Solar Projectco 6, LLC v. Spark Energy, LLC

Background

Solar Projectco 6, LLC filed a redacted complaint against Spark Energy, LLC. Solar Projectco later decided that no redactions were necessary and sought Spark Energy's agreement to file an unredacted complaint publicly. Before waiting for Spark Energy's response, Solar Projectco filed an ex parte request—meaning a request made without giving the other side advance notice—for a temporary restraining order authorizing the public filing.

Court's analysis

The court explained that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. A party seeking this extraordinary relief generally must show a likelihood of success or serious legal questions, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. The court emphasized that irreparable harm is a required threshold consideration.

The court found that Solar Projectco had not met its burden. First, it had not shown why the request should be granted without notice to Spark Energy. Second, it had not even attempted to show that it would suffer likely irreparable harm without the order. Finally, although Solar Projectco asserted that the redactions did not concern sensitive business information, the court could not assess whether the redactions were proper because it had not received an unredacted complaint.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Solar Projectco's request for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. The order required Solar Projectco to serve Spark Energy with the motion and the order by noon on October 23, 2020, and to file proof of service by 5:00 p.m. that day. Spark Energy was directed to respond by October 29, 2020. If Spark Energy did not object to public filing of the unredacted complaint, Solar Projectco was directed to file an amended unredacted complaint within one week after Spark Energy's response.