As discussed during today ' s conference , CoreRx ' s request to file a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Bionpharma ' s claim for lost profits , see ECF No .

200 , is denied.

The parties are reminded that they should submit a joint pre - trial order , together with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law , by April 7, 2023.

Dated: New York, New York March 16, 2023 United States District Judge

The Honorable John G. Koeltl : vos United States District Court for the ve Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLPisalimitedliability partnership registered under the laws of Texas.

Norton Rose Fulbright Verein heips coordinate the activities of the mombers but doesnotitself provide legal services foclients.

Yesterday, the Court set a pre-motion conference to discuss a motion for partial summary judgment by CoreRx for March 15, 2023, at 12 noon.

Because I will be on a flight from London to Newark at that time, CoreRx requests that the conference be adjourned until anothertime.

─────────────────────────────────── JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: A telephone conference is scheduled for March 15, 2023 at 11:00a.m.

Dated: New York, New York

Depositions: Deponent Taylor Jackson Trevor Jones Mackenzie Logan Bernard Angela Corporate Representative Plaintiff's Medical Providers To be determined If one fails deposition nonetheless proceed shall be preserved.

March all eyewitnesses notice and witnesses, if none, an affirmation provide to that 31, 2023, statements effect. exchange shall of opposing names parties and addresses and photographs, of or, b.

To overcome the presumption of public access over a judicial document, the court must make “specific, on the record findings” that sealing (1) is necessary “to preserve higher values,” and (2) “is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (citation omitted).

& Customs Enf’t, No. 19-CV-8892, 2021 WL 3862708, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2021) (“[T]hat a document was produced in discovery pursuant to a protective order has no bearing on the presumption of access that attaches when it becomes a judicial document.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

CoreRx has “not addressed the weight of the presumption or identified reasons that weigh against disclosure— other than in the most cursory fashion with citation to the Protective Order, which is insufficient to justify sealing.” Tromblee, 2022 WL 17266979, at *4.

Based on the standard set forth by the Second Circuit in Lugosch, CoreRx’s letter motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain ECF Nos. 193 and 194-3 under seal pending submission of a renewed motion.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation 1700 K Street NW Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20006-3817

The Order directed Bionpharma, Inc. (“Bion”) “to meet and confer with counsel for Azurity Pharmaceuticals to coordinate the deposition of Mr. Patel on the one common issue between the litigation in this Court and Bionpharma’s litigation with Azurity in Delaware – specifically, the lawsuit and settlement involving CoreRx.” Id.

Bion refused to make any proposal regarding a time limit, and it did not agree to meet and confer.

Valerie Figueredo February 17, 2023 Page 2 order Bionpharma to coordinate a single deposition on the overlapping issue identified in ECF No. 186, and issue an order limiting the deposition to 3 hours and 30 minutes.

Professional Corporation s/ Jeffrey C. Bank Jeffrey C. Bank Counsel for Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2-22-2023 Consistent with the discussion at the conference on February 14, 2023 and the order at ECF No. 186, Bionpharma is directed to coordinate with Azurity so that Mr. Patel is deposed once concerning the one common issue between the litigation here and in Delaware: the lawsuit between Bionpharma and CoreRX, and the settlement between Azurity and CoreRx.

Plaintiffs, citing FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), further reiterate that each side deal provided payments to each generic manufacturer with first-filer exclusivity “even though none of them had any claim to damages as a result of ...

... company that was acquired in 2014 for $25 billion, Dkt. No. 427 ¶ 8 n.5—would need 32 Case 1:20-cv-05735-LJL Document 438 Filed 02/21/23 Page 33 of 53 to disclose in its SEC public filings a $15 million acquisition of patents, none ...

... for Watson paying $4 million to Moksha8, Dkt. No. 270-6; and (2) a “Letter Agreement” between Forest and Moksha8 stating that Moksha8 was in material breach of at least three “Loan and Security Agreement[s]” but nonetheless ...

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order filed by the Court today: Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Direct Purchaser and Retailer Plaintiffs’ Complaints for failure to state a claim is GRANTED, and the Direct Purchaser and Retailer Plaintiffs’ Complaints are DISMISSSED with prejudice.

Nonresident Defendants’ motion to dismiss the End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Complaint’s non-New York, state-law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and Teva Israel’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are DENIED as moot.

The parties shall meet and confer with respect to potential redactions and, by February 28, 2023, the parties shall file any proposed redactions pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices.

In addition, the parties are invited to inform the Court of any errors in citation, typography, or similar errors they discover in their review.

VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: For the reasons stated at the conference on February 14, 2023, Defendant CoreRX’s motion for a protective order, quashing the deposition notices issued by Plaintiff Bionpharma to two members of CoreRx’s Board of Directors, is granted.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 181.

Additionally, counsel for Bionpharma is directed to meet and confer with counsel for Azurity Pharmaceuticals to coordinate the deposition of Mr. Patel on the one common issue between the litigation in this Court and Bionpharma’s litigation with Azurity in Delaware—specifically, the lawsuit and settlement involving CoreRx.

By Friday, February 17, 2023, the parties will inform the Court (1) whether service of the subpoena on Mr. Khanna was completed, and (2) whether Bionpharma and Azurity have agreed to a time limit for Mr. Patel’s deposition.

United States Magistrate Judge

))))))))))) BARBARA DELUCA, DREW R. NAYLOR, and PEGGY ROLLO, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated limited partners, Plaintiffs,

It is hereby ORDERED that discovery and motions practice as it relates to the claims against the Auditor Defendants in this case shall be governed by the following schedule: Event Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(2) Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Reply Brief Close of fact discovery Deadline for Plaintiffs to identify experts and to serve all materials required by Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(2) Deadline for Auditor Defendants to identify responsive experts and to serve all materials required by Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(2) Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve expert rebuttal reports Close of expert discovery Motions for Summary Judgment Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment Replies in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment Proposed Date February 10, 2023 March 6, 2023 April 7, 2023 April 28, 2023 July 28, 2023 September 22, 2023 October 20, 2023 March 1, 2024 April 4, 2024 May 2, 2024 May 30, 2024 June 20, 2024 July 18, 2024 August 29, 2024 September 19, 2024 SO ORDERED, this ___ day of ________, 2023 February The Court adopts the Auditor Defendants' proposed schedule.

Valerie Figueredo U.S. District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 February 6, 2023 2-7-2023 The parties are directed that the issues raised in ECF No. 183 will be discussed at the upcoming discovery conference on 2/14/23.

We respectfully submit this letter concerning Bionpharma’s motion to compel the deposition of Azurity Pharmaceuticals Inc., which was originally filed in the District of Massachusetts as case number 1:23-mc-91017 and transferred to this Court on consent of both companies.

Because we have not seen an entry on the SDNY docket reflecting receipt of the transfer from Massachusetts, we are including with this letter all papers filed in the transferor district as follows:  Attachment 1: Bionpharma’s motion to compel Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s compliance with a deposition subpoena (D.I.

));  Attachment 2: Declaration of Jacob Baron in support of Bionpharma’s motion to compel Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s compliance with a deposition subpoena, and all exhibits thereto (D.I.

Bionpharma submits that its motion is ripe for adjudication, and respectfully requests that it be addressed during the February 14, 2023 discovery conference already scheduled before Your Honor.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER,District Judge: The Court having been advisedthatali claims asserted herein have beensettled in principle, Dkt. 318, it is ORDEREDthat the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudiceto the right to reopen the action within 30 days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated.

To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within 30 days ofthis Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis.

Per Paragraph 4(C) of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record.

Any proposed order approving the settlement agreement that seeks the Court’s continued jurisdiction should either (1) expressly state that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement or (2) incorporate the terms of the settlement agreementin the order.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

None of the over 16,000 total documents produced by CoreRx in this case support Bionpharma’s assertions.

by and between the undersigned attorneys for the parties herein, that, whereas no party hereto is an infant, incompetent person for whom a committee has been appointed or conservatee and no person not a party has an interest in the subject matter of the action, the claim alleged in Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint

discontinued and dismissed pursuant to CPLR City is hereby § 3217(a)(2), without prejudice and without costs or fees to any party.

that this Stipulation shall have the effect of discontinuing Plaintiff's

claim against all Defendants immediately and without further action required by the Court, and that this Stipulation may be filed with the Clerk of Court without further notice.

Le Lee Li Christopher Buchanan Fifth New York, Telephone: Ingersoll U. Warren & Rooney 9th Floor Avenue,

P. 45 (the “Subpoenas”), in connection with the above- captioned litigation (the “Action”); WHEREAS, Azurity responded and objected to the Subpoena, has met and conferred with Bionpharma, and has agreed to produce certain documents in response to the Subpoena, provided those materials exist, are reasonably accessible, and are not legally privileged or otherwise immune from discovery; WHEREAS, the Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the following: 1.

Absent written consent of Azurity or further order of this Court, all outside counsel of record as defined in Paragraph 12.a and designated in-house representatives as defined in Paragraph 12.b who are substantively involved in the drafting or prosecution of claims in patents and/or patent applications relating to an oral liquid enalapril maleate formulation (including any continuations, continuations-in-part, or divisionals thereof claiming enalapril maleate oral formulations, or processes for making enalapril maleate oral formulations, or methods of treatment involving oral liquid enalapril maleate formulations) are excluded from access to information designated Confidential Material or Confidential Material—Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only.

Outside counsel of record as defined in Paragraph 12.b and designated in-house representatives as defined in Paragraph 12.a who do have access to information designated Confidential Material or Confidential Material—Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only cannot participate in such aforementioned activities during the pendency of this Action, including any appeals therefrom, and for twelve (12) months after the last of this Action is finally terminated.

For the avoidance of doubt, outside counsel who do not have access to information designated Confidential Material or Confidential Material—Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only under the Protective Order and in-house representatives other than those defined in Paragraph 12.b are not restricted in any manner by this Paragraph 4, and for example, may therefore freely draft, amend, and/or prosecute claims before the USPTO or before any foreign patent-granting authority.

Any deposition testimony or transcript of any current or former Azurity employee or representative in this Action, or any part thereof, shall be designated pursuant to this stipulation.