UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ZESTY PAWS LLC and HEALTH AND HAPPINESS (H&H) US INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1788-CEM-LHP

NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC. and NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES VETERINARY SCIENCES, INC.,

Defendants

ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.’s, and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc.’s (collectively “Nutramax”) Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Select Exhibits to Rosenberg Declaration in Support Thereof. Doc. No. 62. Pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(c), Plaintiffs Zesty Paws LLC and Health and Happiness (H&H) US International Incorporated, filed a response in support. Doc. No. 64.1 For the

1 In the motion, Defendants state that two non-parties, Euromonitor International Ltd. and Euromonitor International, Inc., may have an interest in establishing or maintaining the seal to Exhibit 16 and served this motion on those parties. Doc. No. 62, reasons discussed below, the motion (Doc. No. 62) will be granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief against Defendants relating to the enforcement of a confidential settlement agreement that the parties entered into in a previous case, Nutramax Labs, Inc. v. Zesty Paws, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-626-CEM-

LHP. Doc. No. 38. The Court previously permitted the confidential settlement agreement to be filed under seal, and a redacted version of same is attached to the operative complaint. See Doc. Nos. 38-1, 39. By the present motion, Defendants seek to file under seal an unredacted

version of their motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 62-1), as well as four (4) exhibits in support (Doc. Nos. 62-2 through 62-5).2 Doc. No. 62. The exhibits include Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Jason Rosenberg (see Doc. No. 61-1) (the

“Rosenberg Declaration”), which is the confidential settlement agreement (see Doc. No. 62-5); and Exhibits 15 through 17 to the Rosenberg Declaration. Doc. No. 62; see Doc. Nos. 62-2 through 62-4. The only description Defendants provide

regarding Exhibits 15 through 17 is that the exhibits support Defendants’ motion

at 9; see also Local Rule 1.11(b)(7). However, neither non-party has filed a memorandum in support of sealing this document, and the time to do so has expired. Local Rule 1.11(c).

2 Defendants filed on the public docket a redacted version of their summary judgment motion redacting only the information pertaining to the exhibits at issue, with placeholder exhibits subject to this motion to seal. See Doc. No. 61. for summary judgment; that they contain material Plaintiffs have designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only” in this

and/or other litigation, and that the exhibits contain Plaintiffs’ confidential business information. Doc. No. 62, at 1-2, 5. Plaintiffs join Defendants’ request to maintain the confidential settlement

agreement under seal. Doc. No. 64, at 1-2, 5. As both parties note, the redacted confidential settlement agreement, Exhibit 3 (see Doc. Nos. 61-4), bears the same redactions previously permitted by the Court (Doc. No. 38-1). Doc. No. 62, at 2 n.1; Doc. No. 64, at 1-2. See also Doc. Nos. 28, 38-1. However, even though all of the

exhibits Defendants seek to seal are those of the Plaintiffs, and although Plaintiffs state that they do not oppose sealing the remainder of the exhibits addressed by Defendants, Doc. No. 64, at 2 n.1, Plaintiffs provide no analysis or legal authority to

support sealing Exhibits 15 through 17. Doc. No. 64. A party seeking to file a document under seal must address the applicable requirements set forth in Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit standard

concerning the public’s common law interest and right of access to inspect and copy judicial records. See, e.g., Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Rosenthal,

(11th Cir. 1985). “The right of access creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of openness of court

records,” Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc.,

(S.D. Fla. 2019), which “may be overcome by a showing of good cause, which requires balancing the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in keeping the information

confidential. Whether good cause exists is decided by the nature and character of the information in question.” Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).3

Upon consideration, the Court finds the motion to seal (Doc. No. 62) well taken with respect to the unredacted copy of the settlement agreement, which has previously been sealed in this case. Doc. Nos. 28, 39. See Loc. Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-399-Orl-40TBS,

, at *1-2 (M.D.

Fla. Sept. 6, 2017) (granting motion to seal portions of settlement agreement, where party sought to enforce settlement agreement, because “some of the information consists of confidential and proprietary business plans, pricing information and

technical capabilities which, if made public, could injure Defendant’s business operations and relationships with its customers”).

3 Courts conducting a “good cause” balancing test consider, among other factors: (1) whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, (2) the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, (3) the reliability of the information, (4) whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information, (5) whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, (6) the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents, (7) whether the records are sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial advantage, (8) whether access is likely to promote public understanding of historically significant events, and (9) whether the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records. Gubarev,

(citing Romero,

; Newman v. Graddick,

(11th Cir. 1983)). However, the parties fail to adequately support Defendants’ request to seal Exhibits 15 through 17 and the portions of the motion for summary judgment that

relate to those exhibits. Doc. Nos. 62, 64. Instead, Defendants’ motion only references a confidential designation of the materials by Plaintiffs. Doc. No. 64, at 5. This is insufficient to establish good cause for sealing, particularly given the

greater public right of access triggered at this stage of proceedings. See Zap Aviation, LLC v. Nxt Jet, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-1149-RBD-LHP,

(M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2025) (denying motions to seal, including in relation to summary judgment, because “[b]esides stating that these materials are ‘confidential’ or ‘proprietary,’

and providing blanket assertions, [the burdened party] makes no effort to explain how each of the specific materials are entitled to confidential treatment under governing law or how each of the materials contain the proprietary information that

NXT claims.” (collecting cases)); see also Regions Bank v. Kaplan, No. 8:16-cv-2867-T- 23AAS,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2017) (“[A]lthough there is no common law right to obtain discovery material, a party that submits documents in

connection with a motion for summary judgment puts the information into the public domain and triggers greater public right of access.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Nutramax’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of its Motion for

Summary Judgment and Select Exhibits to Rosenberg Declaration in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED in part, to the extent that the settlement

agreement (Exhibit 3 to the Rosenberg Declaration) may be filed under seal in conjunction with summary judgment. Defendants shall file a sealed copy of this document as a separate docket entry within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the duration of the seal shall be ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. See Local Rule 1.11(e). 2. Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 62) is DENIED in all other respects. On the fifteenth day after issuance of this Order, Defendants shall file, on the public docket, a version of their summary judgment motion removing the redactions with regard to Exhibits 15 through 17, as well as unredacted versions of Exhibits 15 through 17. See Local Rule 1.11(d). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 20, 2025.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

og!