United States Magistrate Judge Figueredo recently denied Plaintiff EscapeX IP, LLC’s (“EscapeX”) efforts to seal its objections to billing records Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) had originally filed under seal in connection with its motion for sanctions. Judge Figueredo also ordered those previously sealed billing records to be unsealed. EscapeX IP, LLC, v. Google LLC, No. 23-CV-10839 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2025).
The Court found that the common law and the First Amendment accord a presumption of public access to judicial documents and, to overcome that presumption, the Court must make “specific on the record findings” that sealing: (1) is necessary to “preserve higher values,” and (2) “is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. at *1 (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, at 120–24 (2d Cir. 2006)).
As a threshold matter, the Court held that Google’s billing records were judicial documents because they were relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. Id. (citing Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)). Although Google argued that the redacted records should be sealed because they contained “information that is confidential to Google and [its counsel], including work performed by attorneys at [the] firm on Google’s behalf and confidential financial arrangements between [the] firm and Google,” the Court found that to be insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access over judicial documents. Id. at *2.
Additionally, because Google’s billing records had already been redacted to remove any privileged information, the Court ordered them to be unsealed and denied EscapeX’s motion to seal its objections to those billing records. Id. at *2.
The case is EscapeX IP, LLC, v. Google LLC, No. 23-CV-10839 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2025).
