PIM BRANDS, INC. v. NEW CIBO VITA LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PIM BRANDS, INC., Civil Action No. 2:25-CV-01418-MEF-AME Plaintiff, Hon. André M. Espinosa v. Document Electronically Filed NEW CIBO VITA LLC, ORDER Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THIS MATTER, having been opened to the Court by Plaintiff PIM Brands, Inc., by and through its counsel, in connection with its unopposed Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) Motion to Seal the Letter regarding the DCO Dispute filed by Defendant New Cibo Vita LLC (the "Letter") (D.I. 61); AND the Court having considered the papers filed by Plaintiff; AND the Court having found that the standards of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) have been met and support the relief requested; and good cause having been shown, the Court hereby finds: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Pursuant to the Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), Plaintiff moves to seal the materials described in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Danny M. Awdeh (the “Confidential Information”) and Defendant does not oppose the motion.

2. The Confidential Information constitutes Plaintiff’s highly sensitive business information designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the Confidentiality Order.

3. This legitimate private interest warrants confidentiality. A clearly defined and serious injury would result if the Confidential Information is disclosed.

4. Attention has been given to whether any less restrictive alternative to the sealing of the Confidential Information is applicable, and the Court finds none.

5. Plaintiff has complied with the terms of the Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) by moving to seal the Confidential Information.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Court, having considered this matter pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3, and the submissions in support of the Motion, find that Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proving under L.Civ. R. 5.3(c) and applicable case law, that the Confidential Information is entitled to protection.

2. Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) places the burden of proof on the moving party as to why a motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access should be granted. Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)). Specifically, it requires a showing of: (1) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (2) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; (3) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (4) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.

3. There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records. In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001).

4. However, this Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed to the public.

5. The Confidential Information contains Plaintiff’s highly sensitive business information protected from disclosure by the Confidentiality Order.

6. The information in the Plaintiff’s submission satisfies the standards in Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) and there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the Confidential Information.

THEREFORE, it is on this __2_6_th___ day of _F_e_b_ru_a_r_y_, 2026 ORDERED as follows: 1. The information described in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Danny M. Awdeh constitutes confidential information that should be sealed.

2. The Court further finds that Plaintiff would suffer substantial and specific harm, that the public interest weighs in favor of the information remaining confidential, and that there is no less restrictive alternative than the method of sealing and redaction identified.

3. Therefore, the motion pursuant to Rule 5.3(c) [D.E. 65] is GRANTED.

4. Accordingly, the Letter at D.E. 61 shall remain under seal. The redacted version of the Letter at D.E. 66 shall be unsealed. ___/_s/_ A__n_d_r_é_ M__. _E_s_p_in__o_sa________ Hon. André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J.