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 ordered Better Holdco to explain by August 1 why Exhibit E should be filed under seal.
Better Holdco, Inc. and Beeline Loans, Inc., concerning access to and redaction of documents filed in connection with Beeline’s summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc., Beeline asked for permission to file one document under seal and to redact parts of two filings connected to its summary-judgment motion. The documents contained information that Better Holdco had designated confidential.
The court did not decide whether the document should be sealed or whether the requested redactions were proper. Instead, it directed Better Holdco to file a letter explaining why Exhibit E to the Modica Second Declaration should be filed under seal by August 1, 2022.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on July 28, 2022. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied Beeline’s request to seal or redact the documents.
The detailed version
- Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08686
- John Cronan
- July 28, 2022
Background
Beeline Loans, Inc. asked the court for permission to file under seal and redact documents submitted with its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its reply to Better Holdco, Inc.’s statement of facts. Beeline stated that Better Holdco had designated one document as confidential discovery material under an amended protective order.
Documents at Issue
The document Beeline sought to file under seal was Exhibit E to the Modica Second Declaration. Beeline described it as a master advertising services agreement and said Better Holdco had previously designated it as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Beeline took no position on whether the document needed to be sealed and reserved the right to challenge Better Holdco’s confidentiality designation.
Beeline also sought to file redacted versions of its Rule 56.1 reply and its reply memorandum of law. Beeline said the factual reply referred to the master advertising services agreement and to another company with which Better Holdco might have a confidential business relationship. It also said the legal reply quoted information about Better Holdco’s business strategy that Better Holdco had previously redacted.
Court’s Action
The court’s order did not grant or deny the request to seal or redact the documents. Instead, Judge John P. Cronan ordered Better Holdco to file, by August 1, 2022, a letter explaining the need to file Exhibit E under seal. The opinion does not state what happened to the request after that letter was ordered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.