Belyea v. GreenSky, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Belyea v. GreenSky, Judge Corley granted GreenSky’s second amended motion to seal specified filings and ordered refiling by September 5, 2025.
GreenSky and the other parties to the case, whose specified briefs, documents, and exhibits were subject to sealing or re-filing requirements.
What happened
In Belyea v. GreenSky, Inc., GreenSky asked to seal information connected to the parties’ class-certification, expert-evidence, and summary-judgment filings. Earlier sealing requests had been denied or partly granted, and the court extended GreenSky’s filing deadlines before receiving this unopposed motion.
The court found that the requested redactions were narrow and generally covered confidential business information, including business strategies and the identities of GreenSky’s banking partners. It approved sealing specified portions of six briefs, two exhibits, and a deposition transcript.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted GreenSky’s second amended sealing motion. She ordered the parties to re-file the affected materials consistently with the order by September 5, 2025, and to re-file three identified briefs without redactions.
The detailed version
- Belyea v. GreenSky, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-01693
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 21, 2025
Background
The parties filed sealing motions concerning Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, GreenSky’s motion addressing expert evidence, and GreenSky’s motion for summary judgment. The court had denied earlier sealing motions without prejudice in December 2024, meaning they could be filed again. In January 2025, the court granted GreenSky’s amended sealing motions in part and denied them in part, then set deadlines for renewed motions. After additional extensions and a further deadline set at a case-management conference, GreenSky filed the second amended sealing motion on June 6, 2025. The motion was unopposed.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records are generally open to the public. Because the materials concerned class certification, expert evidence, and summary judgment, the party seeking secrecy had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court stated that compelling reasons can include confidential business information that could harm a company’s competitive position, confidential contract terms, financial terms, and business strategies. Embarrassment, possible incrimination, or the possibility of further litigation alone is not enough.
Ruling
The court granted GreenSky’s requests to seal specified language in six briefs. It found the requests narrowly tailored and said the language generally referred to exhibits the court had previously determined contained confidential business information.
The court also granted GreenSky’s request to seal specified portions of two exhibits, which described confidential business strategies. It further granted the request to seal specified portions of a GreenSky corporate deposition transcript from another case, finding that the requested material was narrowly identified and included information such as the identities of GreenSky’s banking partners.
Disposition
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted GreenSky’s second amended sealing motion. The parties were ordered to re-file briefs, documents, and exhibits consistent with this order and the earlier sealing order by September 5, 2025. Because the parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ opposition to the expert-evidence motion, GreenSky’s reply on that motion, and Plaintiffs’ reply supporting class certification could be filed without redactions, those briefs were ordered to be re-filed without redactions by the same date. The order disposed of Docket No. 325.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.