Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 28, 2022

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

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-08686
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Better Holdco v. Beeline Loans, Judge Cronan allowed redactions to an exhibit containing confidential salary, address, and business information.

Who this affects

Better Holdco, Inc., Beeline Loans, Inc., Mr. Holzen, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibit.

What happened

Better Holdco, Inc. asked to file a deposition transcript exhibit with redactions while supporting its request to exclude or strike Beeline Loans, Inc.’s proposed expert opinions.

The exhibit included Better’s confidential salary information, Mr. Holzen’s home address, and material Beeline had designated as confidential under a protective order. Better argued that these details should not be publicly disclosed.

Judge John P. Cronan granted the request to file the exhibit with redactions and directed the required filing of the redacted and unredacted versions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08686
Judge
John Cronan
Date
July 28, 2022

Background

Better Holdco asked for permission to file Exhibit 32 to the Second Declaration of Anne E. Beaumont with redactions. The exhibit was submitted in support of Better’s reply concerning its motion to exclude or strike the opinions of Beeline Loans’ proposed experts.

Better stated that the exhibit contained its competitively sensitive and confidential salary information. It also sought to redact Mr. Holzen’s home address and material that Beeline had designated as confidential discovery material under an amended protective order.

Court’s ruling

The court granted Better’s request to file Exhibit 32 with redactions. The order directed the required filing of the redacted and unredacted versions of the exhibit. The court’s ruling addressed public access to a judicial document and the need to protect confidential business information and personal address information.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.