CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. AbbVie Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-10087
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In CVS Pharmacy v. AbbVie, Judge Liman granted some sealing motions, denied others, and ordered limited redactions and public filings.
The order affected the defendants, the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the retailer plaintiffs, the end-payor plaintiffs, and the public availability of specified case filings and exhibits.
What happened
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. AbbVie Inc. is part of the Bystolic antitrust litigation. This order addressed several requests to keep exhibits and legal filings from public view.
The court granted three motions, denied four, allowed specified exhibits to remain sealed, and required certain filings to be submitted with limited redactions. It also ordered the plaintiffs and defendants to meet and confer about proposed redactions and required the filings to be made by February 9, 2022.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk of Court to close the seven motions addressed in the order.
The detailed version
- CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. AbbVie Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10087
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 2, 2022
Background
The order concerns several pending motions to seal in the Bystolic antitrust litigation. The case includes direct purchaser actions, the CVS Action, the Walgreen Action, and end-payor actions.
Rulings on the Motions
- The motion at Docket No. 263 was granted. The exhibit at Docket No. 262-3 may remain under seal. - The motion at Docket No. 268 was denied. - The motion at Docket No. 273 was granted. The defendants were ordered to file their memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss the direct purchaser and retailer plaintiffs’ second amended complaints in partially redacted form, as shown in Docket No. 273-1. The defendants were also ordered to file the declaration of Peter J. Carney. Exhibits 1 through 19 to that declaration may remain under seal. - The motion at Docket No. 279 was denied. The direct purchaser plaintiffs and retailer plaintiffs were ordered to meet and confer with the defendants and propose a partially redacted version of their opposition memorandum for the public docket. - The motion at Docket No. 280 was denied. The end-payor plaintiffs were ordered to meet and confer with the defendants and propose a partially redacted version of their opposition to certain defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. That filing includes the declaration of Donna M. Evans and Exhibits A through G. - The motion at Docket No. 290 was denied. - The motion at Docket No. 294 was granted. The defendants were ordered to file their reply memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss the direct purchaser and retailer plaintiffs’ second amended complaints in partially redacted form, as shown in Docket No. 294-1.
Redaction Standard and Deadline
The court directed that redactions be limited to confidential material satisfying the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. If only part of a filing or exhibit meets those standards, only that part should be redacted. The filings required by the order were due February 9, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 263, 268, 273, 279, 280, 290, and 294.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motions at Docket Nos. 263, 273, and 294; denied the motions at Docket Nos. 268, 279, 280, and 290; and entered related orders concerning sealing, redaction, and filing deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.