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 reconsideration of an order refusing leave to seek an itemized privilege log.
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc., GMO Internet, Inc., and Whinstone US, Corporation.
What happened
In GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Corporation, GMO asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to let GMO seek an itemized list of documents Whinstone withheld as privileged.
GMO argued that the itemized list was needed to challenge Whinstone’s claims of privilege. The court said GMO had already adequately challenged several documents using Whinstone’s categorical log, and that the court’s later ruling partly in GMO’s favor further reduced the need for an itemized log.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the motion for reconsideration. She found that GMO had not shown that the court overlooked controlling information, made a clear error, or caused a serious injustice.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet, Inc., referred to together as “GMO,” moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of an earlier order. That order denied GMO’s request for permission to file a motion to compel Whinstone US, Corporation to produce an itemized privilege log—a document-by-document list explaining the basis for withholding documents as protected by attorney-client privilege or another privilege.
Arguments and Analysis
GMO argued that it needed an itemized privilege log to support its challenges to Whinstone’s privilege assertions. The court rejected that argument again. It explained that, before, during, and after a May 22, 2025 conference, it had considered GMO’s then-presented arguments and determined that seeking an itemized log was inappropriate while a broader motion to compel Whinstone’s production of allegedly privileged material was pending.
The court also stated that GMO had adequately challenged a number of Whinstone’s documents primarily by using Whinstone’s categorical log. The court later decided the broader motion to compel partly in GMO’s favor and ordered Whinstone to review again, and produce, documents withheld as privileged that fell within that ruling. The court said those developments further undermined GMO’s asserted need for an itemized log. It also stated that GMO’s newly cited authorities did not show that the earlier decision had overlooked controlling law or information, and that the other merits arguments raised in the reconsideration motion were unpersuasive.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the motion for reconsideration at ECF No. 389. The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration, which generally requires an overlooked controlling matter, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent a serious injustice. The ruling addressed only whether the earlier order should be reconsidered; it did not itself decide the underlying privilege disputes.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.