If the amendment seeks to join a new party, “the motion is technically governed by Rule 21, which provides that ‘the court may, at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.’” Sharp v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 14- cv-00369, 2015 WL 4771291, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 11, 2015) (citation omitted).

Standard Fire Ins. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 595 (2013) (rejecting interpretation of CAFA that would “exalt form over substance” and impede congressional objective of “ensuring ‘[f]ederal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.’” (citation omitted)).

Here, seeking leave to amend on the date Plaintiffs’ opposition to a motion to dismiss was due does not constitute undue delay under the circumstances (and is in fact common), nor does it bespeak bad faith.

Accepting Moving Defendants’ contention that Progress is, at best, vicariously or secondarily liable presumes that Progress’s potential exposure hinges on a preliminary finding of unlawful conduct by UBT, GRIPA, and PHT.

7 In Kress Stores the underlying findings on financial exposure were supported by expert testimony in contrast to the internet sources cited by Moving Defendants; even so, the court of appeals rejected the movant’s attempt to reduce the primary-defendant analysis to a mere forecast of comparative liability.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Court has considered the parties’ submissions regarding the motion, and it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall file their memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of 33 pages (excluding the signature block).

DATED this 9th day of December, 2024.

Allison D. Burroughs United States District Court Judge

WHEREAS, an Amended Settlement Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2024 (the “Settlement Agreement”), was made and entered into by and among the following Parties: (i) Plaintiffs Danielle Schafer, Eliot Frankenberger, Gina Sligh, Charles Gentry, Robbin Zeigler, Kevan Seidner, Judy Paynter, Keith Sennefelder, David L. Pratt, Joyce Oguin, Timothy Hayden, Ahmad Hakemi, and Don Swekoski, Jr. (collectively, the “Settlement Class Representatives”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Members, by and through E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, PC, Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kristen A. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (collectively, “Class Counsel”); and (ii) Arietis Health, LLC (“Arietis” or “Defendant”), for the benefit of all Defendant Released Parties.

The Court finds that: (i) the proposed Settlement resulted from extensive and good- faith negotiations at arms’ length overseen by an experienced mediator, Judge Diane M. Welsh (Ret.

The Court finds that the proposed Settlement creates an equitable claims process that will allow Settlement Class Members an opportunity to obtain reimbursement for certain types of harm they may have suffered and to receive medical data monitoring, credit monitoring, and identity theft protection services to prevent against the future risk of harm experienced as a result of the events alleged in the Litigation.

The Parties and Settlement Administrator are authorized to make non-material modifications to the Notices and Claim Form, such as proofing and formatting alterations, without further order from this Court.

The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue the Final Approval Hearing and related deadlines without further written notice to the Settlement Class.

Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors.

governmental agencies, regulatory authorities, or outside auditors who specifically request such documents from any Party or an entity described in Paragraph 8.2 (i) in order to fulfill their duties.

If the Non-Party timely seeks permission to file a motion for a protective order, the Responding Party shall not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the Court.

If approval by the Court is ultimately denied, withheld, or made conditional, no Party shall treat any material designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” produced prior to that time in a manner inconsistent with this Protective Order without giving the Producing Party sufficient advanced notice to allow for application to the Court for additional relief in a manner consistent with applicable Local Rules, Practices and Standing Orders.

Notwithstanding this provision, Outside Counsel of Record are entitled to retain an archival copies of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Disclosure or Discovery Material.

Case: 20-17490, 11/07/2024, ID: 12913970, DktEntry: 42, Page 1 of 1

This petition has been held in abeyance since January 26, 2021, pending the completion of the rule review process by the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS).

The Clerk will administratively close this petition.

No mandate will issue in connection with this administrative closure, and this order does not constitute a decision on the merits.

Within 14 days after DOJ and DHS complete the rule review process, the parties must notify this court and may move to reopen the petition or for other appropriate relief.

1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL MDL Order No. 18 (CAC andRule 12 Scheduling and Structure Proposals) The Court hereby orders the following briefing schedule andstructure.

Consolidated Amended Complaint and Rule 12 Motion Schedule Having reviewed the parties’ proposal, the Court hereby orders the following schedule for the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, Rule 12 motions, and associated briefing.

CACFiled Friday, December 6, 2024 Bellwether Defendants File Rule 12 Motions|Tuesday, January 17, 2025 to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Opposition Due Monday, February 28, 2025 conference Bellwether Defendants’ Replies Due Thursday, March 28, 2025 Oral Argument To be determined at the March status

Structure of Rule 12 Motions Asexplained at the October status conference, see [ECF No. 1269, 23:7—10], and set forth in ECF No. 1267, the Bellwether Vendors and Bellwether VCEs/VCECs undemeath each Vendorshall submit combined/joint motions, for a total of two motions: • • PBI and PBI’s VCEs/VCECs Motion: PBI, Genworth, TIAA, and Milliman/MEMBERS Welltok and Welltok’s VCEs/VCECs Motion: Welltok, Sutter Health, OFS Healthcare System, Corewell Health, Virginia Mason Franciscan Health, and CHI Health - NE The Bellwether Vendors and VCEs/VCECs shall have sixty pages for their respective combined motions to dismiss.

The Bellwether VCEs/VCECs underneath each Vendor shall have a thirty-page reply brief.