Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC

Background

Plaintiff Robert Nock sued Spring Energy RRH, LLC, RRH Energy Services, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC in a case described as arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On November 15, 2024, Nock moved for relief from a discovery-motion deadline, to compel documents before that deadline, and to seal portions of the motions and supporting materials, including parts of Gregory Hasiak’s October 31, 2024 deposition transcript. After the parties discussed what should remain sealed, they submitted a renewed motion to seal.

Requested Sealing

The Defendants asked to keep specified transcript pages confidential under the case’s protective order. They stated that some passages concerned the Defendants’ finances and shareholder governance and that another passage contained language from a letter related to an employee’s departure. The Defendants argued that disclosure of the financial and shareholder information could provide competitors with information about their business practices and that the employee-related material was not central to the merits of the case. Nock took no position on sealing those portions at that time.

The parties agreed to seal only consumers’ names and addresses appearing in the specified portions of the transcript. The opinion does not separately describe a ruling on the requested relief from the discovery deadline or the request to compel documents.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered Plaintiff to refile revised copies by December 4, 2024, showing only the redactions identified in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter motion at Docket 195. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted or denied using those terms.