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

Opinion

7OO K STREET, N.W. AUSTIN NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. BRUSSELS PALO ALTO BAKER BOTTS LLP 20001 DALLAS RIYADH DUBAI SAN FRANCISCO TEL +1 202.639.7700 HOUSTON SINGAPORE FAX +1 202.639.7890 LONDON WASHINGTON BakerBotts.com

February 19, 2026 VIA CM/ECF CM/ECF Erik Koons Hon. Kenneth M. Karas TEL: 2026397973 Federal Building and United States Courthouse FAX: 2025851086 erik.koons@bakerbotts.com 300 Quarropas St. White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Re: = PharmacyChecker.com LLC vy. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy et al., No. 19-cv-07577-KMK; Request to Seal Defendant NABP’s Reply in Support of its Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts Dear Judge Karas: We represent Defendant National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (“Defendant” or “NABP”) in this case. Pursuant to Section [X(A) of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice, Defendant respectfully submits this letter motion to file under seal portions of its Reply in Support of its Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (the “Sealing Paper’). Legal Standard: While federal courts recognize a general common law right of public access to court records and proceedings, the right of access is not absolute, and courts have discretion to deny such public access where appropriate. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99 (1978)). “To determine whether documents should be placed under seal, a court must balance the public’s interest in access to judicial documents against the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Jn re Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. INA Reinsurance Co., 468 F. App’x 37, 39 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006)). Court documents may be sealed to avert “[p]otential damage from the release of sensitive business information” and protect from the disclosure of information that may harm a business’s ability to compete in the future. Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Ivax Corp., No. 97-CV-2003, 1998 WL 113976, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 1998) (collecting cases); Standard v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s sealing on grounds that the party’s “interest in protecting confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment presumption of public access”). Sealing Justification: The Sealing Paper describes and cites to information that Plaintiff PharmacyChecker.com LLC (“PCC”) has designated as Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Outside Counsel Eyes Only, in whole or in part, under the Protective Order. The confidential portions of the Sealing Paper are highlighted in yellow in the sealed filing.

BAKER BOTTS we -2- Respectfully submitted,

Erik T. Koons ce: All counsel of record (by CM/ECF)

Granted. } = Leh 2/19/26