Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 23, 2023

Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-07232
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Zest Anchors v. Biomet 3i, Judge Rochon granted the request to seal a sensitive distribution agreement.

Who this affects

Biomet 3i, LLC and Zest Anchors, LLC, whose distribution agreement is sealed, as well as members of the public and press seeking access to the exhibit.

What happened

Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC concerns a request by Biomet 3i, doing business as ZimVie, to seal a 2016 distribution agreement submitted with its motion to dismiss. Zest Anchors, doing business as Zest Dental Solutions, did not object.

The agreement contains sensitive pricing, business relationships, negotiation tactics, and contract-valuation information. The parties agreed that it contains sensitive competitive business information.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request, finding that protecting the proprietary business information outweighed the public’s interest in access. Exhibit 1 may be viewed by the parties’ lawyers, the court, and court personnel.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Zest Anchors, LLC v. Biomet 3i, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07232
Judge
Rochon
Date
Aug. 23, 2023

Background

Biomet 3i, LLC, doing business as ZimVie, asked the court to seal a 2016 distribution agreement between the parties. Biomet 3i submitted the agreement as Exhibit 1 to the declaration supporting its motion to dismiss Zest Anchors, LLC’s complaint. Zest Anchors, doing business as Zest Dental Solutions, did not object to sealing the exhibit.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized that the public and press generally have a qualified First Amendment right to access judicial documents. That right can be overcome when specific findings show that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The parties agreed that the exhibit contained sensitive competitive business information, and the court reviewed the exhibit.

The court concluded that disclosure could place both parties at a competitive disadvantage by revealing sensitive pricing, information about relationships with third parties, negotiation tactics, and the parties’ valuation of contract terms. The court therefore found that the need to protect proprietary business information outweighed the presumption of public access.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request to seal Exhibit 1, the distribution agreement. The document was to remain under seal and be available to counsel for all parties, the court, and court personnel.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.