Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zesty Paws v. Nutramax, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice an application to seal materials and ordered Nutramax to clarify its request.
Zesty Paws and Nutramax are directly affected by the ruling. The public’s access to the disputed court materials is also affected because docket entry 299 remains under seal while Nutramax clarifies whether it seeks sealing or redaction.
What happened
In Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., Zesty Paws asked to keep parts of its opposition and supporting exhibits under seal because they contained information Nutramax had marked highly confidential under a protective order.
The court denied the application without prejudice, meaning the request was not finally rejected and could be renewed. The court directed Nutramax to file a letter by July 18, 2025, explaining whether it wanted the material sealed or redacted, providing the legal basis, or stating that it did not object to public filing. The clerk was directed to keep docket entry 299 under seal.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield explained that sealing requires a three-part inquiry and that confidentiality designations alone do not determine whether the public’s right to access court records outweighs competing concerns.
The detailed version
- Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10849
- Lorna Schofield
- July 11, 2025
Application and requested relief
Zesty Paws asked the court to allow parts of its opposition to Nutramax’s pre-motion letter concerning summary judgment, and the supporting exhibits, to be filed and maintained under seal. The request covered material that quoted, summarized, or disclosed information Nutramax had designated under a joint protective order as highly confidential information restricted either to outside attorneys’ eyes only or to attorneys’ eyes only. Zesty Paws submitted an unredacted version of the opposition with proposed redactions highlighted and access limited to the court, the parties, and specified counsel.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court stated that a three-part inquiry determines whether a document should be sealed and that a party’s confidentiality designation does not by itself decide whether the public’s right of access to judicial documents outweighs competing considerations.
The court ordered Nutramax to file a letter by July 18, 2025. The letter must state whether Nutramax seeks to have the material at issue sealed or redacted and must provide the legal basis for that request. Alternatively, Nutramax may state that it has no objection to public filing of the material. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entry 299 under seal.
Identification note
The supplied case name is Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. The opinion text itself identifies the matter in the letter as Health and Happiness (H&H) US LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., et al., and refers to Health and Happiness as “Zesty Paws.” The opinion text does not provide a separate docket number for the supplied case name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.