Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-01106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kewazinga v. Google, Judge Schofield granted Google’s sealing motion in substantial part, with specified redactions removed and additional sealing procedures ordered.
Kewazinga Corp., Google LLC, the parties’ attorneys and other individuals listed in the appendix who were permitted access to the sealed documents, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC concerned Google’s request to keep parts of its summary-judgment papers, declarations, and exhibits from public view. Kewazinga supported the request.
The court granted Google’s motion to seal in substantial part, but rejected several proposed redactions based on Kewazinga’s confidentiality designation. Google had to refile the affected documents with those changes by July 24, 2020. The unredacted documents would remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and people listed in an appendix.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield said sealing was necessary to protect confidential business information, legal strategies, third-party business information, and personal information. She also ordered the parties to combine later requests to seal summary-judgment papers into a joint letter motion filed by September 2, 2020, at the latest.
The detailed version
- Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01106
- Lorna Schofield
- July 22, 2020
Background
Google filed a letter motion seeking to seal portions of its memorandum supporting its motion for summary judgment, along with supporting declarations and exhibits. Kewazinga filed a letter supporting Google’s request.
Ruling
The court granted Google’s motion to seal in substantial part. The court did not approve the redactions proposed solely because of Kewazinga’s confidentiality designation when Kewazinga had not asked in its supporting letter that the information remain sealed. The exceptions were:
- Redactions to Exhibit 2 other than redactions of personal information. - Redactions to Exhibit 4 other than redactions of personal information. - Redactions to Paragraph 48 of the Statement of Facts. - The proposed redaction on page 20 of the memorandum stating that “Mr. Weber used his personal email account for Kewazinga business—an account Kewazinga no longer has access to.” - Redactions to paragraphs 15 through 17 of the Filip declaration.
Google was ordered to refile the affected documents with the required modifications by July 24, 2020. The unredacted versions were to remain sealed, and access was limited to the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix.
Reasoning and Further Filing Procedures
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that access is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing interests. The court found that sealing or redacting the identified documents was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information and legal strategies, third-party confidential business information, and personal information.
The court also ordered the parties to consolidate future motions to seal portions of the summary-judgment briefing. The parties were to file the papers under seal and publicly with proposed redactions under the existing briefing schedule, without filing separate sealing motions at those times. Within one week after Kewazinga filed its reply supporting its cross-motion for summary judgment, and no later than September 2, 2020, the parties were required to file a joint letter motion addressing sealing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.