United States v. Anthem, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-02593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Anthem, Judge Carter denied as moot the Government’s request for consolidated briefing on three anticipated motions.
The United States and Anthem, Inc., whose proposed approaches to briefing the anticipated motions were discussed; the court denied the Government’s request for a consolidated briefing schedule as moot.
What happened
United States v. Anthem, Inc. concerned how the parties would brief three motions that Anthem planned to file: a motion to transfer the case, a motion to dismiss two government claims, and a motion to strike allegations.
The Government proposed one combined briefing schedule for all three motions, saying that the issues overlapped and that combined briefing would be more efficient. Anthem preferred separate briefing for the three motions.
Judge Andrew L. Carter denied the Government’s request as moot. The order did not decide the venue, dismissal, or striking issues.
The detailed version
- United States v. Anthem, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02593
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 1, 2020
Background
The Government asked the court to adopt one consolidated briefing schedule for three anticipated motions by Anthem, Inc.: a motion to transfer venue, a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss two of the Government’s claims, and a motion under Rule 12(f) to strike certain allegations.
The Government proposed that Anthem file its opening brief by August 21, 2020; that the Government respond by September 25, 2020; and that Anthem file a reply by October 16, 2020. The Government argued that briefing the motions together would promote efficiency because the venue issues would require consideration of the factual and legal context of the case and could overlap with the Rule 12 motions.
The Parties’ Positions
Anthem favored separate briefing for its three anticipated motions. The Government argued that a consolidated schedule would avoid multiple filings and would allow the court to consider the venue arguments first and then address the Rule 12 motions only if necessary. The Government also stated that if the court transferred the case, it could do so without deciding the Rule 12 motions.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter ordered: “This request is DENIED as moot.” The opinion does not explain why the request had become moot. The court did not rule on whether the case should be transferred, whether the two claims should be dismissed, or whether any allegations should be stricken.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.