Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-01106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC, Judge Schofield granted motions to seal limited confidential business and legal-strategy information in Daubert-related filings.
Kewazinga Corp. and Google LLC received permission to redact specified confidential business and legal-strategy information from the identified filings; the order also limited public access to those portions of the filings.
What happened
Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC involved the parties’ requests to seal documents connected to Google’s motion to exclude portions of expert Michele Riley’s opinions and Kewazinga’s request to file a sur-reply. The court treated the filings as judicial documents subject to public-access rules.
The court said the documents involved non-dispositive motions, so the public-access presumption was lower but still substantial. It found that the proposed redactions were limited to specific confidential business and legal strategies and were narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the sealing motions at Dkt. Nos. 524 and 527 and directed the Clerk of Court to close them. The order noted that information sealed now might still be disclosed at trial if it is admissible.
The detailed version
- Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01106
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 21, 2024
Background
The parties moved to seal documents filed in connection with Google’s motion to exclude portions of the opinions of Kewazinga’s expert, Michele Riley. The documents were: (1) Google’s reply memorandum and exhibits supporting its motion to exclude portions of Riley’s opinions, and (2) Kewazinga’s letter motion seeking permission to file a brief reply to an argument in Google’s reply.
Legal standard
The court applied a three-step test for sealing documents. First, it asks whether the material is a judicial document—that is, whether it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. If so, the court determines the strength of the presumption that the public may access it. The court then weighs that presumption against competing interests, including privacy and the protection of sensitive commercial information.
The party seeking a seal must show that a higher value outweighs public access. The court also must make specific findings showing that sealing is necessary and narrowly tailored. Materials connected to non-dispositive motions, including motions that do not decide the parties’ substantive rights, receive a lower—but still substantial—presumption of public access.
Court’s analysis
The court found that all the documents at issue were judicial documents because they asked the court to exercise its judicial power. The court explained that Daubert motions may be important to resolving cases but are not themselves dispositive and do not determine the parties’ substantive rights.
The court also relied on its prior sealing orders in the case. It found that the proposed redactions concerned specific information about the parties’ confidential business and legal strategies, were limited to particular information within the filings, and were narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm. The court determined that this harm outweighed the presumption of public access.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the sealing motions at Dkt. Nos. 524 and 527. It directed the Clerk of Court to close those motions. The order added that sealing the information did not mean the same information could not be disclosed at trial if it is admissible, where the public interest in disclosure would be greater.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.