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, Judge Schofield limited public access to specific financial sales numbers at a preliminary-injunction hearing.
The order affects the parties’ presentation of confidential financial sales information and limits the public’s access to specific sales figures and documents containing them during the preliminary-injunction hearing.
What happened
In Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to protect confidential financial sales information during an April 16, 2024, preliminary-injunction hearing. They said the hearing required comparing the parties’ sales positions, but not revealing the specific figures.
The parties proposed that anyone speaking about the financial information avoid stating specific numbers. They also proposed showing documents containing those numbers only to the court, the lawyers, and the relevant witnesses, rather than to the public.
Judge Schofield granted the application. The order applies when financial sales information is discussed at the hearing and does not prevent the parties from separately objecting to other exhibits under the court’s procedures.
The detailed version
- Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10849
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc., Zesty Paws LLC, and Health and Happiness (H&H) US International Incorporated jointly submitted an application concerning the treatment of confidential financial sales information at an upcoming preliminary-injunction hearing. The application concerned financial information discussed in declarations and attached exhibits. Those materials had been filed under seal or designated as highly confidential information available only to outside counsel under the parties’ protective order.
The parties stated that the hearing issues depended on the relative positions of the sales figures, not on the specific numbers. They proposed that verbal discussions avoid specific numbers and that documents containing those numbers be displayed only to the court, the attorneys, and the witnesses at issue.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that court records and proceedings generally carry a presumption of public access, but that access is not absolute. It applied the four-part standard described in Second Circuit precedent: whether public access would probably harm a compelling interest, whether alternatives to closing could protect that interest, whether the interest outweighed the public’s qualified First Amendment access right, and whether the restriction was narrowly tailored.
The court determined that the parties’ financial sales information was sensitive business information and that the interest in keeping the specific sales figures from public view outweighed the public’s qualified access right, at least for this hearing. The court also found reasonable alternatives to closing the hearing or portions of it, including omitting specific numbers from oral discussions and limiting access to documents containing those numbers.
Ruling
The application was granted. To the extent financial sales information is discussed at the April 16, 2024, preliminary-injunction hearing, verbal discussions must refrain from stating specific numbers. Documents containing those numbers may be displayed only to the court, the attorneys, and the witnesses at issue. The order states that this relief does not prevent the parties from raising separate objections to other proposed exhibits under the court’s procedures.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.