Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2022

Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-01106
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC, Judge Schofield granted Google’s sealing motion, limiting access to two filings containing confidential business and private information.

Who this affects

Google and Kewazinga were affected by the sealing order, as were their listed attorneys and members of the public whose access to Docket Nos. 172 and 180 was restricted.

What happened

In Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC, Google asked the court to seal and redact parts of two letters related to Kewazinga’s pre-motion letter and Google’s response. The materials included confidential business information, third-party information, and personally identifying information.

Google argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm, particularly because the materials described its financial, operational, and technical information, including details about Google Street View. The court’s order granted the sealing request.

Judge Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to keep Docket Nos. 172 and 180 under seal, limit access to the parties and attorneys listed in the appendix, and close the motions at Docket Nos. 172, 175, and 178.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01106
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Feb. 28, 2022

Background

Google requested permission to redact portions of its response to Kewazinga’s pre-motion letter and Kewazinga’s pre-motion letter, with unredacted versions filed under seal. The request concerned Docket Nos. 172 and 180. Google identified the material as including highly confidential business information, third-party confidential information, personally identifying information, and information designated as confidential under the case’s protective order.

The requested redactions covered references to Google’s search revenue, application-programming-interface revenue, user metrics, user fulfillment, and Google Street View’s value. Google also sought to protect confidential financial, operational, and technical information about its internal systems and Google Street View. The request stated that disclosure could create competitive harm by giving competitors or potential business counterparties access to sensitive information.

Legal standard

The court’s order applied the framework for sealing judicial documents. Judicial documents are court filings connected to the exercise of judicial power and generally carry a presumption of public access. That presumption is weighed against countervailing interests, including privacy concerns and the risk that disclosure of confidential commercial information would cause competitive harm.

Ruling

The motion to seal was granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain Docket Nos. 172 and 180 under seal, with access limited to the parties listed in the appendix at Docket No. 178. The Clerk was also directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 172, 175, and 178. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not issue a ruling on the underlying dispute between Kewazinga and Google in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.