holdback assessment and for an order setting forth the protocols and procedures for the allocation of common benefit attorney’s fees (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”).

Special Master David R. Herndon issued a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion on October 9, 2024.

The Parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections.

Having conducted the required de novo review of the Special Master’s conclusions, the Court finds the proposed findings to be well supported and concludes that the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted.

For now, the Court will maintain a common benefit fund holdback of nine percent for present and future Page 2 of 2 settlement distributions, as has been done for all prior distributions.

Master File No.: 2:13-CV-20000-RDP This order relates to the Provider Track

This matter is before the court on (1) Provider Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement (Doc. # 3192); and (2) Provider Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Plan for Notice and Appointment of Settlement Notice Administrator and Settlement Administrator (Doc. # 3194).

A Preliminary Approval Hearing on Provider Plaintiffs’ Motions is SET for at 9:30 a.m. Central Time on Thursday, November 14, 2024, in Courtroom 8 of the Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, 1729 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama.

The court will provide instructions for listen-only telephone access by separate order.

DONE and ORDERED this October 16, 2024.

Master File No.: 2:13-CV-20000-RDP This order relates to the Provider Track

Michigan (“BCBSM”) and Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor, PLLC (“A4”) regarding an agreed extension of time and revised briefing schedule (Case No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP, Doc. # 3190), it is ORDERED as follows: 1.

On or before October 21, 2024, BCBSM SHALL file its anticipated, potentially- dispositive motion based on the releases found in the settlement agreements in Love v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, et al. (Case No. 1:03-cv-21296-FAM (S.D.

On or before November 20, 2024, A4 SHALL file its response to Defendant’s anticipated motion; and 3.

On or before November 27, 2024, BCBSM SHALL file any reply in support of its motion.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 David J. Smith Clerk of Court

Appeal Number: 22-13051-HH Case Style: In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation District Court Docket No: 2:13-cv-20000-RDP

No action will be taken on filing submitted by Lillian S. Grossbard by Appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, because this case is closed.

No deadlines will be extended as a result of your deficient filing.

No action will be taken if you only provide the missing items without refiling your entire document.

On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Craig A. Hoover Columbia Square 555 13th Street, N.W.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1 through 26.1-3, the undersigned counsel for Defendant-Appellee Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey respectfully submits this Corporate Disclosure Statement and states that Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey (a private non-governmental party) is wholly owned by Horizon Operating Holdings, Inc., which is wholly owned by Horizon Mutual Holdings, Inc., a not-for- profit mutual holding company.

Horizon Mutual Holdings, Inc., has no parent corporation and there are no publicly held corporations that own 10% or more of its stock.

This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman font.

All parties shall appear for an Initial Conference on November 6, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Gila Courtroom at the Pete V. Domenici United States Courthouse, 333 Lomas Blvd.

Counsel must submit to the Court a brief written statement indicating their preliminary understanding of the facts involved in the litigation and the critical factual and legal issues, as well as a separate list of all related cases pending in state or federal court, together with their current status, including discovery taken to date and pending motions, to the extent known.

(b) Each defendant is granted an extension of time for responding by motion or answer to the complaint(s) until a date to be set at the November 6, 2024, Conference.

“Documents, data, and tangible things” is to be interpreted broadly to include writings, records, files, correspondence, reports, memoranda, calendars, diaries, minutes, electronic messages, voicemail, E-mail, telephone message records or logs, computer and network activity logs, hard drives, backup data, removable computer storage media such as tapes, discs and cards, printouts, document image files, Web pages, databases, spreadsheets, software, books, ledgers, journals, orders, invoices, bills, vouchers, checks, statements, worksheets, summaries, compilations, computations, charts, diagrams, graphic presentations, drawings, films, charts, digital or chemical process photographs, video, phonographic, tape or digital recordings or transcripts thereof, drafts, jottings and notes, studies or drafts of studies, or other similar such material.

This system gives each counsel immediate access to all electronically filed documents and obviates the need to make personal service on the individual parties.

Pursuant to 11th Circuit Rule 26.1, Plaintiffs-Appellees hereby certify that they believe that the Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement contained in their Motion to Strike New Arguments in Appellant Home Depot’s Reply Brief, filed on April 13, 2023, is complete.

