AND NOW, this 7th day of March 2025, upon consideration of the Motions for Class Certification [16-CM-27242: Doc. No. 84; 16-CB-27242: Doc. No. 134] and the Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel for the End-payer Purchaser Classes [16-CM-27242: Doc. Nos. 179, 185; 16-CB-27242: Doc. No 235, 241], as well as the responses and replies thereto, and after hearings and arguments held on December 17, 2024, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that EPPs’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part to exclude certification of the unjust enrichment class.

It is so ORDERED.

EPPs contend that, although Mylan did not raise prices for CVS, end-payers nonetheless paid more for clomipramine than they would have without the alleged conspiracy.

103 Meaning, even if CVS was not injured by Mylan, the pharmacy nonetheless bears injury from its 99 Id. 100 Id. (emphasis omitted).

Upon consideration of the application for fees and costs incurred by Special Discovery

Master Lawrence Stengel for the billing cycle commencing on August 8, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and having received no objections from the parties, I find that the work reflected thereon accurately reflects his duties, fees, and costs, in accordance with the Court’s Order appointing him as Special Discovery Master.

The Application for fees and costs is APPROVED in full in the amount of $13,390.

The parties shall each make payment of their respective shares of the approved amount directly to the Special Discovery Master.

Hartford, Connecticut February 27, 2025

It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of material changes in economic circumstances.

as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender registration agency in the location where you reside, work, are a student, or were convicted of a qualifying offense.

You must not own, possess, or have access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon (i.e., anything that was designed, or was modified for, the specific purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person such as nunchakus or tasers).

the interest requirement for the fine restitution is modified as follows: * Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-299.

Upon consideration of the Motion for Entry of Privacy Act Protective Order filed by non- parties the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (collectively, “Federal Agencies”), with the consent of Defendant Ara Aprahamian, and upon consideration of all responses and replies, the Court enters this order covering the disclosure and handling of documents produced and disclosed by the Federal Agencies in the “Actions,”1 as set forth below:

Pursuant to the Privacy Act, federal agencies may not disclose certain re cords unless the subject of the record consents, an exception applies, or there is a Court order.

Good cause exists for entry of this Order to facilitate the disclosure of information that the Federal Agencies deem to be arguably subject to the Privacy Act.

Notwithstanding Paragraph 7 of this Order, documents designated “Subject to Privacy Act Order” may be disclosed to: a. Parties and their attorneys actively working on one or more of the Actions; b.

No party to this litigation, nor any third party, may use Protected Information orally or through documents, in any open court proceeding which the public is free to attend, o r which does not provide fo r the ability to seal portions of a transcript, exhibit, etc. containing Protected Information in accordance with Paragraph 13, without first obtaining (a ) the written consent of the Department of Justice, or (b) an order from the court permitting such use.

Defendant.

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: The sentencing hearing currently scheduled for February 3, 2025 is adjourned to February 18, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

Dated: January 23, 2025 New York, New York

United States District Judge

Court Supreme County of New York Lea Lee nee Eleonore Groen Nitzschke, -against- Elisabeth Royer Grimblat, Rose Louisa Groen, Julie Renee Groen, Edward Tyler Nahem, Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, Pascal Bussiere, Julie Portevin, Index No. 100047/2023 Costs of: Defendants Edward Tyler Nahem and Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s)

Costs Before Note of Issue CPLR § 8201 subd.

Or Attch.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the

Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, in Case No. 2024-03286 (Dkt. No. 32) that was duly entered by the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department on 2025-January-9.

Individual Action No. 24-1430 AND NOW, this 8th day of January 2025, upon consideration of Defendant Ascend Laboratories, LLC’s Motion to Withdraw and Replace Incorrectly Filed Document [Doc. No. 87 in Civil Action No. 24-1430], it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Ascend [Doc. No. 84-1] is WITHDRAWN.

The Clerk of Court is directed to SUBSTITUTE the corrected Memorandum of Law [Doc. No. 87-2] for the withdrawn document [Doc. No. 84-1].

It is so ORDERED.

