United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:15-cv-04179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In United States v. Omnicare, Judge McMahon’s filing seeks to seal defendants’ reply portions quoting confidential materials; it does not show a ruling.
Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corporation, whose reply the filing seeks to keep partly under seal, as well as the United States and Uri Bassan, parties identified in the case caption. The request also concerns public access to the sealed materials.
What happened
United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc. concerns a filing by Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corporation asking to keep portions of their reply under seal. The reply apparently quotes or paraphrases materials that the U.S. Attorney’s Office designated confidential under a protective order and that Judge Figueredo previously sealed.
The defendants say they disagree that the materials should remain sealed, but they seek sealing because the protective order provides that confidentially designated material must remain under seal. They state that they filed a redacted public version of the reply and an unredacted version conditionally under seal.
The provided document is a memorandum supporting the sealing request, not an order deciding it. Judge McMahon is identified in the case metadata, but the text does not state whether the motion to seal was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-04179
- Colleen McMahon
- June 25, 2024
Document and posture
The provided text is a memorandum in support of Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corporation’s motion to seal their reply in support of objections to an October 25, 2023 order by Judge Figueredo. It is not a judicial opinion or order ruling on the motion to seal.
Sealing request
The defendants state that their reply quotes and paraphrases materials that the U.S. Attorney’s Office designated confidential under a protective order. They also state that Judge Figueredo sealed those materials below. The defendants disagree with the asserted need for sealing and contend that the materials show that public criticisms of Omnicare’s practices are meritless. Nevertheless, they ask to seal the portions of the reply that quote or paraphrase the confidential materials because, in their view, the protective order requires confidentially designated material to be maintained under seal.
The defendants say they filed a redacted version of the reply on the public docket and an unredacted version conditionally under seal. The memorandum cites the general presumption of public access to judicial documents and the need to weigh that presumption against privacy interests.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the motion to seal. No ruling on the motion appears in the supplied document.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.