Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 76 Filed on 10/30/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 1 United States District Court Southern District of Texas

Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 78 Filed on 10/30/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 1 United States District Court Southern District of Texas

For the reasons set forth in Defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc.’s (“USAP”) corrected unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. No. 73), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), the Court hereby ORDERS that the Declaration of Len Wright in Support of the Parties’ Joint Motion to Seal Information in Complaint (ECF No. 72) shall remain under seal until further order of the Court.

SIGNED on October 30, 2023, at Houston, Texas.

Kenneth M. Hoyt United States District Judge

Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 67 Filed on 10/19/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 1 United States District Court Southern District of Texas

The Court has considered the plaintiff, Federal Trade Commission’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave of Court to File Unredacted Complaint Temporarily Under Seal (Dkt. No. 2) and FINDS that it is in the interest of justice and of the public to grant the FTC’s motion.

The Clerk shall immediately lift the seal on the Federal Trade Commission’s Motion and Proposed Order.

The unredacted Complaint and Exhibit “1” to their motion shall remain under seal until further order of the Court.

Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 59 Filed on 10/06/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 The FTC shall promptly provide the defendants and relevant third parties with notice that its motion has been granted.

The defendants and third parties shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to file motions to seal information contained in the unredacted Complaint.

Dr. Paul Klotman, the President of Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”), personally negotiated and executed an illegal price-setting agreement between BCM and defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (“USAP”) that gives rise to some of plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) claims.

Counsel for the FTC noted Dr. Klotman’s personal involvement in negotiating and executing a price-setting agreement specifically alleged in the FTC’s complaint and asked that BCM reconsider its position.

Evidence from Dr. Klotman is relevant to the FTC’s antitrust claims against USAP arising from the BCM-USAP price-setting agreement and therefore well within the broad scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

While preparing for and participating in a deposition will take Dr. Klotman away from his official duties for some time, the fact that a witness is a busy executive is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting denial of the opportunity to depose him.

On February 18, 2025, I served the subpoena for Dr. Klotman’s deposition on Ms. Brinkmann by email and requested that she advise me whether BCM was maintaining its refusal to produce Dr. Klotman absent a court order.

Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 169 Filed on 09/13/24 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Joint Motion to Amend Order Setting Scheduling On May 1, 2024, the Court entered its Order Setting Scheduling, ECF No. 143, adopting with modifications the parties’ proposed plan, ECF No. 132.

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission and Defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. have met and conferred and, to avoid additional disputes, to accommodate the expected voluminous document discovery, and to facilitate orderly deposition and expert discovery, respectfully submit that good cause exists to amend the schedule as set forth in the table below.

Event Initial Disclosures Discovery Opens Substantial Completion of Document Production in Response to First Set of Requests for Production Fact Discovery Closes Initial Expert Reports Rebuttal Expert Reports Reply Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery Dispositive Motions Oppositions Replies Docket Call

Current Deadline May 13, 2024 May 13, 2024 n/a Proposed Deadline May 13, 2024 May 13, 2024 December 16, 2024 April 30, 2025 April 30, 2025 June 25, 2025 January 31, 2025 August 20, 2025 February 28, 2025 October 1, 2025 n/a October 22, 2025 April 30, 2025 December 5, 2025 April 30, 2025 January 20, 2026 May 30, 2025 February 19, 2026 June 9, 2025 September 8, 2025, at 11:30 am May 20, 2026, at 11:30 am Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 169 Filed on 09/13/24 in TXSD Page 2 of 3 The parties are available should the Court have any questions or require additional information.

Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 168 Filed on 09/13/24 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated ESI Protocol Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. have agreed to a mutually acceptable protocol governing the production of electronically stored information.

The parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed order (Exhibit A) as stipulated.

Respectfully submitted,

Pretrial matters will be complete by the following dates: amended pleadings asserting new claims or defenses '

Any mediator substitution requested more than 90 days out after the date of this order may only be made by motion for submission to the court for good cause and under extraordinary circumstances.

On or before ten (10) days before the Initial Trial Setting, the attorneys in charge for all parties shall meet in person to confer on stipulations regarding the materials to be submitted to the Court under this paragraph and attempt to maximize agreement on such matters.

By 4 m. on the Thursday before the Initial Trial Setting, the parties shall file with the Court the materials stated

in Rule 166(d)--,(m) an estimate of the length of trial, designation of deposition testimony to be offered1n direct examination, and any motions in limine.

Case 4:23-cv-03560 Document 167 Filed on 09/06/24 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Discovery Protocols Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. have agreed to mutually acceptable protocols governing depositions (Exhibit A) and expert discovery (Exhibit B), as well as a Rule 502(d) order (Exhibit C).

The parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached orders (Exhibits A-C) as stipulated.

Respectfully submitted,

Failure to attend the scheduling conference mav result in the entrv of an order of dismissal for want of V prosecution or other sanctions: The parties are directed to take notice of the following court policies: Service of Papers Filed with the Court.

— Othe1 than original petitions and any accompanying applications for temporary restraining order, anydocuments filed with the Court that relate to requests f01 , expedited relief or to matters set for hearing within seven days of filing must be served upon all opposing parties in a manner that will ensure receipt of the papers by them on the same day the papers are filed with the Court or District Clerk.

— The Court does not require a sepa/rate motion or hearing on agreed matters, except for continuances in cases over one year old or as otherwise provided.

Proposed orders should be tendered to the opposing party at least two working days before they are submitted to the Court.

—Unless instructed otherwise by the Court, defaultjudgments should be made through affidavits; minor proVe-ups shall be set for a hearing through the District Clerk.

Before the Court is OSIC’s motion to exclude the expert opinion testimony of William B. Waldie and Lawrence M. Iwanski filed in the MDL Case No. 3:09-CV-2384- N-BQ, in 2021 [DE 907].

HSBC Bank file a response to OSIC’s motion [DE 1021] and the matter is before the Court, having received by transfer or remand this case under the present cause number.

In its motion, OSIC challenges the qualifications of Waldie and Iwanski to give expert testimony because: a) Waldie concedes that he is not an expert concerning HSBC’s compliance with United Kingdom, Panamanean AML and know your customer requirements; U.K.’s banking account monitoring practices and procedures, the Antiguan bank regulations and operations, nor OSIC’s damages claims; b) Concerning the jurisdiction where HSBC’s accounts were operating or controlled, Waldie admits that he is not an expert in banking regulations in the United States or Antigua or where any such accounts were controlled;

After a review of the motion, the response, case law and FRE, the Court concludes that in the areas identified heretofore, Waldie is not qualified to express expert opinions.

The Court has also formally addressed the issue of responsible third party pleading and finds no basis to revisit its ruling.