In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-05735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation: Judge Liman granted some sealing motions, denied others, and ordered limited redactions.
The defendants, direct-purchaser and retailer plaintiffs, end-payor plaintiffs, and the public docket were affected by the rulings on sealed exhibits, proposed redactions, and filing requirements.
What happened
In In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, the court addressed several requests to keep case filings and exhibits from public view. The order concerned the direct-purchaser, retailer, and end-payor actions.
The court granted the motions at Dkt. Nos. 263, 273, and 294, and denied the motions at Dkt. Nos. 268, 279, 280, and 290. It allowed specified exhibits to remain sealed and required certain filings to be submitted in partially redacted form.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also ordered the parties to meet and confer about proposed redactions, limited redactions to confidential material meeting the applicable standard, and directed that the filings be submitted by February 9, 2022.
The detailed version
- In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-05735
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 2, 2022
Nature of the order
In In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, Judge Lewis J. Liman addressed several motions to seal. A sealing order limits public access to filings or exhibits; the court directed that redactions be limited to confidential material satisfying the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Rulings on the motions
- The motion at Dkt. No. 263 was granted. The exhibit at Dkt. No. 262-3 could remain under seal. - The motion at Dkt. No. 268 was denied. - The motion at Dkt. No. 273 was granted. Defendants were ordered to file their memorandum supporting dismissal of the direct-purchaser and retailer plaintiffs’ second amended complaints in the partially redacted form identified at Dkt. No. 273-1. Defendants were also ordered to file the declaration of Peter J. Carney; Exhibits 1 through 19 to that declaration could remain under seal. - The motion at Dkt. No. 279 was denied. The direct-purchaser and retailer plaintiffs were ordered to meet and confer with defendants and propose a partially redacted opposition memorandum for the public docket. - The motion at Dkt. No. 280 was denied. The end-payor plaintiffs were ordered to meet and confer with defendants and propose a partially redacted opposition to certain defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, including the declaration of Donna M. Evans and Exhibits A through G. - The motion at Dkt. No. 290 was denied. - The motion at Dkt. No. 294 was granted. Defendants were ordered to file their reply memorandum supporting dismissal of the direct-purchaser and retailer plaintiffs’ second amended complaints in the partially redacted form identified at Dkt. No. 294-1.
Additional directives and disposition
The court stated that redactions should be limited to material that is confidential and satisfies the Lugosch standards; if only part of a filing or exhibit meets those standards, only that part should be redacted. The filings directed by the order were due by February 9, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 263, 268, 273, 279, 280, 290, and 294. Judge Liman’s order addressed sealing and redaction issues, not the merits of the underlying antitrust claims or the motions to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.