UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ex rel.

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ Consolidated Joint Motion to Seal Materials Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), which included sealing the names of certain private individuals who are not parties to this litigation and who are referred to in the expert report and deposition testimony of Relators’ expert witness Virginia Evans (see Dkt. 262); and WHEREAS, Ms. Evans prepared a supplemental report dated April 11, 2024; and WHEREAS, on April 24 and May 1, 2024, the parties filed joint letters with the Court regarding Defendant’s request to compel a supplemental deposition of Ms. Evans (Dkt. 362) and to strike certain opinions of Ms. Evans (Dkt. 364), respectively, which included as exhibits Ms. Evans’ expert report, deposition testimony excerpts, and supplemental report, all of which were provisionally filed under seal (Dkts.

R. 5.3(c), the parties have until May 8 and May 15, 2024, to file a single, consolidated motion to seal, or otherwise restrict public access to, documents provisionally filed under seal; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed, subject to Court approval, to extend the filing deadline to allow additional time to determine whether and to what extent, if any, Ms. Evans’ expert report, deposition testimony excerpts, and supplemental report should be, or should remain, sealed.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, that the parties shall have until June 14, 2024 to file a Joint Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict Public Access to Documents Provisionally Filed Under Seal.

FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W.

Peter Marketos, Esq., Josh Ross, Esq., Andrew Wirmani, Esq., Adam Sanderson, Esq., Whitney Wendel, Esq., Sherrie Savett, Esq., Joy Clairmont, Esq., Michael Fontini, Esq., and William Ellerbe, Esq. for Relators Jessica Penelow and Christine Brancaccio Alli Brown, Esq., Geoff Wyatt, Esq. and Brad Klein for Defendant Janssen Products, LP

Trial with jury moved before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi in the matter of United States et al. v Johnson & Johnson, et al. SARA STRAND resumed on direct and cross.

SARA STRAND resumed on cross.

Various exhibits admitted and entered into evidence.

Trial with jury adjourned until Monday May 13, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Peter Marketos, Esq., Josh Ross, Esq., Andrew Wirmani, Esq., Adam Sanderson, Esq., Whitney Wendel, Esq., Sherrie Savett, Esq., Joy Clairmont, Esq., Michael Fontini, Esq., and William Ellerbe, Esq. for Relators Jessica Penelow and Christine Brancaccio Alli Brown, Esq., Geoff Wyatt, Esq. and Brad Klein for Defendant Janssen Products, LP

Trial with jury moved before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi in the matter of United States et al. v Johnson & Johnson, et al. DONNA GRAHAM resumed on cross.

SARA STRAND sworn for the Relators.

Various exhibits admitted and entered into evidence.

Trial with jury adjourned until Thursday May 9, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

JESSICA PENELOW and CHRISTINE BRANCACCIO This matter being opened to the Court by William H. Ellerbe, Esq., attorney for Relators Jessica Penelow and Christine Brancaccio, for a Consent Order allowing Adam Sanderson, Esq. to appear and participate pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter; and all parties having consented to Mr. Sanderson’s pro hac vice admission and for good cause shown pursuant to L. Civ.

R. 101.1(c); provided, however that all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the Court shall be signed by an attorney of the law firm Berger Montague PC who is a member in good standing with the Bar of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey and the Bar of this Court, who shall be held responsible for said papers and for the conduct of the case, and who shall present before the Court during all phases of this proceeding, unless expressly excused by the Court, as well as be held responsible for the conduct of the attorney admitted pro hac vice pursuant to this Order; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to L. Civ.

R. 101.1(c)(2), Adam Sanderson, Esq. shall pay the annual fee to the New Jersey Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection in accordance with New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2 within twenty (20) days from the date of the entry of this Order, enclosing with payment a completed Form PHV-13; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to L. Civ.

R. 101.1(c)(3), Adam Sanderson, Esq. shall make payment of $250.00, payable to the Clerk, United States District Court; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Adam Sanderson, Esq. shall be bound by the General and Admiralty Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, including but not limited to the provisions of L. Civ.

R. 104.1, Discipline of Attorneys and Appendix R to the Local Civil Rule; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to L. Civ.

JESSICA PENELOW and CHRISTINE BRANCACCIO This matter being opened to the Court by William H. Ellerbe, Esq., attorney for Relators Jessica Penelow and Christine Brancaccio, for a Consent Order allowing Whitney Wendel, Esq. to appear and participate pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter; and all parties having consented to Ms. Wendel’s pro hac vice admission and for good cause shown pursuant to L. Civ.

R. 101.1(c); provided, however that all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the Court shall be signed by an attorney of the law firm Berger Montague PC who is a member in good standing with the Bar of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey and the Bar of this Court, who shall be held responsible for said papers and for the conduct of the case, and who shall present before the Court during all phases of this proceeding, unless expressly excused by the Court, as well as be held responsible for the conduct of the attorney admitted pro hac vice pursuant to this Order; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to L. Civ.

R. 101.1(c)(2), Whitney Wendel, Esq. shall pay the annual fee to the New Jersey Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection in accordance with New Jersey Court Rule 1:28-2 within twenty (20) days from the date of the entry of this Order, enclosing with payment a completed Form PHV-13; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to L. Civ.

R. 101.1(c)(3), Whitney Wendel, Esq. shall make payment of $250.00, payable to the Clerk, United States District Court; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Whitney Wendel, Esq. shall be bound by the General and Admiralty Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, including but not limited to the provisions of L. Civ.

R. 104.1, Discipline of Attorneys and Appendix R to the Local Civil Rule; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to L. Civ.

Peter Marketos, Esq., Josh Ross, Esq., Andrew Wirmani, Esq., Adam Sanderson, Esq., Whitney Wendel, Esq., Sherrie Savett, Esq., Joy Clairmont, Esq., Michael Fontini, Esq., and William Ellerbe, Esq. for Relators Jessica Penelow and Christine Brancaccio Alli Brown, Esq., Geoff Wyatt, Esq. and Brad Klein for Defendant Janssen Products, LP

Trial with jury moved before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi in the matter of United States et al. v Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Preliminary Instructions given to the jury by the Court.

DONNA GRAHAM sworn for the Relators.

Hearing held outside presence of the jury.

Peter Marketos, Esq., Josh Ross, Esq., Andrew Wirmani, Esq., Adam Sanderson, Esq., Whitney Wendel, Esq., Sherrie Savett, Esq., Joy Clairmont, Esq., Michael Fontini, Esq., and William Ellerbe, Esq. for Relators Jessica Penelow and Christine Brancaccio Alli Brown, Esq., Geoff Wyatt, Esq. and Brad Klein for Defendant Janssen Products, LP

Trial with jury moved before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi in the matter of United States et al. v Johnson & Johnson, et al.

The Court commenced voir dire of jury.

Decision DENYING Defendant’s request to strike (ECF No. [364]) certain opinions of expert witness Virginia Evans read into the record.

The Court continued voir dire of jury.

United States Of America, et al v. Johnson & Johnson,et al. Dear Judge Quraishi: This firm, along with the law firms of Berger Montague PC and Reese Marketos LLP,represent the Relators in the above-referenced matter, In connection with that representation, we act as local counsel for Sherrie Savett, Esq. (ECF 59), Joy Clairmont, Esq. (ECF 60), and Michael Fantini, Esq. (ECF 118) from Berger Montague, who have been admitted pro hac vice.

The purposeofthis letter, which is written in concurrence with all of Relators’ counsel, is to ask that the Court excuse Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP from the necessity of appearing at the trial in this matter other than at times agreed upon by Relators’ counsel, and that William Ellerbe, a shareholder of Berger Montague who is a memberofthe barof this Court and whoalready acts as local counselforthe attorneys from Reese Marketos--which will be acting as lead trial counselin this matter--assume responsibility for the supervision ofthe otherattorneys from his firmatthetrial.

Thereasonforthis request is one of economy.It is not anticipated that my firm will participate actively in presentation of the case, and that its sole function at trial would be the supervision of Ms, Savett, Ms. Clairmont, and Mr. Fantini, a function which can be served adequately by Mr. Ellerbe.

i i{!ii i | _ Case 3:12-cv-07758-ZNQ-JBD Document 353 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 18121 ’ CohnLifland an Terran Kooprie uplavyirabcont Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S,D.J, April 9, 2024 Page 2 Accordingly, we ask, respectfully, that Your Honor So Orderthis request.

Naturally, counsel stand ready to respond to any questions or issues the Court may have in connection withthis request.

This court denied Mr. Schmit’s motion at the hearing (#153), and the following day, issued its decision (the “December 5 Order”) in which it stated that the disagreement “boil[ed] down to whether information related to defendants’ alleged misconduct is relevant to plaintiff’s remaining employment claims under Rule 26(b)(1) ... .” (#154 at 5.)

The court further held that “considering the timing of plaintiff’s reports and the onset of defendants’ alleged retaliatory behavior ... the discovery plaintiff seeks could bear on defendants’ motive in terminating plaintiff—a necessary element of plaintiff’s remaining claims—and is thus relevant under Fed. R. Civ.

All communications about the identity of any potential source(s) of the information concerning sterilization and gifts to healthcare providers at BMC or Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Boston (RFP No. 32) Defendants do not assert that Modified RFP A2 is not relevant under Rule 26 and instead claim: To the extent any such non-privileged documents exist in the review universe consisting of the custodians, date ranges, and search terms [d]efendants identified for [p]laintiff on January 3, 2024 pursuant to the ESI Protocol entered in this matter, they either have been produced or are slated for production.

The court ordered defendants to submit the number of documents that would be included in a manual search of the communications sought in Modified RFP B19 in the month plaintiff identified, differentiating between texts and emails.

For instance, whether any of these individuals continued to engage in purportedly illegal conduct notwithstanding knowledge of plaintiff’s reports could tend to show a motivation for retaliation; so, too, might communications indicating frustration at being forced to end the alleged scheme, or any hopes to rekindle it following a lay-low period.

Nonetheless, Relator alleges that Defendants knew and intentionally failed to accurately and fully disclose the adverse side effects of their FQs by telling a series of half-truths, manipulating clinical trials, disaggregation of adverse effects ...

VICTORIA

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2024, upon consideration of the Parties’ Joint

Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (Document No. 262), it is hereby ORDERED the Stipulation is APPROVED, and this matter is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice as between Plaintiffs and Defendant, and without prejudice as to the United States.

However, none of the Providers are reporting the transfer or the receipt of the free powerinjectors.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Defendants Bracco USA,Inc., Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., and Acist Medical Systems, Inc.; NYU Langone Health System, Inc.; DuPage Medical Group; HonorHealth; Southern Illinois Healthcare Enterprises, Inc.; and Kern County Hospital Authority’s motions to dismiss.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs, and for the reasonsset forth in the Opinion filed herewith, IT IS,on this 12" day of March, 2024; ORDERED that the Defendants’ respective motions, D.E.s 93, 95-98, 100 are GRANTED; andit is finally ORDEREDthat Relator’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Dated: March 12, 2024 Sob / The p- Evelyn Padin, U.S.D.J.

However, none of the Providers are reporting the transfer or the receipt of the free powerinjectors.