Opinion
21-cv-02436-BLF (SVK)
09-27-2023
SKILLZ PLATFORM INC., Plaintiff, v. AVIAGAMES INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND DATA TABLES; ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE DEADLINE RE: DKT. NO. 266
SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge.
On August 23, 2023, the presiding District Judge issued an order reopening discovery on limited issues on an expedited schedule. Dkt. 224. On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff Skillz Platform Inc. filed a motion to compel Defendant AVIAGAMES Inc. to provide further interrogatory responses and data tables. Dkt. 266. The District Judge referred the motion to the undersigned, with instructions to comply with the undersigned's standing order for discovery dispute briefing. Dkt. 267, 271. In light of the accelerated schedule for additional discovery and the impending trial date, the undersigned allowed the Parties to submit separate statements regarding the discovery dispute and set the matter for an in-person hearing on September 26, 2023. Dkt. 275; see also Dkt. 278-280. The Court has reviewed the submissions, the relevant law and the litigation history in this action and set forth its orders and its reasoning on the record at the hearing. In summary, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendant must conduct a reasonable investigation and supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 26 to identify by name, title and description of involvement (1) all individuals who were involved in the development or implementation of AVIAGAMES' response to user inquiries or complaints about playing against bots
that limited customer awareness of AVIAGAMES' use of bots, and (2) all individuals who were involved in the development or implementation of a strategy that limited references to bots in AVIAGAMES' source code.
2. Defendant must supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 27 to (1) identify the location (by physical location and IP address) and owner of each server, computer or similar device that runs each portion of the described code for bots that use seeds, and (2) for all other bots (the non-seeded bots), provide excerpts of databases sufficient to show that during the damages period a null or not seeded value only is pulled from the database.
3. Defendant must conduct a reasonable investigation and supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 28 to identify whether, and if so where in AVIAGAMES' production of financial documents, revenues from bot matches is allocated or categorized, including the “ratio of profits made by guides.”
4. Plaintiff's request for the production of additional data tables is DENIED.
5. Defendant must serve the supplemental interrogatory responses ordered above by September 28, 2023.
6. All case deadlines, including the dates for the additional discovery ordered in Dkt. 224, remain in place. Any relief from such deadlines must be sought from the Presiding Judge, the Honorable Beth Freeman.
7. The Court admonished the Parties on the record as to their respective discovery conduct in light of the impending trial dates. Any further discovery disputes must be filed no later than October 3, 2023 and strictly comport with the undersigned's standing order, including the obligation for robust meet and confer efforts in person or by video conducted by counsel with authority to negotiate and compromise before filing of a joint statement.
8. By October 13, 2023, Defendant must file an omnibus sealing motion that encompasses all requests to seal associated with the present discovery dispute, including Dkt. 265, 278, and 279. The omnibus sealing motion must comply with
the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5. The omnibus proposed sealing order should also be submitted in Word format to SvKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov. The sealing motions at Dkt. 265, 278, and 279 are TERMINATED, and the Court will issue an order addressing the sealing issues after it receives the requested omnibus proposed order.
To streamline discussions at the hearing, the Court defined “Bots” broadly to include any house opponent other than a live person in real-time, including but not limited to “historical scores” and “historical playthroughs” as identified by AVIAGAMES in Appendix A to its brief at Dkt. 279-1. The Court noted on the record that by use of the term “Bots” as defined at the hearing, neither party was admitting or conceding what is or is not a “Bot” for purposes of the litigation.
SO ORDERED.