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 USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc., Judge Cronan granted Riot Platforms’ request to redact privileged material and seal two exhibits.
Non-party Riot Platforms, Inc., the parties involved in the case, and public access to the specified filings and exhibits.
What happened
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet Group, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. involved a request by non-party Riot Platforms, Inc. to restrict public access to certain filings.
Riot said its opposition to the plaintiffs’ objection to a discovery order contained information protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. It asked to redact related portions of the opposition and file public-docket slip sheets instead of two protected exhibits.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request and found that this limited sealing was warranted under the legal standard stated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- July 14, 2025
Background
Non-party Riot Platforms, Inc. asked the court for permission to file a redacted version of its opposition to the plaintiffs’ objection to Magistrate Judge Parker’s discovery order. Riot also sought permission to file slip sheets on the public docket for two exhibits to a supporting declaration.
Request
Riot stated that the opposition concerned documents protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Attorney-client privilege protects certain confidential communications between a lawyer and client; the work-product doctrine protects certain materials prepared for litigation. Riot asked to redact portions of the opposition that quoted or referred to the protected information. It also said it would provide unredacted materials and the exhibits to the court for private review.
Ruling
The court granted the request. Judge John P. Cronan found that the limited sealing was warranted under the standard discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.