Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-07232
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zest Anchors v. Biomet 3i, Judge Rochon granted Zest’s motion to redact sensitive pricing information from two exhibits.
Zest Anchors, LLC, whose sensitive pricing information may be kept from public access in Exhibits 1 and 4; Biomet 3i, LLC, which did not oppose the request; and members of the public seeking access to those judicial documents.
What happened
Zest Anchors, LLC asked to redact confidential pricing and discount terms from two exhibits supporting its motion concerning Biomet 3i, LLC’s counterclaim. Biomet did not oppose the sealing request.
The requested redactions covered only sensitive financial and pricing information, rather than the entire exhibits. Zest argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position during contract negotiations.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the motion to seal. The court found that the information could harm Zest’s competitive standing and that the proposed redactions were reasonably tailored.
The detailed version
- Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07232
- Rochon
- Apr. 30, 2025
Background
Zest Anchors, LLC, doing business as Zest Dental Solutions, asked the court to approve redactions to portions of two sets of correspondence submitted as Exhibits 1 and 4 in support of Zest’s motion to dismiss Biomet 3i, LLC’s second counterclaim. Zest sought to protect confidential pricing and discount information. After conferring with Zest, Biomet did not oppose the motion or the proposed redactions.
Sealing request
The court recognized a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It also considered the privacy interests in the redacted material, which contained Zest’s sensitive price terms and negotiations. The court found that disclosure might harm Zest Anchors’ competitive standing. The proposed redactions were limited to the sensitive information rather than covering the entire communications.
Ruling
Judge Rochon granted the motion to seal. The court found that sealing was appropriate because the material contained sensitive financial information and the proposed redactions were reasonably tailored to protect it. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 55.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.