Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 10, 2024

GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:21-cv-09321
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In GateGuard v. Amazon, Judge Figueredo granted Amazon’s request to provisionally seal a filing and kept access restrictions until July 24, 2024.

Who this affects

GateGuard, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.; the order temporarily restricted public viewing of Amazon’s filing and related discovery materials.

What happened

In GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon asked to temporarily file under seal its opposition to GateGuard’s letter supporting a request to amend the complaint. Amazon said the filing discussed and attached discovery materials that GateGuard had marked confidential.

The court granted the provisional seal and directed the clerk to keep viewing restrictions on the filing at ECF No. 204 until July 24, 2024. The order did not impose a permanent seal.

Judge Valerie Figueredo also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 203.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09321
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
July 10, 2024

Background

Amazon submitted a letter-motion asking to provisionally file under seal its forthcoming opposition to GateGuard’s June 28, 2024 letter supporting GateGuard’s motion for leave to amend its complaint. Amazon stated that its filing discussed and attached discovery materials GateGuard had marked as confidential. Amazon also stated that it did not believe the materials needed to remain permanently under seal, but sought provisional sealing so GateGuard could identify materials it believed should be sealed.

Ruling

The court granted the provisional seal requested by Amazon. The clerk was directed to maintain the viewing restrictions on ECF No. 204 until July 24, 2024. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 203.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.