Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Better Holdco v. Beeline Loans, Judge Cronan directed filings concerning sealing a confidential expert report.
Better Holdco, Inc., Beeline Loans, Inc., and public access to Ronald Schnell’s expert report.
What happened
Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc. concerns Beeline’s request to file under seal an expert report submitted with its opposition to Better Holdco’s request to exclude Beeline’s proposed experts. Better Holdco had designated the report as confidential and for attorneys’ eyes only.
The court directed Better Holdco to file a letter explaining why the report needed to remain under seal. It also directed Beeline to file the unredacted report under seal through the court’s electronic filing system.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on July 14, 2022. The opinion text does not state that the court finally granted or denied sealing; it sets procedures for the sealing request.
The detailed version
- Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08686
- John Cronan
- July 15, 2022
Background
Beeline Loans, Inc. asked for permission to file under seal Exhibit C to a declaration supporting its opposition to Better Holdco, Inc.’s motion to strike or exclude Beeline’s proposed experts. Exhibit C was the expert report of Ronald Schnell, Better Holdco’s expert. Better Holdco had designated the report as confidential discovery material and “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ amended protective order.
Beeline stated that it took no position on whether the report needed to be sealed and reserved the right to challenge Better Holdco’s confidentiality designation. The filing discussed the public-access presumption for judicial documents and the need to balance that presumption against competing interests.
Court’s Action
The court directed Better Holdco to file, by July 18, 2022, a letter explaining the need to file Schnell’s expert report under seal. The court also directed Beeline to file the unredacted report under seal through the court’s electronic filing system, consistent with the court’s individual rules.
The opinion text does not expressly say that the court granted or denied the request for permanent sealing. The ruling is therefore a procedural order establishing steps for handling the sealing request, rather than a decision on the report’s ultimate confidentiality.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.