GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In GMO Gamecenter v. Whinstone, Judge Cronan granted Whinstone’s request to publicly file a redacted objection protecting privileged information.
Whinstone’s public filing and the public’s access to the objection; the order permits limited redactions of protected information.
What happened
In GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet Group, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc., Whinstone asked permission to file a redacted version of its objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery order. The objection referred to documents Whinstone said were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
Whinstone requested redactions for parts of the objection that quoted or referred to that protected information. It also said it would provide the Court with an unredacted version and the documents for private review.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request and found that this limited sealing was warranted under the cited precedent. The order allowed Whinstone to file the redacted objection publicly.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- July 11, 2025
Background
Whinstone US, Inc. asked the Court for permission to file a redacted version of its objection to Magistrate Judge Parker’s discovery order. Whinstone said the objection concerned documents protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, which protect certain attorney-client communications and materials prepared for litigation.
Request
Whinstone sought to redact portions of the objection that quoted or referred to the protected information. It stated that it would email the Court an unredacted version of the objection and the documents at issue for private review by the Court.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request. The Court found that the limited sealing was warranted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). The order therefore permitted Whinstone to file the redacted objection on the public docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.