United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Sb SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK □ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ex b | a4 yw x □ wr □ rel, URI BASSAN, [ je we Plaintiffs, Ae We of □□ v. A phy i t □□□ □ □□ ( S j □□ OMNICARE, INC., Ye Me gh □□ WW Defendant. \p lV) a Case No. 15-CV-4179-CM-VF VY □□□□ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, □□□ a (2 Plaintiff, 1 a □□ Ke () Pe Vv □ So □ , hi f \ OMNICARE, INC. and CVS HEALTH CORP., ; Ts yr ny □□ □□ NY \ BA Defendants. □□ Y 4 & □□ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS Enu Mainigi (pro hac vice) _~~ Holly Conley (pro hac vice) ae William Ashworth (pro hac vice) = David Randall J. Riskin (pro hac vice) Benjamin Hazelwood (Bar No. 5001508) WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Maine Avenue, S.W. Ye Washington, DC 20024 (202) 434-5000 ol ‘ae For matters in New York: at Ab 650 Fifth Avenue Suite 1500 t u | New York, NY 10019 q I ) ye? Attorneys for Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Ne Corporation qh) ” / USDC SDNY Yu NW . DOCUMENT ihe J ELECTRONICALLY FILE TABLE OF CONTENTS!

DEFENDANTS REQUEST SEALING NOTWITHSTANDING RESERVATIONS ............00 1 ' Consistent with the Court’s Individual Practices and Procedures Rule V(D), Defendants are in- cluding a Table of Contents and a Table of Authorities.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)... ccc □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ii ‘DEFENDANTS REQUEST SEALING NOTWITHSTANDING RESERVATIONS Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Corporation’s (together, “Omnicare”) reply in support of their objections to Judge Figueredo’s October 25, 2023 order (ECF 370) cites to and quotes from materials the U.S. Attorney’s Office has designated confidential under the protective order, and which Judge Figueredo sealed below. Omnicare disagrees these materials should be sealed—in- cluding because they demonstrate the Office’s public criticisms of Omnicare’s practices are mer- itless. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-120 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption for public access to judicial documents weighed against “privacy interests of those resisting disclosure” (internal quotation marks omitted)). But because the protective order con- templates that material designated confidential be maintained under seal, Omnicare seeks sealing here as to the portions of its reply quoting from (and paraphrasing) confidential material. It has filed a redacted version of its reply on the public docket, and an unredacted version conditionally under seal.

Dated: December 11, 2023 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP /s/_Enu Mainigi Enu Mainigi (pro hac vice) Holly Conley (pro hac vice) William Ashworth (pro hac vice) David Randall J. Riskin (pro hac vice) Benjamin Hazelwood (Bar No. 5001508) Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 (202) 434-5000 For matters in New York: Fifth Avenue Suite 1500 New York, NY 10019 Attorneys for Omnicare, Inc. and CVS Health Cor- poration