Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC

Background

Nock’s counsel moved to seal an unredacted copy of Roland Camunas’s December 20, 2023 declaration. The declaration concerned Nock’s allegation that at least two defendants’ vendors used a scheme to present telemarketing calls as door-to-door sales. The defendants did not oppose sealing the amount of consideration they paid Camunas in exchange for releasing certain claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act involving telemarketing calls made before November 30, 2021.

The public version of the declaration redacted three categories of information: Camunas’s complete telephone number, his email address, and the amount of the payment. The filing acknowledged uncertainty about whether a declaration submitted in connection with a non-dispositive motion is a “judicial document”—a court filing relevant to the court’s judicial function and useful in the judicial process—but assumed that the presumption of public access applied.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the balancing test for sealing court records. That test considers the material’s role in the exercise of federal judicial power and its value to people monitoring the federal courts, weighed against competing interests such as privacy.

The court found that the three categories of redacted information had little or no foreseeable role in the court’s exercise of judicial power and would not help the public assess any decision on the defendants’ motion. It also found a real risk that publicizing Camunas’s telephone number and email address would expose him to unwanted communications. The court further noted that settlement-related materials generally do not carry a presumption of public access and that financial information weighs against disclosure.

Disposition

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the motion to seal the unredacted copy of Camunas’s declaration. The order addressed access to the specified information and did not decide the underlying claims.