Blendtec v. Blendjet et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
BLENDTEC INC., a Utah Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLENDJET INC., a Delaware corporation,
MAVORCO HOLDINGS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
MAVORCO IP, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and MAVORCO
OPERATIONS, LLC, Delaware limited
liability company,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MAVORCO’S
MOTION TO MAINTAIN UNDER SEAL
PLAINTIFF’S UNREDACTED MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THE
EXHIBITS THERETO
Case No. 2:25-cv-96 RJS DBP
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Unredacted Motion for Default
Judgment and Exhibits.1 Specifically MavorCo seeks to maintain under seal Plaintiff’s Motion
for Default Judgment which contains unredacted dollar figures on certain pages and the attached
exhibits. MavorCo avers the redacted sums and exhibits reveal sensitive financial information
pertaining to the calculation of Blendtec’s requested corrective advertising damages and
disgorgement of profits.
“Whether judicial records and other case-related information should be sealed or
otherwise withheld from the public is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district
court.”2 Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.3 This
1 ECF No. 161.
2 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
599, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978)).
3 Nixon V. Warner Commc’ns, Inc, 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306; Lanphere & Urbaniak v. Colorado, 21 F.3d
1508, 1511 (10th Cir. 1994).
Case 2:25-cv-00096-RJS Document 170 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
right, however, is not absolute. The “presumption of access ... can be rebutted if
countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.”4 “The party seeking
to overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that
outweighs the presumption.”5 This court has found certain interests outweigh the
presumption of access.6
A party may overcome the presumption of public access where, for example, the
records contain “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,”7
“Confidential financial information is often sealed where its disclosure could cause
competitive harm.”8
Here, the court is persuaded by Defendants that the information should remain under
seal as it contains sensitive information that the public has a minimal interest in. This type of
information is similar to sales, pricing, and market share data that has been sealed by another
court.9 Therefore, having considered the motion filed by Defendants to Maintain Under Seal
Plaintiff’s Unredacted Motion for Default Judgment and the Exhibits Thereto, the court
hereby GRANTS the Motion and orders that Plaintiff’s Unredacted Motion for Default
Judgment, which contains unredacted dollar figures on Pages i, 8, 9, and 10 (the “Redacted
Sums”), as well as the exhibits thereto, are permanently sealed.
4 Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988).
5 Id.
6 Dovbysh v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., No. 2:21-cv-690-HCN-DBP, 2022 WL 17128816, at *2 (D. Utah Nov. 22,
2022).
7 Nixon., 435 U.S. at 598; see also Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 719 F. App’x 782, 801 n.8 (10th Cir.
2017) (“Even a cursory review of the documents in question confirms that they do contain sensitive, proprietary
information concerning Medtronic’s business practices and potentially sensitive technical and financial data…. For
most of the documents in question, we see no reason why they should not be sealed.”).
8 AH Aero Serv., LLC v. Heber City, 2020 WL 5135819 at *5 (D. Utah Oct. 19, 2020).
9 In re EpiPen, No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ, 2019 WL 2490670, at *1 (D. Kan. June 14, 2019) (unpublished)
(granting motion to seal “sales, pricing, and market share data,” absent showing information was substantively
relevant).
Case 2:25-cv-00096-RJS Document 170 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 21 January 2026.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00096-RJS Document 170 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3