bar federal antitrust claims under the Filed Rate Doctrine.” Id. 12 . The USDA clearly had statutory authority. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the Secretary issued a rule that allowed for such review in 2007. Thus, even if the Secretary did not choose to review the accuracy of data reported to NASS, he had the power to do so. 13 . Defendants' citations are to the federal register and, hence, judicially noticeable. See 44 U.S.C. § 1507. 14 . Plaintiffs also cite three cases from the same district court which declined to apply the filed rate doctrine to Medicaid reimbursement rates for prescription drugs. Each case, however, rejected the application of the doctrine at least in part because there were no filed rates. Massachusetts v. Mylan Labs., 357 F.Supp.2d 314, 329 (D.Mass.2005) (<HOLDING>); In re Lupron Mktg. and Sales Prac. Litig.,
holding that although portion of trial courts jury charge was inapplicable any error in providing it was harmless in light of the fact that charge considered as a whole was not likely to confuse or mislead the jury holding that the filed rate doctrine was inapplicable because the reported data do not control the rates which defendants can charge customers as a tariff would holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number recognizing that missing data were located in a laboratory within the constructive control of the state holding that filed tariffs are presumed valid until the fcc determines otherwise and that carriers are unable to charge or receive any rate not specified in the tariff