GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
GMO Gamecenter v. Whinstone: Judge Parker denied Whinstone’s request to stay document production while its objection to a discovery order was pending.
Whinstone must proceed with production of the disputed documents, subject to applicable confidentiality protections; GMO may receive the documents. The order also affects the parties’ pending objection to the earlier discovery order.
What happened
In GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc., Whinstone asked the court to pause an order requiring it to produce documents about ending its contract with GMO. Whinstone said the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product rule.
Whinstone argued that producing the documents before its objection was decided could cause permanent harm because GMO would see its legal analysis and could not unsee it. Whinstone also argued that the objection was likely to succeed and that a pause would not harm GMO. The opinion states that Whinstone filed the objection on July 10.
The court denied the request for a stay, finding it untimely and concluding that Whinstone had not shown a likelihood of success on its objection. The court allowed the documents to be produced with appropriate confidentiality protections and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The order was issued by Judge Katharine H. Parker.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- July 18, 2025
Background
A prior discovery order required Whinstone to produce documents concerning the termination of its contract with GMO Internet Group, Inc. and GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. by July 10, 2025. Whinstone sought a stay—an order temporarily pausing that requirement—while its objection to the discovery order was pending. The requested documents included materials that Whinstone claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, which generally protects certain materials prepared because of anticipated or ongoing litigation.
Whinstone argued that the documents were prepared at the direction of counsel to evaluate how terminating the contract could affect the lawsuit. It contended that the documents remained protected even though they included financial or business analysis, because the analysis was prepared because of the litigation and reflected counsel’s legal advice and strategic thinking. Whinstone also argued that producing the documents would cause irreparable harm because GMO could view them and could not unsee them even if the documents were later returned or “clawed back.”
Whinstone further argued that the stay factors favored it: that its objection was likely to succeed, that production would cause irreparable harm, that GMO would not be harmed by a pause, and that the public interest favored protecting litigation work product. Whinstone also argued that its failure to request the stay at the same time as its objection should not require production before the objection was resolved.
Court’s Ruling
After reviewing the parties’ letters, including Electronic Court Filing Nos. 449 and 455, the court denied the requested stay. The court stated that the request was untimely and that Whinstone had not shown a likelihood of success on its objection. The court did not state in this order that it finally resolved the underlying privilege or work-product objection.
The court stated that the documents could be produced with an applicable degree of confidentiality to guard against misuse. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 443. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.