GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-09321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GateGuard v. Amazon, Judge Figueredo granted GateGuard’s request to file specified documents under seal.
GateGuard, Inc., Amazon.com Inc., and the other defendants whose designated confidential information was discussed in the requested filings.
What happened
In GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., GateGuard asked to file its reply opposing defendants’ position on a proposed second amended complaint, along with a declaration, under seal. The filing concerned documents defendants had marked confidential.
GateGuard argued that the documents contained confidential business information whose public disclosure could harm defendants’ commercial interests or give competitors an advantage. It requested that redacted versions be filed publicly.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion and permitted the documents to be filed under seal. The endorsement stated that GateGuard had made the required showing under the applicable sealing standard and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09321
- John Koeltl
- June 20, 2024
Background
GateGuard asked for permission to file under seal its reply to defendants’ opposition to GateGuard’s motion for permission to file a second amended complaint, together with an accompanying declaration. GateGuard’s letter stated that the documents referred to materials defendants had designated as confidential.
GateGuard argued that sealing was justified because disclosure could harm defendants’ commercial interests or give competitors an unearned advantage. It requested that the documents initially be filed under seal, with redacted versions placed on the public docket. The letter acknowledged the public’s qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial documents but relied on the protection of sensitive, competitive, or proprietary business information as a basis for sealing.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion. The endorsement stated that GateGuard had made the required showing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 156. The opinion text does not specify which portions of the documents were sealed or whether any later order would require unsealing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.