Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zesty Paws v. Nutramax Laboratories, Judge Schofield granted an application to file a letter in redacted form while keeping the full version under seal.
Zesty Paws LLC, Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., and public access to the supplemental letter brief and the confidential settlement terms discussed in it.
What happened
Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. involved Zesty Paws’ request to redact references to confidential settlement terms from a supplemental letter brief.
The court recognized that public access to court records is not absolute and that the parties had a shared interest in protecting the settlement agreement’s nonpublic terms. The proposed redactions were limited to those references.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application, allowed the referenced letter to be filed in redacted form, and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Dkt. 204. The full unredacted version had already been filed under seal at Dkt. 205.
The detailed version
- Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10849
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 13, 2024
Background
Zesty Paws asked the court to allow redactions in its supplemental letter brief. The proposed redactions concerned references to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement between Zesty Paws and Nutramax. Zesty Paws stated that the settlement agreement itself had previously been allowed to remain under seal and that the supplemental brief quoted and analyzed some of its terms.
Reasoning
The court’s order adopted the reasons stated in Zesty Paws’ request. Those reasons explained that judicial records are generally subject to a common-law presumption of public access, but that access is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing considerations. The request stated that the proposed redactions were narrowly limited to nonpublic settlement terms and that Zesty Paws and Nutramax shared an interest in keeping those terms confidential.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The referenced letter may be filed in redacted form. The full unredacted version had already been filed under seal at Dkt. 205, and the Clerk was directed to close the motion at Dkt. 204.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.