Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 20, 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
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Kewazinga v. Google, Judge Schofield granted a motion to seal confidential business information and limited access to the parties.

Who this affects

Kewazinga Corp., Google LLC, the parties listed in the appendix at docket entry 223, and public access to docket entry 219.

What happened

Kewazinga Corp. asked to file a redacted opposition to Google LLC’s letter about proposed summary judgment, with an unredacted version under seal. The request concerned portions Google had designated as confidential.

The court found that the confidential business information was the type previously approved for redaction and that the redactions were narrowly tailored.

Judge Schofield granted the motion to seal. She directed the clerk to keep docket entry 219 under seal, limit access to the parties listed in an appendix, and close the motion at docket entry 217.

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
Sept. 20, 2022

Background

Kewazinga Corp. requested permission to file a redacted version of its opposition to Google LLC’s letter concerning proposed summary judgment. Kewazinga asked that an unredacted version be filed under seal. The requested redactions covered highlighted portions on pages 1 and 2 of the letter, and Google was identified as the party that designated the information as confidential.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to seal. It concluded that the confidential business information was the type previously approved for redaction and that the redactions were narrowly tailored. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entry 219 under seal, with access limited to the parties listed in the appendix at docket entry 223, and to close the motion at docket entry 217.

Effect

This order addressed access to and redaction of court filings. It did not decide the proposed summary-judgment issues described in the filing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.