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
- 1
In United States ex rel. Bassan v. Omnicare, Judge Figueredo granted an application to file materials under seal.
The ruling affected access to the clawed-back document and the unredacted expert report, including the defendants’ access and the record available for future review.
What happened
In United States ex rel. Bassan v. Omnicare, a letter addressed a document that had been taken back from production and an unredacted expert report that quoted and relied on it. The letter said the court had received the document from the government and requested that both materials be placed on the docket under seal.
The request sought to preserve a complete record for possible review while preventing the defendants from accessing the sealed materials. The available opinion text does not describe the underlying motion to compel’s merits.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the application on October 30, 2023, and directed that the clawed-back document and unredacted expert report be filed under seal. The order text provided is incomplete, so the full access restrictions cannot be stated with certainty.
The detailed version
- United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-04179
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
The filing concerned a housekeeping matter related to the court’s October 25, 2023 order on the defendants’ motion to compel. The letter stated that the government had submitted a clawed-back document, identified as OMNICARE-USAO-00454799, to the court by an email sent outside the ordinary party communications. It also stated that an unredacted version of Barry Hart’s expert report had been provided to the court and that the report quoted from and relied on the clawed-back document.
Request
The letter requested that the court place the clawed-back document and the unredacted Hart report on the docket under seal in a manner that would prevent the defendants from accessing them. The stated purpose was to ensure that any future reviewing court would have the complete record relevant to the motion to compel.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo marked the application “Granted” and directed that the clawed-back document and unredacted Barry Hart expert report be filed under seal. The provided text ends before fully stating the access conditions. The ruling addressed filing and sealing of materials; it did not decide the merits of the underlying motion to compel in the text provided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.