Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc.

Background

The order addressed Beeline Loans, Inc.’s request to file certain exhibits under seal or in redacted form in connection with its motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude Better Holdco, Inc.’s damages expert. Better submitted a letter explaining which documents should remain sealed or redacted.

Better withdrew its confidentiality designations for Exhibits B, F, H, and I to the declaration supporting Beeline’s summary-judgment motion and agreed that those documents could be filed publicly. Better continued to request protection for Exhibits P, W, X, and Y, along with corresponding exhibits filed with Beeline’s motion to exclude the expert.

Arguments About Sealing

Better argued that Exhibits W, X, and Y were expert reports containing or referring to confidential information from Better’s operating model, confidential agreements with five marketing partners, and Better’s marketing strategies and costs. Better also argued that Exhibit P was a confidential settlement agreement between Better and non-party Jack Abramowitz. According to Better, that agreement included information about Abramowitz’s equity holdings in Better and restrictions on his future employment, and it was not relevant to the claims and defenses in the case.

The letter recognized that the documents were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. Better argued that commercially sensitive information and the privacy interests of a non-party outweighed that presumption for the documents it sought to protect. The letter also stated that the court had previously approved sealing or redacting Exhibits W, X, and Y.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan granted Beeline’s request to file Exhibits P and W to the summary-judgment declaration, and corresponding Exhibit C to the declaration supporting the motion to exclude Better’s expert, under seal.

The court also granted Beeline’s request to file Exhibits X and Y to the summary-judgment declaration, and corresponding Exhibit E to the expert-exclusion declaration, with redactions.

Because Better withdrew its confidentiality designations for Exhibits B, F, H, and I, the court denied Beeline’s request to file those documents under seal and directed Beeline to re-file them publicly on the docket. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the letter motion at Docket 208. The order did not decide Beeline’s underlying summary-judgment motion or motion to exclude the expert.