
Ex. D to Decl. of M. Wood, Transcript of Deposition of Peng Zhang (Excerpts)
Entire Document
DENIED, as failing to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).
These denials based on failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3) are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to AviaGames filing a statement and/or declaration in support of sealing these documents within 10 days of the date of this Order. The Court notes that redactions must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc.'s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed Re: Motion to for Sanctions (ECF No. 241) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AviaGames may file a statement in support of sealing the denied documents within 10 days of this Order.