Second, and more importantly, as the passage’s concluding sentence shows, it was offered in support of Home Depot’s argument concerning the inter-class con- flict and its contention that the (b)(2) class could not be represented by plaintiffs or counsel who were “financially interested in the (b)(3) class.” That is also clear from context.

Similarly, that Home Depot also argued in its opening brief that the Second Circuit’s inter-class conflict decision in Payment Card “reflects the same underlying approach to adequacy of representation this Court expressed in Valley Drug [Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003)],” Opp.

The supposed intra-class conflicts Home Depot raised in its original objection were in service of its contention that the Settlement improperly conditioned the ability to seek a “Second Blue Bid” (“SBB”) on membership in the (b)(3) class.

2 Indeed, at the fairness hearing, Home Depot conceded that clarifying that opt outs from the (b)(3) class could sue for SBB relief would largely address, and might moot, its concerns.

(Registered Claimants Without Acceptances of Awards) Each plaintiff in the actions listed on Exhibit A is a Registered Claimant under the Combat Arms Master Settlement Agreements and is represented by Primary Counsel that is participating in the Ledgering Process described in CMO No. 81 (ECF No. 3975), CMO No. 83 (ECF No. 3978), and CMO No. 93 (ECF No. 4079).

To move this Award to payment, for each Claimant on Exhibit A, it is ORDERED that: 1.

Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant must accept the Page 2 of 2 Settlement Award and sign and return the Notice as requested by BrownGreer to permit payment of the Award.

If the Claimant does not do so within that time, the QSF will issue payment of the Claimant’s Final Settlement Award to Primary Counsel.

Thereafter, Primary Counsel will have the obligation to comply with the 50% Rule in accordance with CMO No. 93 (ECF No. 4079), and to distribute payment properly.

... local employers naturally would sacrifice that and other injunctive 5 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Document: 182 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 71 of 81 The adequacy of representation argument in Home Depot’s opening brief raised none ...

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of New Mexico will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, panicularly as to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The Panel has denied centralization where a "reasonable prospect" exists that the multidistrict character of a litigation could be resolved through pending Section 1404 motions.

Five related actions are pending in this district, which bears a factual nexus to the litigation, given that plaintiffs contend that much of defendants' shale oil production occurs in New Mexico.

Nathaniel M. Gorton Acting Chair Matthew F. Kennelly Dale A. Kimball Roger T. Benitez Madeline Cox Arleo CERTIFIED a True Copy of ttn Case MDL No. 3119 Document 89 Frled 08101,124 Page 4 ot 4

Master File No.: 2:13-CV-20000-RDP This order relates to the Provider Track

The court has informally been made aware of a discovery dispute relating to this tag- Defendant.

Therefore, this matter is SET for a Zoom status conference at 10:00 a.m. Central Time on Wednesday, August 21, 2024.

The court, via the Special Master, will provide a zoom link to interested parties.

The parties should be prepared to discuss (1) whether and how to proceed with discovery in Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor PLLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:23-cv-00461-RDP, and (2) whether this individual provider action may proceed more efficiently in the transferor court than in the transferee court.

None of the cases feature the core characteristics present in this litigation: (1) substantially prevailing parties in an injunctive relief settlement based on a fee-shifting statute; and (2) a monetary relief settlement of litigation based on a ...

Although it string cites cases supposedly demonstrating the absurdity of Objectors’ contrary interpretation, id. at 107 n.32, most of them cite Holmes without discussing its holding or reasoning, and none of them address the facially ...

Id. None of these provide the math to permit a cross-check of the allocation’s fairness.

None of the Fully Insured Subclass’s authorities, see F.I.138–39 & n.44, approved the application of a discount factor to one subclass only, much less reducing one subclass’s damages twice to account for the same 27 USCA11 Case: ...

None of that mattered to the Court’s holding, and the law is no different here just because the release appears in a class settlement.

For example, if a subscriber opts out of the (b)(3) class, sues for damages, and thereby establishes the per se illegality of post-Settlement conduct, the (b)(2) release would nonetheless foreclose any market-wide declaratory or ...