Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Better Holdco v. Beeline, Judge Cronan granted most sealing requests, denied one group, and ordered proposed redactions for those exhibits.
Better Holdco, Inc. and Beeline Loans, Inc., as well as public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc., Better asked to seal or redact exhibits and portions of filings connected to Beeline’s motions to exclude an expert and for summary judgment. Better said the materials contained confidential financial, marketing, business-practice, agreement, and settlement information.
The court granted permission to file Exhibits 21, 22, and 23 to the Second Wityk Declaration with redactions. It also granted permission to file specified exhibits to the Hirsch Declaration under seal or with redactions, and allowed redacted versions of Better’s opposition memorandum and its response and additional-facts statement to the extent they referred to the confidential information in those exhibits.
The court denied Better’s request as to Hirsch Declaration Exhibits 51, 57, 59, and 76, but directed Better to file those exhibits with the redactions Beeline proposed. Judge John P. Cronan entered the order on July 19, 2022.
The detailed version
- Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08686
- John Cronan
- July 19, 2022
Background
Better Holdco, Inc. asked for permission to file certain documents under seal or with redactions in connection with Beeline Loans, Inc.’s motions to exclude Better’s expert and for summary judgment. Better identified information concerning its financial and operating model, agreements with marketing partners, marketing strategies and costs, business practices, pricing, customer-interest-rate calculations, settlement terms, and other business information as confidential. Some materials had been designated confidential under an amended protective order, and the court had previously approved sealing or redacting some of the same materials.
The request concerned portions of Exhibits 21, 22, and 23 to the Second Wityk Declaration; numerous exhibits to the Hirsch Declaration; and portions of Better’s memorandum opposing summary judgment and its response and statement of additional material facts. Better also sought to protect the home address of its expert. Beeline withdrew some confidentiality designations but maintained others, including designations for Exhibits 51, 57, 59, and 76 to the Hirsch Declaration.
Ruling
The court granted Better’s request to file Exhibits 21, 22, and 23 to the Second Wityk Declaration with redactions. It also granted Better’s request to file Hirsch Declaration Exhibits 3, 35–39, 42, 45–47, 61, 63–64, 66–67, 78, 81, 83, 86, 88–89, 93, 95, 98–102, 104–105, and 108 under seal or with redactions.
The court denied Better’s request as to Hirsch Declaration Exhibits 51, 57, 59, and 76. It directed Better to file those exhibits with the redactions Beeline proposed on July 18, 2022. The court further granted Better’s request to file redacted versions of its memorandum opposing Beeline’s summary-judgment motion and its response and statement of additional material facts, to the extent those filings contained or referred to confidential information in the referenced exhibits. Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on July 19, 2022.
Effect of the Order
This was an order about how specified court filings would be made available, not a decision on the parties’ underlying dispute or on Beeline’s motions to exclude evidence or for summary judgment. The order allowed sealing or redaction for the listed materials, rejected Better’s requested treatment for four exhibits, and required those four exhibits to be filed with Beeline’s proposed redactions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.