Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. Innogy Renewables US LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-05015
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trireme Energy Holdings v. Innogy Renewables, Judge Moses denied emergency deposition relief and ordered briefing on redactions and sealing.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the defendants’ discovery redactions and the status of Exhibits 1 through 4.
What happened
In Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. Innogy Renewables US LLC, the plaintiffs asked for emergency relief before the continued Puterbaugh deposition and challenged certain redactions in documents produced during discovery.
The court denied the request for emergency relief. It required the defendants to respond to the challenge to redactions made for reasons other than protecting legally privileged information and to explain why those redactions should not be removed. The court also temporarily sealed four exhibits and required the defendants either to request continued sealing or state that the exhibits could be made public.
Judge Barbara Moses set deadlines for the defendants’ response and any optional reply by the plaintiffs, and noted that it was not obvious the exhibits qualified for sealing under the cited legal standard.
The detailed version
- Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. Innogy Renewables US LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05015
- Barbara Moses
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed a February 17, 2022 letter-application raising several discovery-related issues. The application sought emergency relief before the continued deposition of Puterbaugh and challenged redactions that the defendants had made, for reasons other than privilege, to certain documents first produced in October 2021.
The application also included four exhibits. During the February 18 telephonic conference, defense counsel noted that the exhibits had been designated “Confidential” in discovery. The court temporarily placed the exhibits under electronic seal.
Rulings and deadlines
The court denied the portion of the plaintiffs’ letter-application seeking emergency relief before the continued Puterbaugh deposition.
As to the challenge to non-privilege redactions, the court required further briefing. The defendants’ response was due February 23, 2022. The response had to address the specific documents identified by the plaintiffs and explain why the defendants should not be required to remove all non-privilege redactions from discoverable documents and reproduce the documents either unredacted or redacted only to protect privilege. The plaintiffs could file an optional reply by February 25, 2022.
The court also required the defendants, by February 23, 2022, either to file a motion seeking continued sealing under the applicable court rules or to notify the court that Exhibits 1 through 4 could be unsealed. Judge Moses stated that it was not obvious that any of the exhibits qualified for sealing under the cited legal standard.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.