Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01042
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, Judge Lehrburger denied as moot a request to seal materials because a revised motion replaced it.
Robert Nock and the defendants—Spring Energy RRH, LLC, RRH Energy Services, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC—were affected by the ruling on the filing request; the order also concerned privacy interests relating to a person whose telephone number appeared in one document.
What happened
In Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC, Robert Nock asked to file an unredacted discovery-related motion and supporting documents under seal because they included information that the defendants had marked confidential.
Nock said the materials included evidence about alleged telemarketing practices and alleged consent to telephone calls. He separately sought to redact a person’s telephone number, arguing that public disclosure could cause unwanted communications.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the request to seal as moot because Nock had filed a revised motion at Docket 99. The order did not decide whether the materials otherwise should have been sealed.
The detailed version
- Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01042
- Laura Swain
- June 13, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Robert Nock moved to continue discovery deadlines. His motion and supporting documents relied on materials that Spring Energy RRH, LLC, RRH Energy Services, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC had designated confidential under a stipulated protective order.
Request to Seal
Nock asked the court to seal an unredacted version of the motion and supporting documents. He said the materials included information concerning alleged efforts to present telemarketing calls as door-to-door sales and evidence relating to alleged consent to telephone calls. Nock separately sought to redact a person’s telephone number.
The letter brief discussed the public’s presumptive right to access court records and argued that the telephone number had little connection to the court’s decision and posed privacy concerns. It also argued that the other information was important to understanding the discovery record and that possible additional liability or litigation was not, by itself, a sufficient reason to keep the information from the public.
Ruling
The court’s order stated: “The request to seal is denied as moot in light of the revised motion at Dkt. 99.” Judge Robert W. Lehrburger therefore did not rule in this order on whether the original materials independently met the standard for sealing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.