GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.

WOCDeCVOISe Chehab ate &Plimpton ae ae □ Scoot +1212 909 6000 August 18, 2025 Via ECF The Honorable John P. Cronan U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Pearl Street, Room 1320 New York, NY 10007 Re: © GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet Group, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-5974 (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Cronan: We write on behalf of Whinstone US, Inc. (““Whinstone’’) to request permission to file (7) a redacted copy of Whinstone’s reply in support of its Objection to Magistrate Judge Parker’s June 26, 2025 Discovery Order (the “Reply”) on the public docket, a copy of same under seal, removing redactions from information that Whinstone maintains is privileged, but that was produced to Plaintiffs pursuant to Judge Parker’s order, and (iii) to submit to the Court by email the fully unredacted copy for in camera review. The Reply quotes from and describes documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. In circumstances such as these, courts routinely permit parties to submit materials for in camera review to shield the protected information from disclosure to their adversary and the public. See, e.g., Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co., 2013 WL 1609250 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2013) (“Making an in camera submission of materials that counsel contends are privileged is a practice both long-standing and routine in cases involving claims of privilege.”) (quoting /n re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 184 (2d Cir. 2007)). The Court previously endorsed this approach with respect to Whinstone’s opening brief. (See ECF No. 467.)

As Whinstone did with the opening brief, Whinstone will provide Plaintiffs a lesser- redacted copy of the Reply via its filing under seal such that they can view the portions pertaining to CAT 20, 21, 49, 51 and 52. References to CAT 16 will remain redacted.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Brandon Fetzer _ Brandon Fetzer [email protected] The request is granted. The Court finds this limited sealing warranted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).

SO ORDERED Vhs 0D August 19, 2025 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge