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 v. Whinstone, Judge Cronan granted Whinstone’s request to seal and submit an unredacted reply for private review.
Whinstone US, Inc., the plaintiffs, and public access to Whinstone’s reply and the materials discussed in it.
What happened
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet Group, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. concerned Whinstone’s request about its reply supporting an objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery order. Whinstone said the reply quoted or described documents protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
Whinstone asked to file a redacted reply publicly, file a less-redacted copy under seal for the plaintiffs, and provide a fully unredacted copy to the court for private review. The sealed copy would show portions concerning CAT 20, 21, 49, 51, and 52, while references to CAT 16 would remain redacted.
The court granted the request and found that this limited sealing was justified under the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Judge John P. Cronan entered the order on August 19, 2025.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Whinstone US, Inc. asked the court for permission to file a redacted version of its reply supporting an objection to Magistrate Judge Parker’s June 26, 2025 discovery order. Whinstone said the reply quoted and described documents that it maintained were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
Requested Filing Procedure
Whinstone requested permission to file the redacted reply on the public docket, file a copy under seal with fewer redactions, and send the fully unredacted reply to the court by email for in camera review, meaning private review by the judge. Whinstone represented that the sealed copy would allow the plaintiffs to see the portions concerning CAT 20, 21, 49, 51, and 52, while references to CAT 16 would remain redacted. The letter also stated that the court had previously approved the same approach for Whinstone’s opening brief.
Ruling
The court granted the request. It found that the limited sealing was warranted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). The order did not decide whether the materials were actually protected by privilege or the work-product doctrine, and it did not resolve the underlying discovery dispute. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order on August 19, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.