Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 81 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 755

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

COUNSELLORS AT LAW
_____________

CHARLES C. CARELLA JAMES T. BYERS 5 BECKER FARM ROAD FRANCIS C. HAND RAYMOND J. LILLIE
BRENDAN T. BYRNE DONALD F. MICELI AVRAM S. EULE WILLIAM SQUIRE
ROSELAND, N.J. 07068-1739
PETER G. STEWART A. RICHARD ROSS CHRISTOPHER H. WESTRICK* STEPHEN R. DANEK
JAN ALAN BRODY CARL R. WOODWARD, III
PHONE (973) 994-1700 JAMES A. OBRIEN III** DONALD A. ECKLUND
JOHN M. AGNELLO MELISSA E. FLAX FAX (973) 994-1744 MEGAN A. NATALE
CHARLES M. CARELLA DAVID G. GILFILLAN www.carellabyrne.com OF COUNSEL ZACHARY S. BOWER+
JAMES E. CECCHI G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD MICHAEL CROSS
*CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
BRIAN H. FENLON CHRISTOPHER J. BUGGY
NEW JERSEY AS A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
JAMES D. CECCHI (1933-1995) LINDSEY H. TAYLOR JOHN V. KELLY III
**MEMBER NY AND MA BARS ONLY
JOHN G. GILFILLAN III (1936-2008) CAROLINE F. BARTLETT MICHAEL A. INNES
ELLIOT M. OLSTEIN (1939-2014)
+MEMBER FL BAR ONLY

December 18, 2017

VIA ECF

The Honorable Lois H. Goodman

United States Magistrate Judge
Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
402 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

Re: In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG)

Barnett v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-1580(BRM)(LHG)
Boss v. CVS Health Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01823(BRM)(LHG)
Christensen v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02678(BRM)(LHG)

Dear Judge Goodman:

The firms of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. and Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP are interim co-lead class counsel for plaintiffs in the above-referenced cases
(Insulin Cases). In accordance with Your Honors text order of December 4, 2017 (Dkt. No.
76), we submit this letter on behalf of all parties with regard to the status of the consolidated
matters.

In addition to the Insulin Cases, the parties are aware of the following five related cases:

1. Carfagno v. Novo Nordisk Inc., 3:17-cv-03407 (D.N.J. May 12, 2017);

2. Johnson v. OptumRx Inc., et al., No. 8:17-cv-00900 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2017);
3. Bewley v. CVS Health Corp, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00802 (W.D. Was. May 24, 2017);
4. Prescott v. CVS Health Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00803 (W.D. Was. May 24, 2017); and
5. MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., et al., No. 5:17-cv-
00862-XR (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2017).

In each of these actions filed outside of this District, the parties have either agreed to transfer the
case to the District of New Jersey or the court has ordered the case to be transferred to this
District.

Plaintiffs believe that each of these cases can be coordinated and, absent dismissal, that
the Carfagno action should be included in a consolidated amended complaint with the Insulin
Cases. Plaintiffs, however, believe that it would be inappropriate to weave the remaining related
 Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 81 Filed 12/18/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 756

December 18, 2017

Page 2

actions (Bewley, Johnson, MSP, and Prescott) into the consolidated amended complaint. While
the four remaining actions bear a likeness to the Insulin Cases, plaintiffs believe that they are
each distinguishable. First, while the claims in Johnson and Bewley are similar to those of the
Insulin Cases, Johnson and Bewley concern glucagon and a glucagon-like peptide, respectively,
not insulin. As such, Johnson and Bewley involve different classes. Second, Prescott concerns
the pricing of certain glucose test strips. As such, Prescott involves a different class glucose
test strips are used by both insulin-dependent and non-insulin dependent diabetics. Third, MSP
involves the same insulin products, but involves different legal claims. These differences are
important and render consolidation inappropriate. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that it would be
most efficient for Bewley, Johnson, MSP, and Prescott to be coordinated but not consolidated
with the Insulin Cases, with the consolidated Insulin Cases serving as the lead case in the
coordinated matters.

Defendants do not agree with plaintiffs characterization of the differences between these
matters (or the significance of the differences), but agree that, at a minimum, coordination
between the cases should be achieved. Defendants reserve the right to move for consolidation of
the MSP case with the Insulin Cases in the future.

The parties are working to agree on a proposed scheduling order for filing the
consolidated amended complaint in In re Insulin and the related motion to dismiss briefing. If
the motions to dismiss are denied, the parties and the Court can work together to structure a
comprehensive discovery plan and assess a full schedule for the resolution of class certification
and other matters, if necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are available at the Courts convenience
if Your Honor has any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

/s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

/s/ Steve W. Berman

STEVE W. BERMAN

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

C ARELLA , B YRNE , C ECCHI, O LSTEIN, B RODY & A GNELLO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION