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 granted a request to keep sensitive financial and privileged materials sealed.
Whinstone US, Inc. and non-party Riot Platforms, Inc., whose confidential financial information was protected from public disclosure; GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet Group, Inc., whose opposition and exhibits remained partly sealed or redacted; and members of the public seeking access to those materials.
What happened
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. concerned whether certain court filings and exhibits should remain sealed or redacted. Whinstone and non-party Riot Platforms, Inc. said the materials contained confidential financial information and information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.
The materials included financial spreadsheets, an internal presentation, and an excerpt from a deposition about Whinstone’s financial modeling. The request also covered redactions in GMO’s opposition that referred to the confidential or allegedly privileged materials.
Judge Cronan granted the request. He ruled that the privacy interest in sensitive business information outweighed the value of public disclosure and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Whinstone and non-party Riot Platforms, Inc. asked the Court to keep certain exhibits and an unredacted version of GMO’s opposition under seal. The request concerned materials filed in connection with a dispute over whether documents prepared while Whinstone was considering terminating its contract with GMO were protected by privilege.
The materials included four exhibits: spreadsheets containing Riot’s cash-flow, power-use, cost, profit-and-loss, historical, and forecast information; an excerpt from Whinstone’s deposition about internal financial modeling; and an internal presentation describing Riot’s income and expenditures. The request also concerned references in GMO’s opposition to materials that Whinstone claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Those doctrines can protect certain confidential communications with lawyers and materials prepared for litigation.
Court’s Analysis
The Court applied the standard governing sealed court records. That standard recognizes a public right to access documents used in the judicial process, but permits sealing when countervailing interests outweigh that right. The Court found that the materials contained sensitive, non-public business and financial information. It also considered the privacy interests of Riot, which was not a party to the case.
Ruling
The request was granted. Judge Cronan found that the privacy interest in sensitive business information outweighed the value of public disclosure and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect those interests. The order therefore allowed the identified exhibits and redacted portions to remain sealed or redacted as requested. The order did not decide the underlying contract or privilege dispute on its merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.