On April 29, 2024, the Court entered an Order setting forth the process through which Defendant Albertsons Companies, Inc. (“Albertsons” or “Defendant”) and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“PEC”) would select two additional bellwether cases involving Albertsons.1 See Docket No. 5418.

To the extent defendants seek to assert Third Party Complaints against Doe doctors, as was done in Track 3, Plaintiffs may file pro forma motions to strike incorporating the Track 3 motion to strike (see Docket No. 3542) and identifying the briefing in support and in opposition as well as the Court’s ruling by docket number and date.

Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions: Plaintiffs may depose 30(b)(6) witnesses of Albertsons for each of CT20 and CT21, with the understanding that the parties will avoid the duplication of prior testimony topics wherever possible.

As occurred in Track 3, the Parties shall meet and confer and seek to identify topics where the 30(b)(6) deponent will not be questioned and instead will provide written responses.

With respect to Daubert and dispositive motions, the Parties will meet and confer on mechanisms to further avoid unnecessarily lengthy or duplicative briefing while preserving the record based on motions filed in separate tracks of the MDL and will make a separate proposal with regard to page limits.

PageID #: 638435

See “Order Establishing Application Protocols for Reimbursement of Common Benefit Attorneys’ Fees Protocol Order

PageID #: 638436 in camera ex parte

and client representatives, the PBM Bellwether Plaintiffs’ counsel and law directors, and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, to discuss recent submissions by the parties indicating they are struggling to work together.

To facilitate collegiality among counsel and client representatives, the Court will resume holding monthly, in-person status conferences in the Carl B. Stokes Federal Courthouse, Courtroom 18B.

The practice of holding in-person status conferences was instituted at the MDL’s inception but discontinued due to the Covid pandemic.

These in-person conferences were very successful at allowing the parties and their counsel to more effectively and efficiently work out their differences, both with and without the Court’s help.

The first in-person PBM Bellwether Status Conference is scheduled for June 25, 2024, at 3:00 PM in the Carl B. Stokes Federal Courthouse, Courtroom 18B in Cleveland, Ohio.

Discovery in Tracks 12–15 may involve confidential and private information regarding the identities of members of the Pharmacy & Therapeutics (“P&T”) Committee of Defendant OptumRx, Inc.

OptumRx may redact, consistent with the parties’ stipulation, identifying information of current members of OptumRx’s P&T Committee in documents or other materials it produces in this MDL.

OptumRx may continue redacting identifying information of any current or former member of UnitedHealthcare’s separate P&T Committee that appear in documents, transcripts, or other materials.

If the parties cannot agree, the PEC may seek judicial resolution under the normal rules governing discovery disputes in this MDL (namely, disputes may be brought to the Special Master, and parties have the right to object to any ruling by the Special Master and seek de novo review by the Court), understanding that the PEC would reference Special Master Cohen’s 3/28/2024 ruling (although it would not be binding for purposes of disputes raised pursuant to this paragraph), and that nothing in this paragraph alters the burden of proof.

Neither the receipt of information pursuant to this paragraph nor the provision of the certification will in any way be deemed a submission, by the claimant represented by counsel in such outside litigation, to the jurisdiction of this Court

Because the temporal scope of discovery required by Special Master Cohen’s ruling (beginning January 1, 1996) is reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence, the value of which substantially outweighs any increased burden on the PBM Defendants, the Court overrules the PBM Defendants’ objection and affirms Special Master Cohen’s order as to temporal scope.

and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

The parties submitted written submissions and presented oral arguments to Special Master Cohen who issued a ruling.

Plaintiffs have submitted documentation tending to show that the PBM Defendants had information relevant to the very early stages of the opioid crisis.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the temporal scope determined by Special Master Cohen is appropriate and the PBM Defendants’ objection (docket no. 5394) is OVERRULED.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel of record for the Plaintiff Subdivisions identified in Appendix A (collectively, the “Dismissing Plaintiffs”) and Walmart Defendants1 that, pursuant to the election of each Dismissing Plaintiff to participate in the Walmart Settlement Agreement, which is dated November 14, 2022, and is binding on the Dismissing Plaintiffs and the Walmart Defendants (a copy of which is attached as Appendix B), all claims of each Dismissing Plaintiff against any Walmart Defendant, including any entity identified on the attached Appendix C, are hereby voluntarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to the Walmart Settlement Agreement to the extent provided under that Agreement.2 1 The Released Entities are each and every entity of any of the Walmart Defendants that is a “Released Entity” as set forth in Section I.DDD and Exhibit J of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2022, a copy of which is attached as Appendix B.

They include, but are not limited to, the entities listed on Appendix C, also attached hereto.

Appendix C is not intended to limit the scope of Released Entities, and to the extent that Dismissing Plaintiffs or Walmart Defendants subsequently identify any Released Entity that should have been included on Appendix C, they will inform the Clerk of the Court.

To the extent any Plaintiff Subdivision is inadvertently included on Appendix A, the Court retains jurisdiction to hear those disputes.