EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-10839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In EscapeX IP v. Google, Judge Figueredo denied sealing, unsealed billing records, and required public filing because privilege redactions did not justify secrecy.
EscapeX IP, LLC and Google LLC, particularly the parties’ filings concerning Google’s billing records and attorney’s-fee request.
What happened
EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC concerns Google’s request to keep redacted billing records sealed. The records relate to a pending request for attorney’s fees after the court granted Google’s sanctions motion. EscapeX also asked to keep its objections sealed because they referred to Google’s billing records.
The court explained that documents used in deciding court matters generally are presumed open to the public. Google argued that the records contained confidential information about work performed by its lawyers and financial arrangements between Google and the law firm. The court found that explanation insufficient, particularly because the records had already been redacted to remove privileged information.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered the previously sealed records unsealed and directed that the redacted billing records be filed publicly. She denied EscapeX’s motion to seal its second opposition brief and directed the Clerk to remove the viewing restrictions on the records.
The detailed version
- EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10839
- Vernon Broderick
- June 9, 2025
Background
After a May 7, 2025 conference, Google submitted revised billing records with fewer redactions, limited to information it said was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Google moved to seal those records. EscapeX asked to file its objections under seal because they referred to Google’s billing records.
The billing records concerned a pending motion for attorney’s fees after the court granted Google’s motion for sanctions. The court therefore treated the records as judicial documents—filed materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in resolving the fee request.
Legal standard
The court applied the common-law and First Amendment presumption of public access to judicial documents. To overcome that presumption, the party seeking sealing must provide specific findings showing that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Google argued that the records contained confidential information belonging to Google and its counsel, including descriptions of attorneys’ work and confidential financial arrangements between the law firm and Google. The court found that this explanation did not overcome the presumption of access. It also noted that the records had already been redacted to remove privileged information.
Ruling
The court held that the redacted billing records could not be sealed in their entirety and had to be filed on the public docket. It ordered the previously sealed documents at ECF Nos. 74 and 79 unsealed. It denied EscapeX’s motion at ECF No. 84 to seal its second opposition brief at ECF No. 81. The Clerk was directed to remove the viewing restrictions on ECF Nos. 74 and 79 and terminate the motion at ECF No. 84.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.