IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, SANDOZ, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and WOCKHARDT USA LLC, Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-07229-WHP SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, PERRIGO NEW YORK, INC., SANDOZ, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-07987-WHP SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-cv-08911-WHP Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 24 vs. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC., Defendants. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT OF GIRARD GIBBS LLP AS INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL, AND LIMITED PRODUCTION OF DOJ SUBPOENAS Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 24 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2 A. Pretrial Coordination Will Maximize Efficiency and Avoid Unnecessary Duplication of Effort ............................................................................................... 2 B. Centralized Leadership of the Related Actions Is Fair and Efficient ..................... 6 C. Taro Should Produce the DOJ Subpoenas and Related Materials to Streamline Discovery and Facilitate Efficient Case Management ......................... 7 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10 Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 24 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176 279 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ................................................................................................ 8 Durham v. DOJ 829 F. Supp. 428 (D.D.C. 1993) ................................................................................................. 9 In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative, & Employment Ret. Income Sec. Act (ERISA) Litig. 2009 WL 4796169 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2009) ............................................................................ 8 In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Deriv., & Empl. Ret. Income Sec. Act (ERISA) Litig. 2009 WL 50132 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009) ................................................................................... 7 In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig. 2002 WL 88278 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002) ................................................................................. 7 In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig. 264 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ................................................................................................ 6 In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig. 2007 WL 2127577 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007) ............................................................................. 9 In re Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litig. 2016 WL 4153602 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 5, 2016) ............................................................................... 5 In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig. 227 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .................................................................................................. 3 In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig. 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................... 3 In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig. 2013 WL 2237887 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013) ............................................................................ 7 In re Nat’l Student Mktg. Litig. 368 F. Supp. 1311 (J.P.M.L. 1972) ............................................................................................. 4 In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. 282 F.R.D. 486 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................................ 6 In re Parking Heaters Antitrust Litig. 310 F.R.D. 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) .................................................................................................. 6 In re Vitamin Antitrust Litig. 2002 WL 35021999 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2002) ............................................................................... 9 Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 24 iii Kamerman v. Steinberg 113 F.R.D. 511 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ................................................................................................ 7 Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe 2015 WL 3651566 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2015) ............................................................................ 10 Milk Studios, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. 2015 WL 1402251 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) .......................................................................... 10 North Atl. Operating Co. v. Evergreen Distribs., LLC 293 F.R.D. 363 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ................................................................................................ 8 Seijas v. Republic of Argentina 606 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................... 6 United States v. Dynavac, Inc. 6 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................ 9 United States ex rel. Boise v. Cephalon, Inc. 2014 WL 6676629 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2014) ............................................................................. 