Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-05711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions v. JPMorgan, Judge Caproni temporarily granted sealing of Dockets 14 and 16 while requiring narrower redactions.
Lund Hill Solar, LLC, Montague Solar, LLC, Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., the court, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed filings.
What happened
Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. involved a request to keep commercially sensitive solar-project contracts and related filings from public view. The Owners said the contracts contained confidential business terms and that public disclosure could harm their future negotiations.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal Dockets 14 and 16 and directed the Clerk to limit access to the court and the parties. The court also said the plaintiff’s sealing request was too broad and that proposed redactions to declarations at Dockets 43 and 45 were overbroad.
The court required the parties to explain their sealing requests and propose narrower redactions at a hearing scheduled for July 19, 2023. Judge Valerie E. Caproni did not, in the provided text, state a final ruling on all of the documents the Owners sought to seal.
The detailed version
- Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:23-cv-05711
- Valerie Caproni
- July 12, 2023
Background
Lund Hill Solar, LLC and Montague Solar, LLC, referred to together as the “Owners,” asked the court to seal several docket entries in their entirety. The requested materials included versions of engineering, procurement, and construction agreements and an amendment involving Lund Hill Solar, LLC and Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc. The Owners said the agreements contained confidential business information, including heavily negotiated terms, and that disclosure could place the Owners and their affiliates at a competitive disadvantage in future negotiations.
The Owners also said the agreements contained confidentiality provisions covering confidential information, the agreements, and their exhibits. They represented that partially redacted versions had been filed or proposed so that the public could still access the documents while the most commercially sensitive information remained protected. Sterling, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Bank of America, N.A. reportedly did not object to the requested relief.
Court’s Action
The endorsed order states that the motion to seal Dockets 14 and 16 was granted on a temporary basis. The Clerk of Court was directed to restrict viewing of Dockets 14 and 16 to the court and the parties.
The court also stated that the plaintiff’s sealing request was overbroad. It found the redactions proposed by the intervenors to the declarations at Dockets 43 and 45 overbroad, particularly where they covered definitions of business terms and facts apparent from the plaintiff’s complaint. The parties were expected to explain their sealing requests and propose narrower redactions at a hearing scheduled for July 19, 2023.
Scope of the Provided Ruling
The letter requested sealing of additional docket materials, including Dockets 1-1, 1-2, 14-2, 14-3, 16-1, 16-2, and 24, and approval of a separate letter motion concerning partially redacted versions. The provided text does not state a final ruling on every item in that request. It specifically records temporary sealing of Dockets 14 and 16 and restricted access to those docket entries.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.