Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 22, 2022

PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:19-cv-07577
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureAntitrust
In one sentence

In PharmacyChecker.com v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Judge Karas granted PharmacyChecker.com’s motion to conditionally seal specified filings.

Who this affects

PharmacyChecker.com LLC and the defendants in the case, because the court conditionally sealed specified summary-judgment filings and related materials.

What happened

In PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, PharmacyChecker.com asked the court to conditionally seal its opposition papers and related exhibits filed in connection with the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on its Sherman Act claim. The materials included a legal brief, a statement of facts, exhibits, and a declaration.

PharmacyChecker.com said the materials contained information designated as confidential or restricted under the parties’ protective order. The court found conditional sealing appropriate.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the motion to conditionally seal the identified materials. He stated that PharmacyChecker.com’s motion to permanently seal those materials, and other materials filed with the summary-judgment briefing, would be due after the defendants’ motion was fully briefed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy · No. 7:19-cv-07577
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
July 22, 2022

Background

PharmacyChecker.com LLC moved to conditionally seal materials filed in opposition to the defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment on its claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The materials included PharmacyChecker.com’s opposition memorandum, its statement of material facts, specified exhibits, and the declaration of Gabriel Levitt.

PharmacyChecker.com stated that the materials contained information designated as confidential or “Outside Counsel Eyes Only” under the parties’ stipulated protective order. The letter also stated that the party designating information as protected was responsible for later filing a motion to permanently seal it.

Court’s Analysis

The court noted that judicial documents generally carry a presumptive right of public access, although that right is not absolute. It referred to the required considerations: whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and whether countervailing factors or higher values outweigh that presumption. The court concluded that conditional sealing was appropriate here, citing the presence of highly proprietary business material.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted PharmacyChecker.com’s motion to conditionally seal the identified materials. The court stated that PharmacyChecker.com’s motion to permanently seal those materials, along with any other materials filed with the parties’ summary-judgment briefing, would be due once the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was fully briefed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.