WE, LLC v. M.R.J. Distributors, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
WE, LLC d/b/a WILD ENCANTOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MRJ DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 24-1584 (ADC)
OPINION AND ORDER
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
On October 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte presided over a
preliminary injunction hearing. ECF No. 59. At this hearing, plaintiff WE, LLC (“Wild Encantos”
or “plaintiff”) informed the Court that it would withdraw its preliminary injunction request as
to defendant Wal-Mart of Puerto Rico (“Walmart”) because Walmart had agreed voluntarily to
cease selling the products of co-defendant MRJ Distributors, Inc. (“MRJ”) in its stores for the
period of the litigation, premised on plaintiff’s agreement to refrain from requesting preliminary
injunctive relief against Walmart. The Court ordered Wild Encantos and Walmart to file a
document memorializing their agreement within ten days. ECF No. 59. Accordingly, on October
14, 	2025, 	Wild 	Encantos 	and 	Walmart 	(the 	“MOU 	Parties”) 	filed 	a 	Memorandum 	of
Understanding (“MOU”) and requested that the document be restricted as to “the parties to this
case.” ECF Nos. 64, 65. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion to restrict the MOU, despite
Case 3:24-cv-01584-ADC Document 92 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 4

Civil No. 24-1584 (ADC) 	Page 2
the MOU containing no particularly sensitive or proprietary information. ECF No. 67.1
Subsequently, MRJ filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaim on November 17, 2025, which
included an additional Sherman Act counterclaim. ECF No. 74. Wild Encantos filed an Answer
to the Amended Counterclaim on December 29, 2025, and moved to restrict the document. ECF
Nos. 88, 89. The MOU Parties filed a joint motion on December 30, 2025, requesting that the
Court place MRJ’s Counterclaim and Amended Counterclaim under seal, “consider striking the
pleadings as a sanction,” and “grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.” ECF No.
90. For the reasons articulated below, Wild Encantos’ motion at ECF No. 89 is GRANTED IN
PART and the MOU Parties’ motion at ECF No. 90 is GRANTED IN PART.
II. 	Legal Standard
“Procedures in federal courts are characteristically public in nature. The court will not
tolerate and will sanction any attempt to restrict filings that are obviously within the public
domain.” D.P.R. S.O. No. 9, Misc. No. 03-149 (ADC). Standing Order No. 9 further states that:
Permission to utilize a particular restricted filing and viewing level shall be requested by
filing a "Motion to Restrict" which shall be open to public inspection and shall identify
the restriction level sought, address the interest to be protected, and indicate why such
interest outweighs the presumption of public access. Stipulations between the parties are
insufficient to justify restricted access.
1 The essence of the agreement reached as reflected in the MOU is the same reflected at ECF No. 59, which is part
of the public record.
Case 3:24-cv-01584-ADC Document 92 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 4

Civil No. 24-1584 (ADC) 	Page 3
III. 	Discussion
At the outset, the Court must clarify two basic issues with the MOU Parties’ request. The
MOU Parties request that the Court place ECF Nos. 78 and 83 under seal, but ECF No. 78 is an
Order from the Court regarding service by publication and ECF No. 83 is MRJ’s response to
plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. Despite the MOU Parties’ consistent citation to these
docket numbers, the Court believes that the MOU Parties intended to request that MRJ’s Answer
and Counterclaim (ECF No. 63) and Amended Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 74) be placed
under seal. Yet MRJ’s Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 63) was filed on October 12, 2025,
before the MOU even was filed on October 14, 2025. Accordingly, ECF No. 63 contains no
reference to the MOU. Meanwhile, the Amended Answer and Counterclaim does contain several
references to the existence of the MOU and contains a few references to the contents of the MOU,
which is a restricted, not “sealed,” document. ECF No. 74.
It is not lost on the Court that it was the MOU Parties’ own filing error that permitted “the
parties to this case,” including co-defendant MRJ, to access the MOU. ECF No. 65. And although
the MOU Parties articulated no compelling reason against the presumption of public access to
the Amended Counterclaim and Answer thereto, it logically follows that, because the original
MOU was restricted to “the parties to this case,” subsequent references to the terms of the MOU
should likewise remain restricted. This should not, however, limit public access to the entirety
of MRJ’s Amended Answer and Counterclaim or Wild Encantos’ Answer to the Counterclaim.
Case 3:24-cv-01584-ADC Document 92 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 4

Civil No. 24-1584 (ADC) 	Page 4
Accordingly, MRJ and Wild Encantos will need to file publicly available versions of these
documents, redacting any references to the contents of the MOU.
IV. 	Conclusion
The motions at ECF Nos. 89 and 90 are GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk of Court shall
restrict access to ECF No. 74 to the parties to this case. MRJ is ORDERED to file a public and
redacted version of ECF No. 74 with all references to the contents of the MOU redacted.
ECF No. 88 shall remain with access restricted to the parties to this case. Wild Encantos is
ORDERED to file a public and redacted version of ECF No. 88 with all references to the contents
of the MOU redacted.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 9th day of January, 2026.
S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01584-ADC Document 92 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 4