GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In GMO Gamecenter v. Whinstone, Judge Cronan ordered a response and adjourned GMO’s opposition deadline while a discovery motion remained pending.
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc., GMO Internet Group, Inc., and Whinstone US, Inc.; the order sets Whinstone’s response deadline and changes the timing of GMO’s opposition.
What happened
In GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc., GMO asked the court to require Whinstone to give it an unredacted copy of a brief about a discovery dispute. GMO said the brief’s redactions prevented it from responding fully.
GMO argued that Whinstone had not followed the court’s procedures for sealing documents and that withholding the brief from GMO conflicted with the rule requiring a party claiming privilege to describe withheld materials well enough for the opposing party to assess the claim. The opinion does not state that the court decided whether the redactions were proper or whether GMO was entitled to the unredacted brief.
Judge Cronan ordered Whinstone to file a response by July 22, 2025. He also adjourned GMO’s deadline to oppose Whinstone’s objection until seven days after the court resolves the motion to compel.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- July 18, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet Group, Inc., together called “GMO” in the letter, asked the court to order defendant Whinstone US, Inc. to provide an unredacted version of Whinstone’s brief objecting to Magistrate Judge Parker’s Discovery Order. Whinstone had filed a heavily redacted version of that brief and asked permission to redact material quoting or referring to information it described as protected. GMO said the redactions kept the brief from GMO as well as from the public and caused the redacted material to be submitted to the court for private review.
GMO requested access to the unredacted brief on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis, meaning that the material would be available to the lawyers rather than publicly disclosed. GMO argued that Whinstone had not met and conferred with GMO before seeking the redactions, had not shown that the legal standards for sealing were satisfied, and had not cited controlling authority addressing the proposed redactions. GMO also relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), which requires a party withholding discoverable information based on privilege or trial-preparation protection to describe the withheld material in a way that allows the other parties to assess the claim without revealing protected information.
What the Court Ordered
The court’s July 18, 2025 order did not decide GMO’s request for an unredacted brief, the validity of Whinstone’s redactions, or the underlying objection to the Discovery Order. Instead, the court directed Whinstone to file a letter responding to GMO’s arguments no later than July 22, 2025. Judge John P. Cronan also adjourned GMO’s deadline to submit its opposition to Whinstone’s objection at Docket 432 until seven days after the court resolves the motion to compel. The opinion states that Whinstone’s request for a stay of the Discovery Order was pending before Judge Parker, but this order does not resolve that request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.