Health and Happiness US LLC v. Laboratories
Health and Happiness (H&H) US LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Health and Happiness v. Nutramax, Magistrate Judge Stein denied four discovery motions as moot and granted Zesty Paws’s motion to seal.
Health and Happiness (H&H) US LLC, Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc.; the order addressed their discovery dispute and a sealing request.
What happened
In Health and Happiness (H&H) US LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc., Nutramax sought documents concerning Zesty Paws’s “#1 Claims” and asked for related procedural relief. After a court conference, the parties met and conferred, and Zesty Paws supplemented its production.
Because the document-production dispute was resolved, the court denied as moot Nutramax’s motions at Docket Nos. 241, 246, 249, and 251. Zesty Paws also asked to seal portions of its opposition letter because they disclosed information designated highly confidential under the parties’ protective order.
Magistrate Judge Gary Stein granted Zesty Paws’s motion to seal, finding that the redacted information contained sensitive competitive analysis with limited public value in a discovery dispute. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 241, 243, 246, 249, and 251.
The detailed version
- Health and Happiness US LLC v. Laboratories · No. 1:23-cv-10849
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. moved for a discovery conference concerning their anticipated request to compel Health and Happiness (H&H) US LLC, formerly known as Zesty Paws LLC, to produce documents about its “#1 Claims.” Nutramax also filed related motions seeking permission to file a reply letter, an extension of the expert-discovery deadline, and permission to submit additional evidence.
The court held the discovery conference on March 18, 2025. It instructed the parties to meet and confer further about the requested documents. The court initially found the request to extend the expert-discovery deadline moot, without prejudice to renewing it depending on the document production. Afterward, Nutramax sent a specific production proposal, the parties met and conferred, and Zesty Paws agreed to and completed supplemental production.
Discovery Motions
Because the dispute raised in Nutramax’s January 14, 2025 letter had been resolved, the court denied as moot the pending motions at Docket Nos. 241, 246, 249, and 251.
Motion to Seal
Zesty Paws moved to file a redacted version of its opposition letter. It said the letter quoted from and disclosed information in documents Nutramax had designated “Highly Confidential Information – Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ joint protective order. Nutramax supported keeping the information sealed and argued that the redactions were justified under Second Circuit precedent.
The court recognized a strong presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible, but explained that the presumption is generally weaker for filings connected to discovery disputes than for materials introduced at trial or filed with motions that could resolve the case. Based on Nutramax’s representations, the court found that the redacted information contained sensitive competitive analysis with limited value to the public in monitoring the litigation. Judge Gary Stein therefore granted Zesty Paws’s motion to seal.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 241, 243, 246, 249, and 251.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.