Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Actavis, PLC, et al.
Plaintiff: Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund
Defendant: Actavis, plc, Forest Laboratories, LLC, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH & Co. KGaA, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cobalt Laboratories, Inc., Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Wockhardt Limited, Wockhardt USA LLC, Sun India Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2015cv06549
Filed: August 19, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Unassigned
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 534 ORDER denying 529 Letter Motion to Compel. Having reviewed the parties' correspondence, including Defendants' reply (Dkt. 533), Defendants' letter motion to compel Plaintiff to produce discovery regarding certain "expert relia nce materials" (Dkt. 529) is denied for substantially the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's October 30, 2020 letter (Dkt. 532). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 11/4/2020) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (mml)
October 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 514 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING END-PAYOR PLAINTIFF'S SETTLEMENT WITH TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (n/k/a Barr Pharmaceuticals, LLC), AND COBALT LABORATORIES, INC (n/k/a Cobalt Laboratories, LLC): The EPP Class has thousands of members geographically dispersed throughout the United States and its territories. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the Court determines that the EPP Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court determines that, in connection with and solely for purposes of settlement, the following issues relating to claims (expressed in summary fashion) and/or defenses posed by Defendants present common, class-wide questions, as further set forth. 11. All litigation activity against the Teva Defendants is hereby stayed, other than as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, and all hearings, deadlines, and other proceedings relate d to EPP's claims against those Defendants, other than those incident to the settlement process, are hereby taken off calendar. The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this Court. 12. In the event that the Teva Settlement fails t o become effective in accordance with its terms, or if an Order granting final approval to the Settlement and dismissing EPP's claims against those Defendants with prejudice is not entered or is reversed, vacated, or materially modified on appea l, this Order shall be null and void. 13. In the event that either the Teva Settlement is terminated, not approved by the Court, or the respective Settlement does not become final pursuant to the terms of the respective Settlement, litigation again st those Defendants shall resume in a reasonable manner as approved by the Court. 14. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission by the Teva Defendants of any wrongdoing or any unlawful conduct, and nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by the Teva Defendants of any right to contest, should the litigation resume against the Teva Defendants. 15. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the Settlement Agreement. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/13/2020) (mml)
July 20, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 454 ORDER terminating 452 Letter Motion for Discovery. This order addresses the parties' correspondence regarding depositions of Plainitffs' four merits experts. (See Dkt. 452, 453.) The Court previously directed that experts shall be depo sed once, not twice. Accordingly, even though Plaintiffs must apply for leave to serve rebuttal experts, depositions of their four merits experts must await service of rebuttal reports, if any, from them. Alternatively, Defendants may take earlier depositions of any of the four merits experts but forego opportunity for additional deposition of that already-deposed expert in the event Plaintiffs are granted leave to serve rebuttal from that expert. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 7/20/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record. (mml)
June 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 425 ORDER terminating 423 Letter Motion to Compel. As discussed during the discovery conference held on June 23, 2020, 1. Plaintiff's request (Dkt. 417) to take a 30(b)(6) deposition concerning the Lexapro amendment financial analyses is gra nted. The deposition shall be limited to a half day of 3.5 on-the-record hours. 2. Plaintiff's request (Dkt. 417) for "technical" information concerning rebates is denied. 3. With respect to Plaintiff's requests for admission to Forest, (a) Forest shallrevise its answers to "group 1" RFAs (i.e., those identified in fn 5 of Dkt. 423 as allegedly "improperly evasive") to give complete substantive answers; (b) Forest shall revise its answers to "gro up 2" RFAs (i.e., those identified in fn 6 of Dkt. 423 as improperly qualified by lack of knowledge "at present") to remove the "at present" qualification; Forest may add a general qualification that it reserves the right to amend its answers up to 30 days following the end of discovery based on new information; and (c) the parties shall meet and confer to resolve concerns about "group 3" RFAs (i.e., those identified in fn 7 of Dkt. 423 as not having been substantively answered at all). This order resolves the letter motions at Dkt. 417 and 423. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 6/23/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record. (mml)
May 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 412 ORDER terminating 409 Letter Motion to Compel. The January 10, 2020 email indicates Plaintiff's agreement to limit the deposition of Mr. Meury to 2 hours. The fact that the deposition will be held remotely does not provide a basis for the Plaintiff's current request for a 5-hour or even 3.5-hour deposition. The deposition shall be 2.5 hours, based on Forest's proposal to extend the deposition by half an hour. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 5/22/2020) (ks)