4 United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc. 280 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1960) ......................................................................................................... 9 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 .............................................................................................................................. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ........................................................................................................................ 2, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3) ................................................................................................................... 2 Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2) .................................................................................................................. 9 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ............................................................................................................................. 4 Other Authorities Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) (2004) .................................................................... 1, 3, 4 Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 24 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Related Actions1 allege overlapping conspiracies to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of commonly prescribed generic topical corticosteroids. Coordination of case management, motion practice, and discovery will conserve the resources of the Court and the parties and further the fair and efficient conduct of the actions. The cases should be formally coordinated for pretrial purposes on a master docket. See Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 20.11 at 218. The Court should also appoint Girard Gibbs-counsel for Sergeants, and the first plaintiff to file the clobetasol, desonide, and fluocinonide cases-as interim lead counsel (or co-lead counsel) responsible for overseeing the litigation. While plaintiffs in two later-filed cases speculate that conflicts of interests among the plaintiff classes could eventually emerge,2 they can point to no apparent conflicts and the appointment of a firm or firms to prosecute a set of coordinated cases is routine in complex litigation. Sergeants paid for and reimbursed purchases of the three drugs at supracompetitive prices. Its interests are therefore aligned with those of indirect purchasers of each drug to recover the overcharges from each group of defendants. 1 The Related Actions are Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund v. Fougera Pharms., Inc. (1:16-cv-07229) (“Sergeants I”); United Food & Comm. Workers Unions & Emps. Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Fougera Pharms., Inc. (1:16-cv-07979) (“UFCW”); Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund v. Fougera Pharms., Inc. (1:16-cv-07987) (“Sergeants II”); NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Akorn, Inc. (1:16-cv-08109) (“NECA”); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Fougera Pharms., Inc. (1:16- cv-08374) (“Plumbers”); A. F. of L. - A.G.C Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Akorn, Inc. (1:16- cv-08469) (“A. F. of L.”); Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs Local 30 Benefits Fund v. Fougera Pharms., Inc. (1:16-cv-08539) (“IUOE Local 30”); Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund v. Taro Pharm. Indus., Ltd. (1:16-cv-08911) (“Sergeants III”); UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Akorn, Inc., et al. (1:16-cv-09392) (“UFCW Local 1500 I”); and UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. (1:16-cv-9431) (“UFCW Local 1500 II”). 2 NECA Opp. at 3; see also A. F. of L. Br. at 3-4. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 24 2 At this stage, rather than seeking production of all documents defendants have produced to the DOJ, Sergeants requests only the DOJ subpoenas issued to defendant Taro, as well as any responses and related communications. Sergeants has argued that these materials will inform the parties’ Rule 26(f) discussions and facilitate the formulation of a discovery plan and not, as defendants suggest, that Sergeants needs these materials to improve its complaint. Taro has advanced no persuasive reason the Court should not order the production of these documents. II. ARGUMENT A. Pretrial Coordination Will Maximize Efficiency and Avoid Unnecessary Duplication of Effort Although Sergeants believes that consolidation of the clobetasol, desonide, and fluocinonide actions for all purposes is premature, the common questions of law and fact raised by the Related Actions warrant their coordination “to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3). Defendants take the extreme position that “there are no common questions of fact or law” here, and “no efficiencies to be gained by coordinating.” Defs.’ Opp. at 2, 16. But the Related Actions involve common operative facts and claims, as each case (i) alleges a price- fixing conspiracy in the market for a generic topical corticosteroid; (ii) implicates materially identical market characteristics; (iii) involves overlapping parties; and (iv) seeks recovery of overcharges in overlapping time periods. Sergeants’ Opp. at 3-4. As a result, there are considerable efficiencies to be gained by formally coordinating these Related Actions. It makes no sense to do in triplicate what can be done once.3 Basic housekeeping matters relating to evidence preservation, a stipulated protective order, and an ESI 3 On December 7, 2016, UFCW Local 1500 filed a motion requesting that the Court implement Sergeants’ proposal to separately consolidate clobetasol, desonide, and fluocinonide and coordinate the cases on a master docket. UFCW Local 1500 Br. at 4 n. 1. