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

Filing 322

ORDER granting #318 Letter Motion to Seal and granting #313 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's letter motion to conditionally seal the referenced material in Dkt. No. 320 is granted. Defendant NABP's letter motion to conditionally seal the referenced material in Dkt No. 314 is also granted. Plaintiff's motion to permanently seal the conditionally sealed materials is due by no later than December 2, 2022. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at Dkt. Nos. 313 and 318. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 11/18/22) (yv) Modified on 11/18/2022 (yv).

Case 7:19-cv-07577-KMK-PED Document 318 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

SAN DIEGO · LOS ANGELES · MINNEAPOLIS · NEW YORK

Aaron Gott | Partner & COO
331 Second Ave. S.
Suite 420
Minneapolis, MN 55401

[phone]
[e-mail]
bonalaw.com

November 17, 2022
Via ECF
Hon. Kenneth M. Karas
The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas Street
White Plains, New York 10601-4150
Re:

PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy et al.
No. 19-cv-07577-KMK

Dear Judge Karas:
I write for PharmacyChecker.com LLC under Section IX(a) of the Court’s Individual Rules
of Practice and the Stipulated Protective Order to request that certain confidential
information included in plaintiff’s pre-motion letter requesting a pre-motion conference
re motion to dismiss NABP’s amended counterclaim be conditionally placed under seal.
Under paragraph 24 of the Stipulated Protective Order, plaintiff filed the foregoing
conditionally under seal because they contain “Protected Material” as defined by the
Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. 181. The material includes information derived from
averments and documents, designated as Confidential or Outside Counsel Eyes Only by
plaintiff PharmacyChecker.com.
PharmacyChecker.com, as the designating party, has the “obligation to file a motion to
permanently seal the documents pursuant to applicable rules.” Id. at 16.
While there is presumptive right of public access to judicial documents, that right is “not
absolute.” Mirlis v. Greer, 952 Fl.3e 51, 59 (2nd Cir. 2020) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). In evaluating whether to grant a sealing
request, the court must evaluate several factors: (1) whether the document qualifies as a
judicial document; (2) the weight of the presumption of public access; and (3) whether
any countervailing factors or higher values outweight the right of public access to the
judicial document. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F3d 110, 119–20 (2nd Cir.
2006).

Case 7:19-cv-07577-KMK-PED Document 318 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2
Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas
November 17, 2022
Page 2

Conditional sealing of the above-referenced materials is appropriate in this instance. See,
e.g., GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Levine, 769 F. Supp 2d 649–50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (allowing sealing of
documents “contain[ing] highly proprietary [business material”).
Respectfully submitted,
BONALAW PC

Aaron Gott

Plaintiff’s letter motion to conditionally seal
the referenced material in Dkt. No. 320 is
granted. Defendant NABP's letter motion to
conditionally seal the referenced material in
Dkt No. 314 is also granted. Plaintiff’s motion
to permanently seal the conditionally sealed
materials is due by no later than December 2,
2022. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
terminate the pending motions at Dkt. Nos.
313 and 318.

November 18, 2022