Crown Castle Asks 5th Circuit for Access to Documents Filed Under Seal
Crown Castle needs to view documents filed under seal in its legal fight in the district court to force Pasadena, Texas, to approve the installation of small-cell nodes in the city’s rights of way, said its motion Wednesday (docket 22-20454) at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pasadena is appealing the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in Crown Castle’s favor, and Crown Castle said it needs the documents to prepare its responding brief.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The district court said Crown Castle was right to assert Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act preempted Pasadena’s design manual, which impossibly required the small-cell nodes to be buried underground or spaced in a limiting way. Pasadena, in its opening brief at the 5th Circuit Dec. 8, said Crown Castle lacks standing to assert a Section 253 claim because it’s not a telecommunications service provider in the meaning of the statute (see 2212090044).
Crown Castle’s responding brief is due Jan. 23, and it anticipates its brief “may need to discuss and cite portions” of the sealed record on appeal, it told the 5th Circuit. Access to the sealed portions of the record will “ensure accuracy and precise citations,” said its motion, which Crown Castle said Pasadena doesn't oppose. “Both parties are in agreement that the materials should remain confidential for purposes of the appeal,” it said.
During the two-year proceedings in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston, “several documents were filed under seal that contain confidential information,” under the standing protective order entered by the court in September 2019, said Crown Castle. The docket report of the case (4:20-CV-03369) shows both sides filed numerous motions for confidential treatment of documents and exhibits.