Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 2, 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 granted some sealing requests, denied another, and ordered an unredacted filing.

Who this affects

Beeline Loans, Inc.'s requests to seal or redact filings were partly granted and partly denied; Better Holdco, Inc.'s confidentiality designations were relevant to the ruling.

What happened

In Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc., Beeline asked to seal one exhibit and redact portions of two filings connected to its summary-judgment motion.

The court granted the request to file Exhibit E under seal and granted the request to file the reply memorandum with redactions. It denied the request to file the Rule 56.1 reply with redactions and ordered Beeline to file the unredacted reply by August 4, 2022.

Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on August 1, 2022. The order addressed sealing and redactions, not the underlying summary-judgment dispute.

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
Aug. 2, 2022

Background

Defendant Beeline Loans, Inc. asked for permission to file certain materials under seal or with redactions in connection with its reply memorandum supporting its motion for summary judgment and its reply to Better Holdco, Inc.'s statement of disputed facts under Rule 56.1.

Beeline sought to file Exhibit E to the Modica Second Declaration under seal. The exhibit was a master advertising services agreement that Better Holdco had designated as attorneys'-eyes-only material under the parties' protective order. Beeline also sought redactions in its Rule 56.1 reply and its reply memorandum. The requested redactions concerned the agreement, another company with which Better Holdco might have a confidential business relationship, and information about Better Holdco's business strategy.

Rulings

The court granted Beeline's request to file Exhibit E under seal. It also granted Beeline's request to file its Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment with redactions.

In light of Better Holdco's August 1, 2022 letter, the court denied Beeline's request to file its Rule 56.1 Reply with redactions. The court directed Beeline to file the unredacted Rule 56.1 Reply on the docket by August 4, 2022.

Effect of the Order

This was an order about public access to court filings, sealing, and redaction. It did not decide the parties' underlying summary-judgment dispute. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.

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.