Taylor v. Apothecary Shoppe, LLC, The
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - The Temporary Restraining Order is dissolved and the case is dismissed with prejudice ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; vacating/setting aside order(s); finding as moot 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 19 Motion to Seal Document(s) (Re: 8 Order,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),, Ruling on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ) (vah, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL TAYLOR, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE APOTHECARY SHOPPE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-CV-063-TCK-TLW
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Seal Papers in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Application for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19); and (2) Notice of Rule 41(a) Dismissal with
Prejudice and Request to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26).
I.
Motion to Seal (Doc. 19)
Defendant moves the Court to seal its response to the motion for preliminary injunction
(Doc. 22). In order for this filing to remain sealed, Defendant must show that “a legally protected
interest of a party, non-party, or witness outweighs the compelling public interest in disclosure of
records.” See LCvR 79.1. Defendant has met this burden for two reasons. First, a Missouri statute
and an Eighth Circuit decision in a related case, although not conclusive, both indicate that
Defendant has a legally protected interest that outweighs public disclosure of the relevant
information. See Mo. Stat. Ann. § 546.720(2) (extending confidentiality to identities of members
of an execution team, which the Missouri Department of Corrections (“DOC”) has allegedly
interpreted to prohibit either affirming or denying a pharmacy’s involvement with a particular
execution); In re Lombardi, ---F.3d ----, 2014 WL 288937, at *5 (8th Cir. Jan. 24, 2014) (denying
discovery of pharmacy’s identity in related litigation because discovery was irrelevant to any viable
claim for relief, but failing to reach the “significant and complex” privilege issues posed by §
546.720(2)). This is a short-lived, ancillary case filed in Oklahoma. It would be imprudent at this
juncture to force Defendant to disclose any information not yet ordered to be disclosed by Missouri
courts.
Second, Defendant has not admitted or denied involvement with Mr. Taylor’s execution in
any public filings in this case, such that it has somehow waived the asserted privilege. In its brief
in support of its motion to seal, Defendant argued that privilege attached “regardless of whether”
the Complaint’s allegations regarding its role in Mr. Taylor’s execution were accurate. (See Doc.
20.) In the Notice of Rule 41(a) Dismissal filed on February 17, 2014 (Doc. 26), the parties
referenced a settlement agreement but did not file the settlement agreement with the Court. On
February 18, 2014, a newspaper article reported: “A Tulsa pharmacy has agreed not to provide
Missouri with a made-to-order drug for an inmate’s execution scheduled for later this month,
according to court documents filed Monday.” See Tim Talley, Tulsa Pharmacy Won’t Sell Drug
for Missouri Execution Under Deal, Tulsa World, Feb. 18, 2014. To this Court’s knowledge, there
are no publicly filed “court documents” explaining or setting forth the terms of the settlement
agreement, and Defendant has neither admitted or denied its involvement with Mr. Taylor’s
execution in any publicly filed document in this case. Thus, it does not appear that Defendant has
voluntarily, publicly disclosed any information contained in the sealed brief.1
II.
Notice of Rule 41(a) Dismissal With Prejudice and Joint Request to Dissolve the
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26)
The parties have reached a settlement of this matter. Although the notice of dismissal
satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff appears to request a court-ordered dismissal
1
Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Hellman, is cautioned against revealing the contents of sealed filings in
this case to newspapers or other sources.
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(B). (See Doc. 26 (“Plaintiff hereby moves . . . that this action . . . be
dismissed with prejudice.”).) Therefore, the Court construes the notice (Doc. 26) as a motion for
voluntary dismissal. In this same filing, the parties jointly move for dissolution of the Court’s
Temporary Restraining Order entered on February 12, 2014. Both motions shall be granted.
III.
Conclusion
It is hereby Ordered that:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Seal Papers in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. Defendant’s response brief and
attachment (Doc. 22) shall remain sealed.
2.
The parties’ joint motion to dissolve the TRO (Doc. 26) is GRANTED, and the
Court’s TRO entered February 12, 2014 (Doc. 8) is DISSOLVED.
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss (Doc. 26) is GRANTED, and this matter is
hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
4.
Based on the parties’ stipulation of dismissal, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 6) is MOOT, and the hearing scheduled this date was stricken.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2014.
_________________________________
TERENCE C. KERN
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?