GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-09321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GateGuard v. Amazon, Judge Figueredo granted GateGuard permission to file its response under seal with a redacted public version.
GateGuard, Inc., Amazon.com Inc., and the public’s access to the specified court filing.
What happened
GateGuard, Inc. asked to file under seal its response to Amazon’s request to compel further answers to Interrogatories 8–10 in GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. GateGuard said the response contained core trade-secret information.
GateGuard requested that the sealed filing be accompanied by a redacted version on the public docket. The request relied on the need to protect confidential and proprietary business information.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the application on February 26, 2024, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 132.
The detailed version
- GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09321
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
GateGuard, Inc. asked for permission to file under seal its response to Amazon’s letter motion seeking an order compelling further disclosure concerning Amazon’s Interrogatories 8–10. GateGuard stated that its responses were marked “Highly Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only” because they disclosed core elements of GateGuard’s trade secrets. GateGuard argued that sealing was necessary to protect confidential intellectual-property and business information. It also stated that the defendants had sought to seal their filing of GateGuard’s alleged trade secrets.
Request
GateGuard requested permission to submit the response under seal and to place a redacted version on the public docket. The letter cited the general presumption of public access to judicial documents and the exception for sensitive, competitive, proprietary, or trade-secret information.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the application. The opinion does not state additional findings explaining the ruling. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 132.
Effect
The ruling permitted GateGuard to file the specified response under seal while making a redacted version publicly available. It concerned the handling of a court filing and did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or Amazon’s motion to compel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.