Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC et al

Filing 165

ORDER granting 106 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is granted solely as to personal contact information of consumers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 9/24/2024) (mml)

PRESTON/LAW OFFICES
4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 / Dallas, Texas 75204
[phone] / [phone] / [e-mail]

Via ECF
The Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Room 1960
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re:

June 20, 2024

Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01042, pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Your Honor,
This firm (together with Biles Wilson, PLLC) represents Plaintiff Robert Nock
(“Plaintiff” or “Nock”) in this case.
Nock filed his motion for contempt sanctions against NSL Marketing, LLC and Neil St.
Louis (together, “NSL”), which is primarily based on the May 31, 2024 deposition transcript of
Neil St. Louis. (ECF No. 105.) Defendants Spring Energy RRH, LLC, RRH Energy Services,
LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) designated two of the
exhibits used in the St. Louis deposition (SPRING-000257 and SPRING-000637), and the
portions of the deposition transcript relating to those exhibits as confidential under the Court’s
stipulated protective order. (Cf. ECF No. 41 with St. Louis Depo. Tr. at 127:1-132:22
(hereinafter, “Tr.”) and Exs. 15 and 16 to Tr.) Consistent with the Appendix in your Honor’s
Individual Practices, this letter brief moves the Court via to seal the attached unredacted copy of
Nock’s motion and supporting documents.
For his own account, Nock believes only the personal contact information of the
consumers contained in SPRING-000257 and SPRING-000637 should be redacted. SPRING000257 and SPRING-000637 impeach parts of St. Louis’s testimony (and/or Defendants’
enrollment records). SPRING-000257 and 637 are relevant to showing the extent of NSL’s
involvement in Defendants’ marketing, the verity and/or reliability of St. Louis’s testimony and
the completeness of his production, and ultimately whether NSL stand in contempt of Court. St.
Louis testified (at least initially) that he did not physically go to Maryland to participate in
Defendants’ door-to-door sales, but merely procured sales agents to enroll customers with
Defendants. (St. Louis Depo. Tr. at 26:25-27:20.) However, both Defendants’ records and even
NSL’s own production indicate that St. Louis’s own name was used to enrolled customers for
Defendants. (See Preston Decl. ¶14.)
The presumptive right of access applies to “judicial documents,” that is, documents filed
with the Court that are “‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
judicial process.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139
(2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.
2006)). “Documents filed in support of a motion for contempt are ‘judicial documents.’” Grand
v. Schwarz, No. 15-8779, 2018 WL 1604057, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Roberts v.
Lederman, No. 04-00033, 2004 WL 2238564, *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2004)). Cf. Newsday LLC v.
County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2013) (First Amendment right to contempt
proceeding transcript).