Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-01106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kewazinga v. Google, Judge Schofield granted motions to redact limited confidential business and legal information from pretrial filings.
Kewazinga Corp. and Google LLC may keep the specifically approved information redacted from the identified pretrial filings; the ruling also limits public access to those portions of the documents.
What happened
In Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC, the parties asked the Southern District of New York to redact parts of pretrial filings, including exhibit lists, the proposed pretrial order, and letters about damages and evidence.
The court said these were judicial documents normally available to the public, but found that the proposed redactions covered specific confidential business and legal strategies. The limited redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent competitive harm, which outweighed the public’s interest in access.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the sealing motions at Docket Nos. 534, 545, 548, 571, 588, 616, and 633.
The detailed version
- Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01106
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 20, 2025
Background
The parties jointly moved to seal or redact portions of documents filed for their pretrial proceedings. The requested redactions covered portions of proposed and revised exhibit lists, the joint proposed pretrial order, an exhibit to Google’s brief concerning prosecution history estoppel, and letters from Kewazinga concerning damages and objections to certain proposed exhibits.
Legal standard
The court applied a three-step test for sealing documents. First, it asked whether the documents were judicial documents—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, it considered how much weight to give the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests, including privacy and the protection of confidential commercial information. A party seeking to seal information must show that a higher value overcomes public access, supported by specific findings, and that sealing is narrowly tailored.
Application and ruling
The court determined that all of the documents were judicial documents because they concerned matters submitted to the court in connection with trial evidence and legal theories. The court recognized that the parties sought only limited redactions and that the redacted material concerned confidential business and legal strategies. Based on its review, the court found that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm and that this interest outweighed the presumption of public access. Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the sealing motions at Docket Nos. 534, 545, 548, 571, 588, 616, and 633 were granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.