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

Filing 278

ORDER granting in part and denying in part #265 Letter Motion to Seal. The Court hereby grants Defendant's request to file Exhibit E to the Modica Second Declaration under seal and Defendant's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment with redactions. In light of Plaintiff's letter dated August 1, 2022, see Dkt. 277, the Court denies Defendant's request to file its Rule 56.1 Reply with redactions. Defendant is directed to file the unredacted Rule 56.1 Reply on the docket by August 4, 2022. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 8/1/2022) (jca)

Case 1:20-cv-08686-JPC-SN Document 278 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 2

July 27, 2022
BY E-MAIL AND ECF
Honorable John P. Cronan
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 1320
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Better Holdco, Inc. v. Beeline Loans, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-08686 (JPC) (SN)

Dear Judge Cronan:
This firm represents Defendant Beeline Loans, Inc. (“Beeline”) in the above-captioned
matter. Pursuant to Rule 4.B.ii of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases
(“Rules”), Beeline respectfully requests leave to file under seal and redact certain documents in
connection with its Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment
and its Rule 56.1 Reply to Plaintiff’s Counterstatement of Facts.
I.

Documents Designated Confidential by Plaintiff

“The presumption of public access to judicial documents is based on the need for federal
courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a
measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.”
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondoga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The mere filing of a
paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a “judicial document;” the
item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial
process. Id. “Access to written documents filed in connection with pretrial motions is particularly
important in the situation … where no hearing is held and the court’s ruling is based solely on the
motion papers.” Id. at 124 (internal citation omitted). The court must balance competing
considerations against common law presumptions of access. Id. at 120.
Beeline seeks leave to file under seal one document that Plaintiff Better Holdco, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”) has designated as Confidential Discovery Material under the Amended Protective
Order (see Dkt. No. 101).
1. Exhibit E to the Modica Second Declaration in support of Beeline’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is a master advertising services agreement. Plaintiff has previously
designated this document as Attorneys’ Eyes Only.
Beeline takes no position regarding the need for sealing the above document and reserves the right
to challenge Plaintiff’s designation of same as Confidential Discovery Material.

Case 1:20-cv-08686-JPC-SN Document 278 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2
Hon. John P. Cronan
July 27, 2022
Page 2

In addition, Beeline seeks to file the following documents in redacted form.
1. Beeline’s Rule 56.1 Reply contains reference to the master advertising services
agreement referenced above as well as another company with which Plaintiff may or
may not have a confidential business relationship. Plaintiff’s reference to this company
was filed with redactions in its Rule 56.1 Counterstatement.
2. Beeline’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment
contains a quotation on page seven (7) that Plaintiff has previously redacted in its Rule
56.1 Counterstatement, as it concerns information about Plaintiff’s business strategy.
We are available at the Court’s convenience to discuss this application.
Respectfully submitted,

Robert Modica, Esq.
The Court hereby grants Defendant's request to file Exhibit E to the Modica Second
Declaration under seal and Defendant's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment with redactions.
In light of Plaintiff's letter dated August 1, 2022, see Dkt. 277, the Court denies
Defendant's request to file its Rule 56.1 Reply with redactions. Defendant is directed to
file the unredacted Rule 56.1 Reply on the docket by August 4, 2022.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 1, 2022
New York, New York

_________________________
JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge