throbber
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 1 of 19
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`1100 East Main Street, Suite 501, Richmond, Virginia 23219
`
`www.ca4.uscourts.gov
`
`November 11, 2020
`
`No. 20-2184
`(2:18-md-02836-RBS-DEM)
`
`In re: ZETIA (EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`--------------------------------
`
`FWK HOLDINGS, LLC; CESAR CASTILLO, INC., individually and on behalf of
`all those similarly situated; ROCHESTER DRUG COOPERATIVE, INC., ON
`BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
`
`Plaintiffs – Appellees
`
`v.
`
`MERCK & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; MERCK SHARP & DOHME
`CORPORATION; SCHERING PLOUGH CORPORATION; SCHERING
`CORPORATION; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK
`PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., USA
`
`Defendants - Appellants
`
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS - APPELLEES’
`MOTION TO EXPEDITE
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 2 of 19
`
`William H. Monroe, Jr.
`(VSB No. 27441)
`Marc C. Greco (VSB No. 41496)
`Kip A. Harbison (VSB No. 38648)
`Michael A. Glasser (VSB No. 17651)
`Glasser and Glasser, P.L.C.
`Crown Center, Suite 600
`580 East Main Street
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`Telephone: (757) 625-6787
`Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
`bill@glasserlaw.com
`marcg@glasserlaw.com
`kip@glasserlaw.com
`michael@glasserlaw.com
`
`Local Counsel for Direct Purchaser
`Plaintiffs FWK Holdings, LLC,
`Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.,
`Cesar Castillo, Inc. and the Proposed
`Direct Purchaser Class
`
`David F. Sorensen
`Ellen T. Noteware
`Nicholas Urban
`Berger Montague PC
`1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 875-3000
`Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
`dsorensen@bm.net
`enoteware@bm.net
`nurban@bm.net
`
`Counsel for Rochester Drug
`Cooperative, Inc. and the Proposed
`Direct Purchaser Class
`
`Thomas M. Sobol
`Kristen A. Johnson
`Hannah Schwarzschild
`Erin C. Burns
`Bradley Vettraino
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`Telephone: (617) 482-3700
`Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
`tom@hbsslaw.com
`kristenj@hbsslaw.com
`hannahs@hbsslaw.com
`erinb@hbsslaw.com
`bradleyv@hbsslaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff FWK Holdings,
`LLC and Lead Counsel for the
`Proposed Direct Purchaser Class
`
`Linda P. Nussbaum
`NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
`1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th
`Floor
`New York, NY 10036-8718
`Telephone: (917) 438-9189
`lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff César Castillo, Inc.
`and the Proposed Direct Purchaser
`Class
`
`(Additional Counsel on Signature Page)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 3 of 19
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..............................................2
`ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................6
`a. The Parties are Well Positioned to Complete Briefing on an Expedited Basis6
`b. An Unnecessarily Lengthy Briefing Schedule Will Thwart the Benefits of
`Multidistrict Litigation and Unfairly Delay Other Multidistrict Litigation
`Parties Not Part of This Appeal ........................................................................7
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................8
`CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................9
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 4 of 19
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah,
`414 U.S. 538, 547 (1974) .......................................................................................8
`Am. Sales Co., LLC v. Pfizer, Inc., 2017 WL 3669604 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2017),
`report and recommendation adopted, E.D. Va. No. 2:14CV361, 2017 WL
`3669097 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2017).........................................................................6
`FWK Holdings, LLC v Merck & Co., Inc., et al.,
`C.A. No. 2:18cv00023............................................................................................4
`In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
`957 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................7
`In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig.,
`837 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................7
`In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Nalaxone) Antitrust Litig.,
`967 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................6
`In re Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litig.,
`325 F. Supp. 3d 1369, 1370 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2018)................................4
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 5 of 19
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Fourth Circuit Local Rules 12(c) and 31(b), Appellees, the Direct
`
`Purchaser Class Plaintiffs1 hereby move this Court to set an expedited briefing
`
`schedule in this interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s Order approving
`
`certification of the direct purchaser class (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 1101), and respectfully
`
`request that the Court schedule oral argument during the next argument calendar
`
`week convenient to the Court after the final reply brief has been filed.
`
`There is good cause to expedite briefing and oral argument
`
`in this
`
`interlocutory appeal because:
`
`(1)
`
`the Defendants-Appellants2 and Plaintiffs-
`
`Appellees are amply prepared to proceed without delay, having already fully briefed
`
`the same issues to the Magistrate Judge, who provided an extensive Report and
`
`Recommendation, and the District Judge, who wrote a thorough Memorandum
`
`Order
`
`responding to Defendants-Appellants’ objections; and (2)
`
`the Direct
`
`Purchaser Class represents a portion of plaintiffs within a well-coordinated
`
`1 The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs are a class of direct purchasers certified by
`the district court (Memorandum Order (Dkt. 1101)). They are represented by class
`representatives FWK Holdings, LLC; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; and
`Cesar Castillo, Inc. The class as certified has thirty-five members.
`
`2 Defendants-Appellants are Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`Schering-Plough Corp., Schering Corp., and MSP Singapore Co. LLC (Merck) and
`Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Glenmark Generics Inc., USA (Glenmark).
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 6 of 19
`
`multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), and the appeal will likely delay rulings on pending
`
`substantive motions involving parties who are not a party to this appeal. Should an
`
`unwarranted delay cause the District Court to continue proceedings for other parties
`
`to the MDL, the judicial economy of MDL would be frustrated and judicial resources
`
`expended unnecessarily.
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees request that the Court set the following accelerated
`
`briefing schedule: Defendants-Appellants file their opening brief no later than
`
`January 6, 2021; Plaintiffs-Appellees file their response brief by February 5, 2021;
`
`and Defendants-Appellants file their reply brief by February 22, 2021.
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees requested that Defendants-Appellants agree to the above
`
`expedited schedule. Defendants-Appellants declined and indicated an intent to
`
`oppose this Motion.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`This is an appeal of issue that has already been briefed twice by the parties,
`
`who are therefore prepared to proceed expeditiously. Senior District Court Judge
`
`Smith’s order, Dkt. No. 1101, adopted Magistrate Judge Miller’s extensive and well-
`
`reasoned 93-page Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 967, each of which
`
`followed comprehensive briefing by the parties.
`
`The motion was initially brought before the court on the Direct Purchaser
`
`Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support, Dkt.
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 7 of 19
`
`Nos. 735 and 736, filed November 18, 2019. On January 20, 2020, Defendants,
`
`Merck and Glenmark, filed a joint opposition to the motion for class certification.
`
`Dkt. No. 819. On February 20, 2020, the Purchaser Class Plaintiffs filed a reply.
`
`Dkt. No. 871. On April 3, 2020, the Defendants filed a Supplemental Brief in
`
`Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. No. 904, to which the Direct
`
`Purchaser Class Plaintiffs filed a brief in response on April 17, 2020. Dkt. No. 910.
`
`The motion for class certification was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
`
`Douglas E. Miller, who held a hearing on May 1, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 888 and 927. On
`
`June 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation
`
`(R&R), recommending that the court certify a class of thirty-five direct purchasers.
`
`Dkt. 967.
`
`The Defendants, Merck and Glenmark, filed a joint objection to the R&R on
`
`July 2, 2020. Dkt. No. 995. The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs filed a brief in
`
`response to the Defendants’ objection on July 16, 2020. Dkt. No. 1002. On July 29,
`
`2020, the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filing of Supplemental
`
`Authority to inform the court of a recent ruling of the United States Bankruptcy
`
`Court for the Western District of New York in the bankruptcy proceeding for
`
`proposed class representative Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. Dkt. No. 1017.
`
`On August 7, 2020, Merck filed a Response to the Notice. Dkt. No. 1028-2. Senior
`
`District Court Judge Smith issued a Memorandum Order on August 21, 2020,
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 8 of 19
`
`adopting in part the R&R and certifying a class of thirty-five direct purchasers. Dkt.
`
`No. 1101.
`
`The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs are but one group of plaintiffs in a highly
`
`coordinated MDL, consolidating claims of all purchasers of the brand drug Zetia
`
`who were overcharged because of Defendants’ conspiracy to delay generic
`
`competition. The first such suit was filed by a class representative on January 16,
`
`2018. FWK Holdings, LLC v Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:18cv00023. On
`
`June 8, 2018, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) consolidated
`
`all related claims, finding that coordination of the actions would “promote the just
`
`and efficient conduct of this litigation.” In re Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litig., 325
`
`F. Supp. 3d 1369, 1370 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2018). All plaintiffs jointly
`
`pursued discovery, which is now complete. There are also presently pending
`
`motions which may be case dispositive. Dkt. No. 1239. A briefing schedule has
`
`been set for Defendants’ upcoming motion to defer dispositive rulings due to this
`
`interlocutory appeal “even though the motions are ripe as to litigants which are not
`
`part of any class.” Id., at 2.
`
`Defendants’ upcoming motion to defer potentially dispositive rulings will
`
`affect multiple motions filed jointly by all MDL plaintiffs or against all MDL
`
`plaintiffs: Purchasers’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning the
`
`Relevant Market, Dkt. No. 1077, filed on behalf of all MDL plaintiffs; Glenmark
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 9 of 19
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims, Dkt. No. 1037, filed
`
`against all MDL plaintiffs; Merck Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.
`
`No. 1067, filed against all MDL plaintiffs; Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude
`
`Proposed Expert Testimony of Attorney Shashank Upadhye, Dkt. No. 1031, filed
`
`against all MDL plaintiffs; Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude in Part Testimony
`
`and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Luis A. Molina, Dkt. No. 1034, filed against all
`
`MDL plaintiffs; Purchasers’ Motion to Exclude Portions of the Proposed Testimony
`
`of Dr. Mark Robbins, Dkt. No. 1055, filed on behalf of all MDL plaintiffs; and
`
`Purchasers’ Motion to Exclude the Proposed Testimony of Dr. Anupam Jena, Dkt.
`
`No. 1066, filed on behalf of all MDL plaintiffs. Parties to these motions, who are
`
`not part of the Direct Purchaser Class, include the members of the proposed class of
`
`End Payor Purchasers and the Retailer Plaintiffs, who are Walgreen Co., The Kroger
`
`Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., HEB Grocery Company, L.P., CVS Pharmacy,
`
`Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corporation.
`
`At a status conference of November 5, 2020, the District Court announced
`
`that the February 23, 2021 trial date, which had been set for all MDL Plaintiffs,
`
`would be removed from the docket due to COVID-19 and a backlog of criminal jury
`
`trials. Dkt. No. 1240, at 6. The Court remarked that it was not extending the trial
`
`date “indefinitely” and that the Court would “try and get cases ready for trial, try
`
`them as quickly as we can get to them”. Id., at 7. The schedule proposed herein is
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 10 of 19
`
`intended to allow a return to the adjudication of potentially dispositive motions, so
`
`that trial may be rescheduled without unnecessary delay, as intended by the District
`
`Court.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`a. The Parties Are Well Positioned to Complete Briefing on an
`Expedited Basis
`
`The issues presented by this appeal have been thoroughly and repeatedly
`
`briefed by the parties, and the Defendants-Appellants’ positions were addressed by
`
`the Magistrate Judge in the R&R and the District Judge in the Memorandum
`
`Opinion. There is no new issue for which the parties need significant time for legal
`
`research and drafting. The parties are familiar with a mature body of case law
`
`approving class certification of similar classes.
`
`See, e.g., In re Suboxone
`
`(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Nalaxone) Antitrust Litig., 967 F.3d 264 (3d Cir.
`
`2020); Am. Sales Co., LLC v. Pfizer, Inc., 2017 WL 3669604 (E.D. Va. July 28,
`
`2017), report and recommendation adopted, E.D. Va. No. 2:14CV361, 2017 WL
`
`3669097 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2017).
`
`The Defendants-Appellants’ Petition For Permission To Appeal Under Rule
`
`23(f) From Order Granting Class Certification (“Petition”) identifies the three
`
`arguments they will make, but those arguments have already been briefed repeatedly
`
`by the parties. The Defendants-Appellants will base their argument regarding
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 11 of 19
`
`numerosity upon the Third Circuit’s decision, In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837
`
`F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2016), Petition at 12; but the District Judge pointed out that the
`
`Defendants-Appellants have already relied “particularly” upon Modafinil on the
`
`same point.
`
`(Dkt. No. 1101, at 5). The Defendants-Appellants will make an
`
`objection to the class representatives, Petition at 16; but both the R&R, Dkt. 967, at
`
`47-60, and the District Judge’s Memorandum Order, Dkt. 1101 at 11-15, provide a
`
`complete analysis of these arguments. The Defendants-Appellants will make an
`
`argument based upon another Third Circuit decision, In re Lamictal Direct
`
`Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 957 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2020). Petition at 21 and 22.
`
`However, as noted by the District Court, that case was at the “center” of the
`
`Defendants-Appellants’ arguments regarding whether the class members suffered an
`
`anti-trust injury. Id., at 15. There is simply no reason for delay.
`
`b. An Unnecessarily Lengthy Briefing Schedule Will Thwart the
`Benefits of Multidistrict Litigation and Unfairly Delay Other
`Multidistrict Litigation Parties Not Part of This Appeal
`
`Not only is a lengthy briefing schedule unnecessary for the parties to this
`
`appeal, it would unfairly delay all plaintiffs in the MDL, including the class of End-
`
`Payor Purchasers and “litigants which are not part of any class.” (Dkt. No. 1239, at
`
`2). The Defendants-Appellants have argued to the District Court that rulings on
`
`potentially dispositive motions, already briefed to the court, will have to be delayed
`
`until resolution of this interlocutory appeal due to the potential for one-way
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 12 of 19
`
`intervention issues. (Id., at 1-2). One-way intervention is the concern that members
`
`of a class potentially “benefit from a favorable judgment without subjecting
`
`themselves to the binding effect of an unfavorable one.” Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v.
`
`Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 547 (1974). The one-way intervention issues that arise out of
`
`this appeal potentially affect only the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ class, but the pending
`
`motions being put on hold affect all parties to the MDL.
`
`The hold placed on potentially dispositive motions affects three summary
`
`judgment motions and four Daubert motions, each of which include litigants who
`
`are not part of the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ class. These motions are fully briefed. The
`
`District Court is holding its rulings until completion of briefing on the issue of one-
`
`way intervention, which is scheduled to be completed by January 25, 2021. The
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees seek a briefing schedule here that will not delay these motions
`
`unnecessarily beyond that date.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`The Plaintiff-Appellees propose the following schedule:
`
`On Wednesday, January 6, 2021: the Defendants-Appellants file their
`
`opening merits brief;
`
`On Friday, February 5, 2021:
`
`the Plaintiffs-Appellees file their
`
`response merits brief;
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 13 of 19
`
`On Monday, February 22, 2021: the Defendants-Appellants file their
`
`reply merits brief;
`
`At the earliest possible opportunity after briefing is complete, the Court is
`
`asked to schedule oral argument.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, this Court should issue an expedited schedule for
`
`briefs.
`
`Dated: November 11, 2020
`
`/s/ William H. Monroe, Jr.
`William H. Monroe, Jr. (VSB No.
`27441)
`Marc C. Greco (VSB No. 41496)
`Kip A. Harbison (VSB No. 38648)
`Michael A. Glasser (VSB No. 17651)
`GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
`Crown Center, Suite 600
`580 East Main Street
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`Telephone: (757) 625-6787
`Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
`bill@glasserlaw.com
`marcg@glasserlaw.com
`kip@glasserlaw.com
`michael@glasserlaw.com
`
`Local Counsel for Direct Purchaser
`Plaintiffs FWK Holdings, LLC,
`Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.,
`Cesar Castillo, Inc. and the Proposed
`Direct Purchaser Class
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 14 of 19
`
`Thomas M. Sobol
`Kristen A. Johnson
`Hannah Schwarzschild
`Erin C. Burns
`Bradley Vettraino
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`Telephone: (617) 482-3700
`Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
`tom@hbsslaw.com
`kristenj@hbsslaw.com
`hannahs@hbsslaw.com
`erinb@hbsslaw.com
`bradleyv@hbsslaw.com
`
`Lead Counsel for the Proposed Direct
`Purchaser Class
`
`Sharon K Robertson
`Donna M. Evans
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
`PLLC
`88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: (212) 838-7797
`Fax: (212) 838-7745
`srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
`devans@cohenmilstein.com
`
`Steve D. Shadowen
`Matthew C. Weiner
`HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
`1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
`Austin, TX 78703
`Tel.: (855) 344-3298
`steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
`matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
`
`10
`
`John D. Radice
`RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
`475 Wall Street
`Princeton, NJ 08540
`Tel.: (646) 245-8502
`Fax: (609) 385-0745
`jradice@radicelawfirm.com
`
`Paul E. Slater
`Joseph M. Vanek
`David P. Germaine
`Alberto Rodriguez
`SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
`55 W. Monroe, Suite 3200
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 641-3200
`Facsimile: (312)641-6492
`pes@sperling-law.com
`jvanek@sperling-law.com
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 15 of 19
`
`dgermaine@sperling-law.com
`arodriguez@sperling-law.com
`
`Joseph H. Meltzer
`Terence S. Ziegler
`KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK
`LLP
`280 King of Prussia Road
`Radnor, PA 19087
`Telephone: (610) 667-7706
`Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
`jmeltzer@ktmc.com
`tziegler@ktmc.com
`
`Michael L. Roberts
`Karen Sharp Halbert
`Debra G. Josephson
`Stephanie Smith
`William R. Olson
`Sarah E. DeLoach
`ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
`20 Rahling Circle
`Little Rock, AR 72223
`Telephone: (501) 821-5575
`Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
`mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
`karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
`debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
`stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us
`williamolson@robertslawfirm.us
`sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff FWK Holdings, LLC and the Proposed Direct Purchaser
`Class
`
`Linda P. Nussbaum
`NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
`1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th
`Floor
`New York, NY 10036-8718
`Telephone: (917) 438-9189
`lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
`
`Jayne A. Goldstein
`SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER
`& SHAH, LLP
`1625 North Commerce Parkway, Ste.
`320
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
`Telephone: (954) 515-0123
`Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
`
`11
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 16 of 19
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Cesar Castillo, Inc. and the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class
`
`jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
`
`David F. Sorensen
`Ellen T. Noteware
`Nicholas Urban
`BERGER MONTAGUE PC
`1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 875-3000
`Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
`dsorensen@bm.net
`enoteware@bm.net
`nurban@bm.net
`
`Peter R. Kohn
`Joseph T. Lukens
`FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
`One Penn Center, Suite 1550
`1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 277-5770
`Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
`pkohn@faruqilaw.com
`jlukens@faruqilaw.com
`
`Barry Taus
`Archana Tamoshunas
`Kevin Landau
`TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
`80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
`New York, NY10038
`Telephone: (646) 873-7654
`btaus@tcllaw.com
`atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
`klandau@tcllaw.com
`
`Bradley J. Demuth
`FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
`685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 983-9330
`Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
`bdemuth@faruqilaw.com
`
`Counsel for Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc. and the Proposed Direct Purchaser
`Class
`
`12
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 17 of 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`This petition complies with the word limit of Rule 5(c)(1) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Appellate Procedure, as it contains 1851 words, excluding the portions
`
`exempted by Rules 5(b)(1)(E) and 32(f).
`
`The Petition complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5)(A)
`
`and the type-style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a
`
`proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point, Times New
`
`Roman font.
`
`/s/ William H. Monroe, Jr._
`William H. Monroe, Jr.
`(VSB No. 27441)
`GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
`Crown Center, Suite 600
`580 East Main Street
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`Telephone: (757) 625-6787
`Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
`bill@glasserlaw.com
`Local Counsel for Direct Purchaser
`Plaintiffs - Appellees FWK Holdings,
`LLC, Rochester Drug Cooperative,
`Inc., Cesar Castillo, Inc. and the
`Proposed Direct Purchaser Class
`
`13
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 18 of 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on November 11, 2020, I electronically filed the Motion
`
`to Expedite with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Fourth Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system, which will send a
`
`notification of such filing to all counsel of record who have made a formal
`
`appearance. I further certify that on the same day I served the foregoing by email
`
`on the following:
`
`Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
`Samuel G. Liversidge
`Christopher D. Dusseault
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
`LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: (213) 229-7855
`Facsimile: (213) 229-6855
`Tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`Sliversidge@gibsondunn.com
`CDusseault@gibsondunn.com
`
`Veronica S. Lewis
`Ashley Johnson
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
`LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201-6912
`Telephone: (214) 698-3320
`Facsimile: (214) 571-2936
`vlewis@gibsondunn.com
`ajohnson@gibsondunn.com
`
`Eric J. Stock
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 351-2301
`Facsimile: (212) 716-0801
`estock@gibsondunn.com
`
`Stephen A. Noona
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`Telephone: (757) 624-3239
`Facsimile: (757) 888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`
`Richard H. Ottinger
`VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP
`101 West Main Street, Suite 500
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`Telephone: (757)446-8600
`Facsimile: (757) 446-8670
`rottinger@vanblacklaw.com
`
`14
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-2184 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/11/2020 Pg: 19 of 19
`
`Steven A. Reed
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
`LLP
`1701 Market Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 963-5000
`Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
`steven.reed@morganlewis.com
`
`Dated: November 11, 2020
`
`/s/ William H. Monroe, Jr.
`William H. Monroe, Jr. (VSB No. 27441)
`
`15
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket