DISCUSSION Even assuming that Defendants have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their motion to dismiss, the Court finds that none of the other factors weigh in favor of granting a stay.

County of Nassau v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Nassau v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Schoharie v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Schoharie v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Rensselaer v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Rensselaer v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Niagara v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Niagara v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Tompkins v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Tompkins v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. City of Ithaca v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. City of Ithaca v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Clinton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Clinton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Steuben v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Steuben v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Hamilton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Hamilton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Saratoga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Saratoga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Westchester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Westchester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Genesee v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Genesee v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Franklin v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Franklin v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Schuyler v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Schuyler v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Cortland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Cortland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Livingston v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Livingston v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Cayuga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Cayuga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Putnam v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Putnam v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. City of Mount Vernon v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. City of Mount Vernon v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Essex v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Essex v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Chenango v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Chenango v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Tioga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Tioga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Otsego v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Otsego v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Chemung v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Chemung v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Yates v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Yates v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Cattaraugus v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Cattaraugus v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Madison v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Madison v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Orleans v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Orleans v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Warren v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Warren v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. City of Kingston v. Actavis LLC, et al. City of Kingston v. Actavis LLC, et al. Town of Amherst v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Amherst v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Cheektowaga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Cheektowaga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Tonawanda v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Tonawanda v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Lancaster v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Town of Lancaster v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Chautauqua v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. County of Chautauqua v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. Yates County, et al. v. Akin's Pharmacy, et al. Yates County, et al. v. Akin’s Pharmacy, et al.

Sylvia Macon Kastens having applied to this Court for admission pro hac vice to represent Sylvia Macon Kastens having applied to this Court for admission pro hac vice to represent defendant, Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., in the above-captioned matter, and said application defendant, Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., in the above-captioned matter, and said application having submitted in support thereof an affirmation of Joshua M. Agins, Esq., a member of the Bar having submitted in support thereof an affirmation of Joshua M. Agins, Esq., a member of the Bar of the State of New York and attorney of record herein for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., an of the State of New York and attorney of record herein for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., an affidavit of the applicant dated December 17, 2024, and Certificates of Good Standing from the affidavit of the applicant dated December 17, 2024, and Certificates of Good Standing from the jurisdictions in which the applicant was admitted to the practice of law, and the Court having jurisdictions in which the applicant was admitted to the practice of law, and the Court having reviewed the foregoing submissions and due deliberation having been had, it is therefore reviewed the foregoing submissions and due deliberation having been had, it is therefore ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and Sylvia Macon Kastens is permitted to ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and Sylvia Macon Kastens is permitted to appear and to participate in this action on behalf of Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.; and it is further appear and to participate in this action on behalf of Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.; and it is further ORDERED that Ms. Kastens shall at all times be associated herein with counsel who is a ORDERED that Ms. Kastens shall at all times be associated herein with counsel who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the parties in question and all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the Court shall be signed parties in question and all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the Court shall be signed by the attorney of record, who shall be held responsible for such papers and for the conduct of this by the attorney of record, who shall be held responsible for such papers and for the conduct of this action; and it is further action; and it is further ORDERED that, pursuant to § 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals and § 690.3 of ORDERED that, pursuant to § 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals and § 690.3 of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the attorney hereby admitted pro hac the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the attorney hereby admitted pro hac vice shall abide by the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York vice shall abide by the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York Bar, including the Rules of the Courts governing the conduct of attorneys and the Disciplinary Bar, including the Rules of the Courts governing the conduct of attorneys and the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and it is further Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and it is further ORDERED that Ms. Kastens shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State ORDERED that Ms. Kastens shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of her participation in this matter; of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of her participation in this matter; and it is further and it is further ORDERED that said counsel shall notify the Court immediately of any matters or event in ORDERED that said counsel shall notify the Court immediately of any matters or event in this or any other jurisdiction which affects her standing as a member of the Bar.

this or any other jurisdiction which affects her standing as a member of the Bar.

Waldrop; Mark Radcliffe; Mark Ross; Patty Carnes; Carol Debord; Jeff Waugh; Shane Cook; James David Haddox; Aida Maxsam; Tessa Rios; Amy K. Thompson; Joe Coggins; Lyndsie Fowler; Mitchell “Chip” Fisher; Rebecca Sterling; Vanessa Weatherspoon; Chris Hargrave; Brandon Hassenfuss; Joe Read; Andrew T. Stokes; Nathan C. Grace; Jaclyn P. Gatling; Leslie Roberson; Barbara C. Miller; Briann Parson-Barnes; Becca Beck Harville; Lindsey Bonifacio; Tammy Heyward; James Speed; Damon Storhoff; Diana C. Muller; and Draupadi Daley.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, the Ad Hoc Group of Non-Consenting States (as listed on the October 11, 2019 Verified Statement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 filed under Docket No. 296 of Case No. 19-23649)4, the ad hoc committee of government and other contingent litigation claimants and each of its members (as listed on the October 10, 2019 Verified Statement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 filed under Docket No. 279 of Case No. 19-23649), and the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group and each of its members5 (as listed on the October 30, 2019 Verified Statement

The Company shall abide by any decision by the FDA on the pending Citizens Petition dated September 1, 2017 (docket number FDA-2017-P-5396) requesting a ban on specific high doses of prescription oral and transmucosal Opioids that, when taken as directed, exceed 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day.

Upon request, the Company shall promptly provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement investigations of potential diversion and/or suspicious circumstances involving the Company’s Opioid Products subject to, and without waiving, any applicable privilege objections.

The Initial Covered Sackler Persons shall not actively engage in the opioid business in the United States (other than by virtue of their ownership of beneficial interests in the Company), and shall not take any action that would interfere with the Company’s compliance with its obligations under this injunction.

On December 23, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order extending the preliminary injunction (the “Injunction”), see Forty- first Amended Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) Granting Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, In re Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 19-23649 (SHL), Adv.

S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2024) (the “Forty-first Amended Preliminary Injunction Order”), that was originally referenced in the Notice of Bankruptcy Court Order Enjoining the Continuation of this Proceeding filed on October 18, 2019 in this Court.

A copy of the Forty-first Amended Preliminary Injunction Order is attached as Exhibit A hereto.

The preliminary injunction period may be extended by further order of the Court.” See Ex. A at 15–

By filing this notice, David A. Sackler, Richard S. Sackler (individually and in his alleged capacity as a trustee of the Alleged Trust for the Benefit of Members of the Raymond Sackler Family), and Rosebay Medical Company L.P. are expressly preserving all of their defenses, including but not limited to the lack of personal jurisdiction.

The County of Suffolk, New York v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Case No. 400001/2017 Index No. 400000/2017 Hon.

Jerry Garguilo and Mot.

358 The County of Nassau, New York v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Case No. 400008/2017

WHEREAS, on December 10, 2024, Plaintiffs the County of Nassau and the County of Suffolk (the “Counties”) filed a Notice of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement with CVS (the “Motion”), along with a memorandum of law, the Affirmation of Thomas I. Sheridan, III, the Supplemental Affirmation of Thomas I. Sheridan, III, and accompanying exhibits.

WHEREAS, the return date of the Motion is December 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to extend the briefing schedule for the Motion; IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among undersigned counsel for the Counties and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. that the briefing schedule for the Motion shall be as follows: 1) CVS Pharmacy, Inc.’s response to the Motion will be due on January 20, 2025; 2) The Counties’ reply, if any, will be due on February 3, 2025; 3) The return date of the Motion will be February 4, 2025; and 4) Electronic and facsimile signatures on this stipulation shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.

This document relates to: Town of Amherst v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400003/2020 County of Cattaraugus v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400027/2019 County of Cayuga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400013/2019 County of Chautauqua v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 400007/2020 Town of Cheektowaga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400004/2020 County of Chemung v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400024/2019 County of Chenango v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400021/2019 County of Clinton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400003/2018 County of Cortland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400019/2018 County of Essex v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400019/2019 County of Franklin v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400012/2018 County of Genesee v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400011/2018 County of Hamilton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400005/2018 City of Ithaca v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400002/2018 City of Kingston v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400001/2020 Town of Lancaster v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400006/2020 County of Livingston v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400012/2019 County of Madison v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400028/2019 City of Mount Vernon v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400016/2019 County of Niagara v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400012/2017 County of Orleans v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400029/2019 County of Otsego v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400023/2019 County of Putnam v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400014/2019 County of Rensselaer v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400011/2017 County of Saratoga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400009/2018 County of Schoharie v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No 400010/2017 County of Schuyler v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400014/2018 County of Steuben v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400004/2018 County of Tioga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400022/2019 County of Tompkins v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400001/2018 Town of Tonawanda v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400005/2020 County of Warren v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400030/2019 County of Westchester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400010/2018 County of Yates v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400005/2021

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiffs Town of Amherst, County of Cattaraugus, County of Cayuga, County of Chautauqua, Town of Cheektowaga, County of Chemung, County of Chenango, County of Clinton, County of Cortland, County of Essex, County of Franklin, County of Genesee, County of Hamilton, City of Ithaca, City of Kingston, Town of Lancaster, County of Livingston, County of Madison, City of Mount Vernon, County of Niagara, County of Orleans, County of Otsego, County of Putnam, County of Rensselaer, County of Saratoga, County of Schoharie, County of Schuyler, County of Steuben, County of Tioga, County of Tompkins, Town of Tonawanda, County of Warren, County of Westchester, and County of Yates (“Plaintiff”) and the Teva Defendants1 that, pursuant to the election of Plaintiff to participate in the Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement (the “Teva Settlement Agreement”), dated November 22, 2022, is binding on Plaintiff and the Teva Defendants, and has an Effective Date of August 7, 2023 (a copy of which is attached as Appendix A), all claims of Plaintiff against any Teva Defendants are hereby voluntarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to the Teva Settlement Agreement to the extent provided under that Agreement.

1 The Teva Defendants are each and every “Released Entity,” including Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., and Anda, Inc., as set forth in Section I and Exhibit J of the Teva Settlement Agreement.

SO ORDERED this __ day of _______, 2024.

Removing Defendants contest that remand is proper for various reasons, none of which are persuasive or in accordance with precedent.

As to any unfairness to the defendants, there can be none.