Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 193 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3723

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF CLARKSON S. FISHER U.S. COURTHOUSE

LOIS H. GOODMAN 402 EAST STATE STREET
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROOM 7050
TRENTON, NJ 08608
609-989-2114

August 23, 2018

LETTER ORDER

Re: In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, Civ. Action No. 17-699;

Boss et al v. CVS Health Corporation et al, Civ. Action No. 17-1823;
Bewley v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-12031;
Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-13066; and
Johnson et al. v. OptumRX, Inc., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-7198

Dear Counsel and Pro Se Party:

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Diane Halkyard, Ruth Hart, Donna Ramsey, Bertha
Sanders, Kim Wallan, Jim Wallan, LeAnn Rice, Michael Bewley, Jeanine Prescott, Scott
Strumello, and Ruth Johnson’s (the “Non-Waiving Plaintiffs”) June 26, 2018 Consolidated
Motion to Maintain Documents Under Seal (“Motion to Seal”). [Docket Entry No. 179 1]. The
Non-Waiving Plaintiffs seek to maintain under seal Exhibits C, E and I (Docket Entry Nos. 171-
6, 171-8, 171-12 and 172) to Plaintiff Julia Boss’ (“Boss”) June 6, 2018 letter. Id. Boss filed
an opposition to the Motion to Seal. [Docket Entry No. 182]. The manufacturer defendants in
In re Insulin Pricing Litigation and the manufacturer defendants in Prescott et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 17-13066, filed correspondence opposing the sealing of
Exhibit C. [Docket Entry No. 201 in the Prescott Case; Docket Entry No. 147 in In re Insulin
Pricing].
The Court does not address this issue in a vacuum. By Order dated August 2, 2018
[Docket Entry No. 184], the undersigned reviewed numerous submissions to address issues
raised as to whether those submissions belonged on the docket, and, if they did, whether they
should be under seal, based on assertions of privilege and confidentiality. The Court will not
repeat the analysis here. Rather, the Court confines its consideration to the documents currently
sought to be sealed, and whether the Motion to Seal meets the burden under Local Civil Rule 5.3,
as addressed at length in the August 2 Order. The Court finds the Motion does not meet that
burden.
The Court has reviewed the documents that the Non-Waiving Plaintiffs seek to maintain
under seal, and for the same reasons articulated in the undersigned’s August 2, 2018 Order, the
Court cannot draw any conclusions as to where in these specific documents the attorney-client
privilege applies or what specific information is alleged to be confidential. Further, it is not

1
For reference purposes, unless otherwise noted, the Docket Entry Numbers identified in this decision relate to the
docket in In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, Civ. Action No. 17-699 (BRM)(LHG).
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 193 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3724

In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, Civ. Action No. 17-699;

Boss et al v. CVS Health Corporation et al, Civ. Action No. 17-1823;
Bewley v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-12031;
Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-13066; and
Johnson et al. v. OptumRX, Inc., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-7198

Page 2 of 2

clear to the Court why the entirety of Exhibits E and I, which were not addressed by the Non-
Waiving Plaintiffs in Keller Rohrback’s March 29, 2018 letter, should be sealed.
The Non-Waiving Plaintiffs bear the burden to show that the communications at issue are
(1) attorney-client privileged and (2) that disclosure would cause annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense on the parties. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
The Court finds they have not met that burden. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice
the Non-Waiving Plaintiffs’ motion to maintain the documents under seal. The Non-Waiving
Plaintiffs have 14 days from the date of this Order to file a revised motion to seal, if they so
choose. In this regard, the Court specifically reminds the parties of the need to clearly articulate
the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; the clearly defined and
serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and why a less restrictive
alternative to the relief sought, such as partial redaction, is not available. Any party seeking to
seal documents on the docket must address these factors as well as the remaining factors in Local
Civil Rule 5.3(c).
The Clerk’s Office is instructed to terminate Docket Entry Number 179 in Civil Action
No. 17-699; Docket Entry Number 48 in Civil Action No. 17-1823; Docket Entry Number 137 in
Civil Action No. 17-12031; Docket Entry Number 206 in Civil Action No. 17-13066; and
Docket Entry Number 101 in Civil Action No. 17-7198.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LOIS H. GOODMAN
United States Magistrate Judge