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

Background

Better Holdco, Inc. asked for permission to file certain exhibits, portions of briefs, and a statement of additional facts under seal or with redactions. The request concerned materials submitted in opposition to Beeline Loans, Inc.’s motions to exclude Better’s expert Stephen Holzen and for summary judgment.

Better argued that the materials included confidential business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. The categories described included financial information from Better’s operating model; operating costs and salary information; terms of agreements with marketing partners; marketing strategies and costs; profits, revenue, loan-originations and closings figures; performance metrics; business practices concerning loan files and interest-rate calculations; lead-pricing strategies; competition analyses; and the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. Better also requested redaction of its expert’s home address.

Some requested materials had previously been sealed or redacted by the court. Other materials had been designated confidential by Beeline under an amended protective order. Better stated that Beeline had withdrawn some of its confidentiality designations but maintained the designations for the exhibits identified in the court’s directive.

Court’s Action

The court did not rule in this order on whether Better’s requested sealing or redactions should be allowed. Instead, under the court’s individual rules, it ordered Beeline to file, by July 18, a letter explaining the need to file Exhibits 35–38, 51, 57, 59, 76, 88, 89, and 108 to the Hirsch Declaration under seal or in redacted form.

The order therefore addressed the procedure for evaluating the confidentiality request, not the parties’ underlying dispute or Beeline’s pending motions. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.