Walgreen Co. v. AbbVie Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-09793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Walgreen Co. v. AbbVie Inc., Judge Liman granted and denied motions governing redactions and sealing in Bystolic antitrust litigation.
The direct-purchaser, retailer, and end-payor plaintiffs and the defendants in the Bystolic antitrust litigation, whose filings and exhibits were subject to the court’s sealing and redaction rulings.
What happened
Walgreen Co. v. AbbVie Inc. is part of the Bystolic antitrust litigation in the Southern District of New York. The order addressed motions concerning whether filings and exhibits should be kept confidential or publicly filed with limited redactions.
The court granted motions at Dkt. Nos. 263, 273, and 294, and denied motions at Dkt. Nos. 268, 279, 280, and 290. It allowed specified exhibits to remain sealed, required defendants and plaintiffs to file partially redacted materials, and directed the parties to limit redactions to confidential material meeting the standards for sealing.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered all required filings by February 9, 2022, and directed the clerk to close the seven listed motions. The order did not decide the underlying antitrust claims or the pending motions to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Walgreen Co. v. AbbVie Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09793
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 2, 2022
Background
The order concerns several pending motions to seal in the Bystolic antitrust litigation. The caption states that the order relates to all direct-purchaser actions, the CVS action, the Walgreen action, and all end-payor actions. It does not decide the parties’ underlying antitrust claims or the motions to dismiss referenced in the filings.
Rulings on the Motions
The court ruled as follows:
- The motion at Dkt. No. 263 was granted. Exhibit 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 set out in 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 memorandum opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss their second amended complaints for public filing. - 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 set out in Dkt. No. 294-1.
The court directed that proposed redactions be limited to confidential material satisfying the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. When only part of a filing or exhibit met those standards, only that part could be redacted.
Disposition
All required filings were to be made by February 9, 2022, following the court’s individual practices. Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the clerk to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 263, 268, 273, 279, 280, 290, and 294. This was an order on sealing and redaction requests, not a ruling on the merits of the antitrust litigation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.