March 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 401 ORDER in 1:20-cv-01799 terminating 6 Letter Motion for Extension of Time; terminating 6 Letter Motion to Consolidate Cases. Extension granted, Oh I fully intend to consolidate the actions and put the new case on the same schedule. This is a "tag along" action in the truest sense of the word. If you will send a draft order it will spare me the trouble of drafting one myself-something that is on my "TO DO" list, but way at the bottom. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 3/4/2020) (mml)
March 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 398 QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/2/2020) (mml)
January 21, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 360 ORDER terminating 355 Letter Motion for Discovery. This resolves Defendants' request to compel and for sanctions in regard to non-party True Health Benefits (THB), represented by Plaintiff's counsel (Dkt. 355). 1. No later than January 2 7, 2020, THB shall complete document production and certify that it has done so. 2. THB shall make its witness available for deposition no later than January 31, 2020. 3. The Court finds THB's conduct to be far from diligent but denies the request for a finding of contempt and for sanctions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/20/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record via ECF. (mml)
January 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 359 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' LETTER MOTION TO COMPEL: The IPPs have until April 24 to retain their experts and submit expert reports. If defense counsel believe that it is necessary to obtain supplemental reports from their experts after receiving the IPP expert reports (and after the phone conference, I have every reason to believe that they will), those supplemental reports must be provided no later than June 12. Expert depositions must be completed by July 31. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by September 11. Oppositions to motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by October 9. Reply briefs in further support of motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions must be submitted by October 23. SO ORDERED. (Deposition due by 7/31/2020. Motions due by 9/11/2020. Responses due by 10/9/2020. Replies due by 10/23/2020.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/17/2020) (mml)
January 9, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 348 ORDER terminating 344 Letter Motion to Compel. I need a conference with the lawyers for the DPP and IPP plaintiffs to work this out. This matter really does not concern defendants. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/9/2020) (mml)
January 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 341 ORDER granting 296 Letter Motion for Discovery. Defendants' letter motion to compel Plaintiff to revise its responses to the requests for admission identified in Dkt. 296 is granted for substantially the reasons set forth in Dkt. 296 and 29 9. The deadline for issuing RFAs is just that - a deadline; it does not limit issuing RFAs at an earlier time. The RFAs also are not duplicative of earlier discovery in direct purchaser litigation, nor could they be as Plaintiff is not a party to tha t case. The Court has considered all other opposing arguments by Plaintiff and finds them without merit. Plaintiff shall serve revised responses to the RFas at issue by January 28, 2020. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/1/2020) (mml)
December 16, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 322 ORDER terminating 316 Letter Motion to Compel. This Order addresses the parties' disagreement about the extent to which Plaintiff may pursue additional depositions. (See Dkt. 316, 320, 321.) As noted by Defendants, the stipulation and order r egarding use of evidence from other actions bars deposition examination of either previously-deposed or new witnesses about topics for which there has been prior testimony in either the NYAG Action or OPP Action. (Dkt. 206 at No. 3.) That said, the s tipulation and order is not as restrictive as Defendants make it out to be. Accordingly: 1. Plaintiff must identify with greater particularity the deposition topics it intends to pursue for each proposed deponent and in a way that explains why the te stimony sought is non-duplicative. 2. The Court finds sufficient Plaintiff's explanation for deposing witnesses Burchard and Solomon provided in Dkt. 321. This disclosure also shows that Plaintiff can provide adequate description to Defendants w ithout the need for in camera review at this juncture. 3. By December 23, 2019, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with an updated disclosure. To the extent Defendants continue to object, they shall provide a written response to Plaintiff by December 30, 2019. By January 7, 2020, the parties shall then meet and confer in person. If any disputes remain, then by January 10, 2020, Plaintiff shall apprise the Court by letter. Defendants may respond by letter no later than January 14, 2020, as further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/16/2019) (mml)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Actavis, PLC, et al.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Actavis, plc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Forest Laboratories, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH & Co. KGaA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cobalt Laboratories, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Wockhardt Limited
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Wockhardt USA LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Sun India Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund
Represented By: Lori Ann Fanning
Represented By: Marvin Alan Miller
Represented By: Peter George Safirstein
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?