Individual Action No. 24-1430 AND NOW, this 26th day of December 2024, upon consideration of the attached Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendant Sandoz, Inc.’s Deadline to Respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned case, it is hereby ORDERED that the Stipulation is APPROVED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Complaint is EXTENDED until March 3, 2025.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 282 (ECF No. 3090), Defendant Sandoz Inc.’s response to Plaintiffs’1 Complaint is due by December 31, 2024; WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, the End-Payer Plaintiffs’ (“EPPs”) and Sandoz Inc. reached a settlement agreement resolving all claims the EPPs bring against Sandoz Inc.; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are analyzing the impact that settlement has on the parties to this litigation (if any); WHEREAS, in the interest of conserving the resources of both the parties and this Court, Plaintiffs and Sandoz Inc. have stipulated to a limited extension of Sandoz Inc.’s deadline to respond to the Complaint; It is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, as follows:

Sandoz Inc.’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is extended until March 3, 2025.

Nothing in this stipulation impacts any other Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint.

Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(c), any opposition shall be filed within 14 days and shall not exceed 30 pages, and the Court will not permit additional briefs or submissions.

WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, the Court issued its Order granting End-Payer Plaintiffs’ (“EPPs”) motions to partially exclude the opinions of certain Bellwether Defendants’1 expert witnesses, including Dr. Erin Trish and Dr. James Hughes (ECF 3171); WHEREAS, the Bellwether Defendants seek to file a combined motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s Order as to each of Dr. Trish and Dr. Hughes or, in the alternative, for leave to file supplemental expert reports addressing the issues raised by the Court in its Order;

The Bellwether Defendants shall have until December 16, 2024, to file a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order or, in the alternative, leave to file supplemental expert reports addressing the issues raised by the Court in its Order, not to exceed thirty (30) pages; 2.

The EPPs shall have until January 17, 2025, to file their opposition to the Bellwether Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which shall not exceed thirty (30) pages; 3.

The Bellwether Defendants shall have until January 27, 2025, to file their reply to EPPs’ opposition, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages; and 4.

Start Time__________ End Time ____________ Recess (if more than ½ hr) ________ to _________ Total Time ________hour(s) ________minute(s) Case #_______________________________________________ Michael P. Shea Honorable Judge ______________________________________ C. Sichanh Deputy Clerk _________________________________________ Nielsen Counsel for Pla(s) _____________________________________ Ondeck, Goldberg Counsel for Dft(s) _____________________________________ J. Monette Reporter/ECRO/Courtsmart _____________________________ Interpreter______________________ Language ____________ ✔ Hearing held in person by video by telephone

Motion/Oral Argument ____ Show Cause Hearing Judgment Debtor Exam ____ Pretrial Conference Status Conference ____ Settlement Conference ____ Evidentiary Hearing ____ Scheduling Conference ____ Other: ________________

Regardless of whether Dr. Hughes offered a definition of injury in his report or was asked to do so, his understanding of injury must nonetheless be consistent with the legal definition.

But this fact does not necessarily render his opinions unreliable if they are nonetheless based on good grounds, although it may bear on the weight of his testimony and provide fodder for cross-examination.

Dr. Lamb has sufficiently good grounds to claim that, based on his entire view of the record, none of these supposed omissions in the data are reflective of the record as a whole.

AND NOW, upon review and consideration of the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Satish Mehta (“Settlement”), and after a telephonic status conference held on November 26, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:

The States, through Rust Consulting, shall cause the notice to be disseminated via publication and advertisement, as set forth in the Notice Plan, starting within 7 days following the date of the entry of this Order and continuing until at least 63 days after the date of this Order.

The States or their designee shall monitor and record any and all opt out requests that are received and shall file a report with the Court no later than 14 days prior to the date set for the final approval hearing.

Any comments or objections to the Settlement must be mailed to the Court, with a copy provided to counsel for the States and Heritage Defendants, by February 13, 2025.

A final approval hearing shall be held before this Court at 10:00 am on March 7, 2025, at the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, United States Courthouse, 450 Main Street – Courtroom 3, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.