Nextera Energy Marketing, LLC v. Macquarie Energy LLC
- Victor Marrero
- 1:22-cv-01345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In NextEra Energy Marketing v. Macquarie Energy, Judge Lehrburger sealed a gas-delivery-priority exhibit and related redactions while unsealing other exhibits.
NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, Macquarie Energy LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the filed materials.
What happened
In NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC v. Macquarie Energy LLC, NextEra asked the court to approve redactions in its motion to compel and to seal Exhibit 9. The materials concerned discovery involving both companies.
Exhibit 9 described priority rankings that Macquarie assigned to natural-gas delivery counterparties during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. NextEra argued that the information was commercially sensitive and potentially related to trade secrets.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger directed the clerk to seal the letter motion at Docket 53 and Exhibit 9, while unsealing the other exhibits.
The detailed version
- Nextera Energy Marketing, LLC v. Macquarie Energy LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01345
- Victor Marrero
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
NextEra asked the court to approve redactions in its concurrently filed letter motion to compel and to seal Exhibit 9. The filing stated that the discovery materials implicated the confidentiality interests of both NextEra and Macquarie.
Exhibit 9 described priority rankings for natural-gas delivery assigned by Macquarie to various counterparties during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. NextEra argued that the information was commercially sensitive, potentially related to trade secrets, and should be protected from public disclosure. NextEra had provisionally filed Exhibit 9 under seal and redacted parts of its letter motion that quoted from the exhibit.
Ruling
The court directed the clerk to seal the letter motion at Docket 53 and Exhibit 9 at Docket 53. The court also directed that the other exhibits be unsealed. The ruling concerned public access to court materials and did not decide the underlying motion to compel.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.