PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-07577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Judge Karas granted defendants’ motion to conditionally seal materials related to summary-judgment and expert-testimony briefing.
The order directly affected the defendants’ filings and exhibits, which were conditionally sealed, and PharmacyChecker.com LLC, which was given the deadline to seek permanent sealing. It did not decide the underlying Sherman Act claim or the expert-testimony dispute.
What happened
PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy concerns defendants’ request to conditionally seal filings and exhibits submitted with their reply briefing on summary judgment and their request to exclude expert testimony. The materials included information that PharmacyChecker.com had designated confidential, highly confidential, or for outside counsel’s eyes only under a protective order.
The request covered defendants’ reply memorandum and factual statement supporting summary judgment on PharmacyChecker.com’s claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, listed exhibits, a supporting declaration, briefing concerning expert testimony, and a letter about striking part of a declaration. The order also set a deadline for PharmacyChecker.com to seek permanent sealing of the materials.
Judge Kenneth Karas granted defendants’ motion to conditionally seal the referenced materials. He ordered PharmacyChecker.com’s motion for permanent sealing to be filed by August 16, 2022, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion. The order did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment or expert-testimony disputes.
The detailed version
- PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy · No. 7:19-cv-07577
- Kenneth Karas
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
Defendants, including the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, asked the court to conditionally place under seal materials filed with their reply briefing supporting a motion for summary judgment on PharmacyChecker.com’s Section 1 Sherman Act claim and a motion to exclude expert testimony. The request was made on behalf of all defendants. The materials had been filed conditionally under a stipulated protective order because they contained information that PharmacyChecker.com had designated as confidential, highly confidential, or for outside counsel’s eyes only.
The requested materials included defendants’ reply memorandum and reply statement of material facts supporting summary judgment; specified exhibits; a declaration by Melanie M. Kiser; defendants’ reply memorandum supporting their motion to exclude Benjamin England’s expert testimony; and defendants’ pre-motion letter concerning portions of Gabriel Levitt’s declaration. The request relied on the principle that judicial records generally have a presumptive right of public access, although that right is not absolute.
Ruling
Judge Karas granted defendants’ motion to conditionally seal the referenced materials. The order required PharmacyChecker.com, as the party that designated the information, to file any motion seeking permanent sealing by August 16, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 277. The order addressed sealing only; it did not rule on the underlying summary-judgment motion or the motion to exclude expert testimony.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.