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 7 of 24 3 protocol, for example, need not be negotiated separately in each of the three related cases. Common discovery can be coordinated as well. Documents produced in one of the actions may be deemed produced in the other two actions, and the parties may propose a “single or master set of interrogatories to be served on an opposing party.” Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 11.464 at 92 (2004). Depositions of executives at Taro, Sun, Fougera, and Sandoz-whose testimony will be relevant to at least two of the cases-can be taken once, rather than seriatim. See id. at § 11.455 at 89 (“Examination regarding subjects of interest only to a particular case may be deferred until the conclusion of direct and cross-examination on matters of common interest.”). Class representatives likewise could “be deposed once for all cases given the identical relevant conduct,” i.e., their indirect purchases of generic topical corticosteroids. Sergeants I, ECF No. 75, Ex. C at 4 (Opinion and Order Denying End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Claims, In re Auto. Parts Litig., No. 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2016), ECF No. 162). Similarly, the Court can direct the parties to propose a coordinated approach to motion practice to avoid repetitive briefing of issues that will arise in all three cases. E.g., In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 227 F.R.D. 65, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Because the question of whether a class can be certified . . . is common to all of these consolidated actions, judicial efficiency counsels in favor of a test case approach.”) (emphasis in original), vacated on other grounds, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006). Issues common to one or more of the cases-as in a motion to compel evidence from a common defendant-can be briefed jointly. Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 11.32 at 43 (2004) (“. . . requiring joint briefs whenever feasible, will expedite the litigation.”); see also Case Management Order No. 2, In re Auto. Parts Litig., No. 12-md-02311 Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 24 4 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2012), ECF No. 199 at 3 (setting separate protocols for “collective briefs on collective issues” and “briefs filed by individual defendants.”). Defendants cite no authority counseling against the practice of coordinating related cases pending in the same district on a master docket. See Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 20.11 at 218 (2004); e.g., Sergeants I, ECF No. 75, Ex. D. (Pretrial Order No. 1, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2009), ECF No. 29). United States ex rel. Boise v. Cephalon, Inc. (Defs.’ Opp. at 18) did not address coordination of related cases but instead a request for “complete consolidation” based on “the mere existence of similar legal theories.” No. 08-cv-287, 2014 WL 6676629, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2014). While Auto Parts and Checking Account Overdraft were multidistrict proceedings, the case management strategies adopted in those cases are instructive here. Defs.’ Opp. at 19. This Court has accepted the clobetasol, desonide, and fluocinonide actions as related, and the same efficiency and fairness concerns that guide multidistrict litigation practice should apply with equal force here. In re Nat’l Student Mktg. Litig., 368 F. Supp. 1311, 1316 (J.P.M.L. 1972) (“The basic purpose underlying the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 was to secure, in multi- district civil litigation as in all other civil litigation, the ‘just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). Sergeants disagrees with plaintiffs A. F. of L. and UFCW Local 1500 that the Court should appoint counsel to “ensure seamless coordination” between the Related Actions and price-fixing cases involving entirely unrelated drugs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.4 A. 4 Multidistrict litigation involving the drugs Digoxin and Doxycycline is pending before Judge Cynthia M. Rufe. In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litig., No. 16-MD-2724 Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 24 5 F. of L. Br. at 12; UFCW Local 1500 Br. at 2, 12. As things now stand, the corticosteroid cases are well-positioned to proceed apace before this Court. The proponents of inter-district coordination have not shown a present need for a further layer of coordination. Finally, defendants take issue with Sergeants’ proposal to coordinate the Related Actions on a master docket titled In re Topical Corticosteroids Antitrust Litigation as overbroad, citing to a naming dispute that occurred early in the Digoxin litigation. Defs.’ Opp. at 19-20. Sergeants’ proposal here is far narrower than the proposal made by the Digoxin plaintiffs, however. There, attorneys representing purchasers of digoxin and doxycycline-including certain plaintiffs’ counsel in the Related Actions-requested that the litigation be styled In re Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litigation, to preserve the possibility of including in that litigation antitrust claims involving other generic drugs. A. F. of L., ECF No. 53, Ex. 2 at 6:24-7:1; 8:2-20. A member of Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation commented that In re Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litigation was “not really descriptive” and could implicate “more than a thousand generic drugs”; and the Panel opted to name the coordinated litigation In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation. Id.; see also In re Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2724, 2016 WL 4153602, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 5, 2016). Because the drugs at issue here are all topical corticosteroids and the claims involve substantial factual overlap, Sergeants respectfully submits its proposed caption for the master docket, In re Topical Corticosteroids Antitrust Litigation, is appropriate. (E.D. Pa.). Separate cases involving the drugs Pravastatin and Divalproex are also pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before different judges. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 24 6 B. Centralized Leadership of the Related Actions Is Fair and Efficient NECA and A. F. of L. allude to “potential conflicts of interest,” in support of their arguments (1) that the Court should appoint separate class counsel for the Related Actions;5 and (2) against consolidation.6 But neither identifies any actual or potential conflict, much less a “fundamental” or “disabling” conflict. In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 264 F.R.D. 100, 111-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also In re Parking Heaters Antitrust Litig., 310 F.R.D. 54, 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (“I am satisfied that the record does not yet establish that any actual conflict exists . . . .”); In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (holding “it is premature to deny consolidation simply because a potential conflict may arise at the remedy stage.”) (citing Seijas v. Republic of Argentina, 606 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. 2010)). No inherent conflicts arise from appointing centralized leadership for cases involving purchases of different drugs. Because any conflict is purely conjectural, counsel for A. F. of L. and NECA have not hesitated to seek appointment to leadership positions in the Digoxin MDL while concurrently seeking appointment here. See A. F. of L., ECF No. 60, Ex. 1 at 1-2, 34:13-39:8; 45:17-22; 49:5-11. Moreover, neither NECA nor A. F. of L. cites any analogous case in which a potential conflict precluded appointment of class counsel. Proceedings like this one, Auto Parts, and Digoxin, in which antitrust claims are brought on behalf of similarly situated classes, are easily distinguished from proceedings in which separately consolidated class and derivative actions arising from allegations of securities fraud are coordinated. E.g., NECA Opp. at 2-3 (citing In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Deriv., & Empl. Ret. Income Sec. Act (ERISA) Litig., No. 08 5 NECA Opp. at 3 6 A. F. of L. Br. at 3-5. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 11 of 24 7 M.D.L. 1963 (RWS), 2009 WL 50132, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009)). Such direct and derivative actions allege different causes of action on behalf of plaintiff groups with diverging interests. See Kamerman v. Steinberg, 113 F.R.D. 511, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (prosecution of class and derivative actions by the same shareholders creates a “substantial potential for conflict”). Sergeants’ interests align with those of other clobetasol, desonide, and fluocinonide indirect purchasers in recovering their overcharges, and no potential conflict has been identified that would preclude appointment of Sergeants’ counsel to lead the litigation. C. Taro Should Produce the DOJ Subpoenas and Related Materials to Streamline Discovery and Facilitate Efficient Case Management Defendants’ suggestion that any discovery must await the filing of consolidated complaints or the adjudication of motions to dismiss should be rejected. “Just as there are no consolidated complaints on file, there are no motions to dismiss pending. With no motion to dismiss pending, it is premature to disallow discovery on the basis that a yet-to-be-filed complaint may fail to state a plausible claim for relief.” In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR, 2013 WL 2237887, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013); see also In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., No. M21-95 WHP, 2002 WL 88278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002) (denying in part motion to stay discovery pending determination of motions to dismiss). Sergeants has shown good cause for an order requiring Taro to make an initial limited production of the DOJ subpoenas, any written responses and related communications. Production of these materials will facilitate the parties’ formulation of a discovery plan in Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 12 of 24 8 accordance with the Court’s Order for Initial Pretrial Conference7 and will impose little or no burden on Taro. See Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Courts in this district have applied a ‘flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause’ in determining whether to grant a party’s expedited discovery request.”) (citation omitted); In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative, & Employment Ret. Income Sec. Act (ERISA) Litig., No. 09 MDL 2058 (DC), 2009 WL 4796169, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2009) (listing “case management” as one factor courts may consider in determining whether good cause to lift a discovery stay exists); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note (2015) (early discovery is “designed to facilitate focused discussion during the Rule 26(f) conference.”). Defendants’ undue burden arguments are directed primarily at NECA, A. F. of L., Plumbers, and IUOE Local 30, as Sergeants does not seek “all documents responsive to any subpoena or government request” or the “documents responsive to the subpoenas.” Defs.’ Opp. at 3, 10. Sergeants has instead limited its request to the Taro subpoenas themselves, as well as written responses and related communications. Defendants’ argument that they would need to undertake a “complex, time consuming, and expensive” re-review of documents (Defs.’ Opp. at 11) is thus irrelevant to Sergeants’ narrow motion. Sergeants’ request for limited early discovery should be granted under these circumstances. North Atl. Operating Co. v. Evergreen Distribs., LLC, 293 F.R.D. 363, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Courts may find that there is good cause when ‘the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.’”) (citation omitted); see also Sergeants I, ECF No. 75, Ex. E (In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig., No. 10-md-2143-RS (N.D. Cal. 2011), ECF. Nos. 370, 7 Sergeants I, ECF No. 23. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 13 of 24 9 379) (ordering production of all documents already produced to the DOJ after considering the defendants’ undue burden arguments). Defendants’ assertion that production of the DOJ subpoenas and related materials would “impermissibly disclose the scope of the government’s investigation and the grand jury’s deliberations” lacks merit. Defs.’ Opp. at 13. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits disclosure of grand jury proceedings by the government and certain enumerated parties like interpreters and court reporters, but defendants are not similarly barred. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2); see also In re Vitamin Antitrust Litig., No. 99-197 (TFH), 2002 WL 35021999, at *36-37 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2002) (holding that defendants in an antitrust case were not bound by Rule 6(e) because the plain language of the rule “imposes no obligations on grand jury witnesses.”). In other words, “defendants are not in the Rule 6(e) list. They are free to reveal the subpoena itself as well as all documents produced in response to it.” In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., No. C 07417 WHA, 2007 WL 2127577, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007) (emphasis in original). Rule 6(e), moreover, does not prohibit the disclosure of otherwise discoverable documents merely because they are subject to a grand jury proceeding, but is instead “intended only to protect against disclosure of what is said or takes place in the grand jury room . . . .” United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960)). Defendants cite Durham v. DOJ, 829 F. Supp. 428, 432 (D.D.C. 1993) in support of their Rule 6(e) argument. But in Durham the government refused to produce information that would reveal the identity of witnesses or the substance of testimony. Here, Taro-not the government-is opposing production. The other cases defendants cite are no more persuasive. Sergeants does not seek permission to serve an early subpoena that would burden a third party, Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 14 of 24 10 as was the case in Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 15-CV-1883 LTS KNF, 2015 WL 3651566, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2015). Nor is Sergeants requesting “an expedited trial on the merits” requiring the court to analyze the likelihood of irreparable harm absent such relief, as in Milk Studios, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 14 CIV. 09362 PAC, 2015 WL 1402251, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in Sergeants’ prior submissions, the Court should grant Sergeants’ Motion for Consolidation, Appointment of Girard Gibbs LLP as Interim Lead Counsel, and Limited Production of DOJ Subpoenas. Dated: December 9, 2016 Respectfully submitted, GIRARD GIBBS LLP By: /s/ Daniel C. Girard Daniel C. Girard Dena C. Sharp Jordan Elias Scott M. Grzenczyk Adam E. Polk Elizabeth A. Kramer 711 Third Ave, 20th Floor New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212)798-0136 Facsimile: (212) 557-2952 Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP Peter Safirstein Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 15 of 24 11 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 16 of 24 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel C. Girard, hereby certify that on December 9, 2016, I caused the foregoing Reply in Support of Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund’s Motion for Consolidation, Appointment of Girard Gibbs LLP as Interim Lead Counsel and Limited Production of DOJ Subpoenas to be filed electronically with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York through the Court’s mandated ECF service. I also certify that I caused the forgoing document to be served on all parties on the attached service list. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day of December, 2016 at San Francisco, California. /s/ Daniel C. Girard Daniel C. Girard Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 17 of 24 1 SERVICE LIST Counsel for Plaintiffs Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Samuel H. Rudman srudman@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust David W. Mitchell davidm@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Brian O. O’Mara bomara@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Alexandra S. Bernay xanb@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Arthur L. Shingler III ashingler@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Carmen A. Medici cmedici@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Paul J. Geller pgeller@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Mark J. Dearman mdearman@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Damien J. Marshall dmarshall@bsfllp.com Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Duane L. Loft dloft@bsfllp.com Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis mtripolitsiotis@bsfllp.com Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 18 of 24 2 Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Patrick J. O’Hara 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 patrick@cavanagh-ohara.com Cavanagh & O’Hara NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund Peter Safirstein psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com Safirstein Metcalf LLP Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund Elizabeth Metcalf emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com Safirstein Metcalf LLP Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund Kenneth A. Wexler kaw@wexlerwallace.com Wexler Wallace LLP United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund Justin N. Boley jnb@wexlerwallace.com Wexler Wallace LLP United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund Scott A. Martin smartin@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Michael P. Lehman mlehmann@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 19 of 24 3 Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Bonny E. Sweeney bsweeney@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Christopher L. Lebsock clebsock@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Stephanie Y. Cho scho@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Hilary K. Scherer hscherrer@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Operating Engineers Local Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 20 of 24 4 Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents 30 Benefits Fund Jeannine M. Kenney jkenney@hausfeld.com Hausfeld LLP Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund / International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Frank R. Schirripa fschirripa@hrsclaw.com Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Daniel B. Rehns drehns@hrsclaw.com Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund Michael M. Buchman mbuchman@motleyrice.com Motley Rice LLC A.F of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan Eric C. Durba edurba@motleyrice.com Motley Rice LLC A.F of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan Gregory S. Asciolla gasciolla@labaton.com Labaton Sucharow LLP UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Jay L. Himes jhimes@labaton.com Labaton Sucharow LLP UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Karin W. Garvey kgarvey@labaton.com Labaton Sucharow LLP UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 21 of 24 5 Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Robin A. Van Der Meulen rvandermeulen@labaton.com Labaton Sucharow LLP UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Matthew J. Perez mperez@labaton.com Labaton Sucharow LLP UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Rudi Julius rjulius@labaton.com Labaton Sucharow LLP UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Roberta D. Liebenberg rliebenberg@finekaplan.com Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Paul Costa pcosta@finekaplan.com Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Adam J. Pessin apessin@finekaplan.com Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund Counsel for Defendants Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Scott A. Stempel scott.stempel@morganlewis.com Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Perrigo Company Plc / Perrigo New York, Inc. John Clayton Everett, Jr. jeverett@morganlewis.com Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Perrigo Company Plc Tracey Fallon Milich tracey.milich@morganlewis.com Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Perrigo Company Plc / Perrigo New York, Inc. Damon W. Suden dsuden@kelleydrye.com Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP Wockhardt Ltd. / Wockhardt USA LLC / Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. William A. Escobar wescobar@kelleydrye.com Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP Wockhardt Ltd. / Wockhardt USA LLC / Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 22 of 24 6 Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Laura S. Shores laura.shores@kayescholer.com Kaye Scholer LLP Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Sandoz, Inc. Margaret Anne Rogers margaret.rogers@kayescholer.com Kaye Scholer LLP Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Sandoz, Inc. Saul P. Morgenstern saul.morgenstern@kayescholer.com Kaye Scholer LLP Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Sandoz, Inc. Jay Philip Lefkowitz lefkowitz@kirkland.com Kirkland & Ellis LLP Akorn, Inc. / Hi- Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. Joseph Serino, Jr. joseph.serino@kirkland.com Kirkland & Ellis LLP Akorn, Inc. / Hi- Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. Katherine Anne Rocco katherine.rocco@kirkland.com Kirkland & Ellis LLP Akorn, Inc. / Hi- Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. J. Douglas Baldridge j.baldridge@venable.com Venable LLP Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. / Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Lisa Jose Fales ljfales@venable.com Venable LLP Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. / Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Danielle R. Foley drfoley@venable.com Venable LLP Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. / Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. David N. Cinotti dncinotti@venable.com Venable LLP Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. / Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 23 of 24 7 Name E-mail Address or Mailing Address Firm Represents Anne E. Railton arailton@goodwinlaw.com Goodwin Procter LLP Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. Christopher T. Holding cholding@goodwinlaw.com Goodwin Procter LLP Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. Case 1:16-cv-07229-WHP Document 101 Filed 12/09/16 Page 24 of 24
