Opinion
21-cv-02436-BLF
08-09-2023
SKILLZ PLATFORM INC., Plaintiff, v. AVIAGAMES INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED
[RE: ECF NOS. 153, 155]
Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed and Defendant's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF Nos. 153 (“Pl. Mot.”), 155 (“Def. Mot.”). Plaintiff's motion relates to its Amended Complaint (“AC”). See Pl. Mot. Defendant's motion relates to its Amended Answer. See Def. Mot. Defendant filed a statement in support of Plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 158 (“Def. Statement”). Plaintiff filed a statement in support of Defendant's motion. ECF No. 160 (“Pl. Statement”). The Court has considered the motions and supporting statements. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Defendant's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed is GRANTED.
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). Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
II. DISCUSSION
Because the motion to seal pertains to the pleadings, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, No. 16-cv-02763-BLF, 2017 WL 3605226, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to complaint).
A. Plaintiff's Motion Re: Amended Complaint
Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed in connection with its AC. See Pl. Mot. Plaintiff identifies the potentially sealable material to include highlighted portions of the AC, as well as the entirety of four exhibits to the AC. Id. at 1. Plaintiff provides that this information was designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Defendant. Declaration of Lance L. Yang, ECF No. 153-1 (“Yang Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-7.
Defendant filed a statement in support of the sealing. See Def. Statement. Defendant asserts that the redacted portions of the AC and the identified exhibits “contain aspects of [its] business practices and strategy” and that “publication of the sealed information would put [Defendant] at a disadvantage compared to its competitors.” Id. ¶ 3. Defendant also provides that the request is narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 4.
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 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing”).
The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
Document
Portions to Seal
Ruling
153-3
Skillz's Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
Highlighted portions at ¶¶ 72, 74-80
GRANTED, as containing confidential business information the release of which would cause competitive harm.
153-4
Exhibit 1 to Skillz's Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
Entire Document
DENIED, as not narrowly tailored.
153-5
Exhibit 2 to Skillz's Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
Entire Document
GRANTED, as containing confidential business information the release of which would cause competitive harm.
153-6
Exhibit 3 to Skillz's Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
Entire Document
GRANTED, as containing confidential business information the release of which would cause competitive harm.
153-7
Exhibit 4 to Skillz's Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
Entire Document
DENIED, as not narrowly tailored.
The Court concludes that Exhibits 1 and 4 should not be sealed in their entirety. The denial as to these documents is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a new motion that includes redactions that are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
B. Defendant's Motion Re: Amended Answer
Defendant filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed in connection with its Amended Answer. See Def. Mot. Defendant identifies the potentially sealable material to include highlighted portions of the Amended Answer. Id. at 1. Defendant provides that this information was designated as Highly Confidential by Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff filed a statement in support of the sealing. See Pl. Statement. Plaintiff asserts that the redacted portions of the Amended Answer contain “aspects of [its] business practices and strategy” and “publication of the sealed information in the Amended Answer would put [it] at a disadvantage compared to its competitors.” Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff also provides that the requested sealing is narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 7.
Again, the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party's competitive standing. See Jam Cellars, Inc., 2020 WL 5576346, at *2; Qualcomm, Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3; In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed.Appx. at 569.
The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
Document
Portions to Seal
Ruling
155-1
AviaGame's Amended Answer
Highlighted portions at ¶¶ 90-91, 93-95
GRANTED, as containing confidential business information the release of which would cause competitive harm.
155-1
AviaGame's Amended Answer
Highlighted portions at ¶¶ 98, 110, 112, 118-19
GRANTED, as containing confidential business information the release of which would cause competitive harm.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling a new motion with redacted versions of Exhibits 1 and 4 within 21 days. Defendant's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed is GRANTED.