Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2518

Julia A. Boss
3059 Hendricks Hill Drive
Eugene, OR 97403

Pro Se Plaintiff A?R 13 2018

/.ff 8:30
VV I!_LJ
;-:A7':M:-:-:_=:""r..,_W_A_ _ M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LSH

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 17-699 (BRM)(LHG)

PRO SE PLAINTIFF JULIA BOSS'S

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
IN RE INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION.
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MARCH 9
ORDER (DKT. ENTRY 124) AND APRIL
9, 2018 LETTER (DKT. ENTRY 145)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, I, pro se Plaintiff Julia Boss, request that the

Court take judicial notice of public court records that are adjudicative fact not subject to

reasonable dispute and the accuracy of which cannot reasonably be questioned (the "Request") ..

Please find attached as Exhibit A a true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Law and

Declaration of Jacob J. Waldman (with its Exhibit A) ("Waldman Decl."}.I Exhibit A to the

Waldman Deel. is "a true and correct copy of an e-mail chain between [Keller Rohrback] and

counsel for ESI, copying other counsel including counsel for Appellee Anthem, Inc., dated

I Exhibit A to this Request.

- Page 1 of2 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148 Filed 04/13/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2519

March 30, 2018-April 2, 2018."2 ExhibitA(the complete email chain) to Waldman Deel. was

entered in the docket of Case No. 16-cv-3399 as Dkt. Entry 55 to document an alleged factual

misrepresentation, by omission, made by Keller Rohrback in a Motion for Extension of Time

filed on April 3, 2018, in the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit (Case No. 16-cv-3399, Dkt.

Entry 52).

Keller Rohrback has neither objected to the disclosure of a complete email chain for the

purpose of documenting an alleged factual misrepresentation nor requested that the paper be

stricken from the docket. Exhibit B to this Request is a true and correct copy of the docket of

Case No. 16-cv-3399 as of April 11, 2018.

This adjudicative fact illustrates that, when a party allegedly misrepresents to a Court a

fact pertaining to a communication with another party, disclosing that cominunication is an

appropriate and customary approach to challenge said misrepresentation and to bring it to the

Court's attention. This adjudicative fact only pertains to the admissibility of an email chain and

its entry in the docket at the time it was filed; it does not pertain to the issue of privilege.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 11, 2018

Julia A. Boss
3059 Hendricks Hill Drive
Eugene, OR 97403

Pro Se Plaintiff

2 See Waldman Deel., Ex. 1at2.

- Page 2 of2 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148-3 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2541

Julia A. Boss
3059 Hendricks Hill Drive
Eugene, OR 97403
RECEIVED
Pro Se Plaintiff
APR 13 2018
AT 8:30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT __ M

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 17-699 (BRM)(LHG)

IN RE INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Julia Boss, hereby certify that on this 11th day of April, 2018, I caused

copies of my Request'for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of March 9,

2018 Order (Dkt. Entry 124) and April 9, 2018 Letter (Dkt. Entry 145), and this Certification of

Service to be served to all counsel and parties of record via sending it via FedEx to the Clerk's

Office (responsible under local rule for serving all counsel and parties via ECF on behalf of Pro

Se Plaintiff).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 11, 2018

Julia A. Boss
3059 Hendricks Hill Drive
Eugene, OR 97403

Pro Se Plaintiff

- Page 1of1 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148-1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 2520

EXHIBIT A

1·1
.
i,
. .
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page2
Filed 04/13/18 Page 2ofof12
18 PageID: 2521

JOHN DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, BRIAN
CORRIGAN, STAMFORD HEALTH, INC., and BROTHERS TRADING CO.,
INC.

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

KAREN BURNETT, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, BRENDAN FARRELL, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, ROBERT SHULLICH, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Consolidated Plaintiffs-Appellants

-v.-

EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., ANTHEM INC., 1-10 INCLUSIVE DOES,

Defendants-Appellees.
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page3
Filed 04/13/18 Page 3ofof12
18 PageID: 2522

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Express Scripts, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Express Scripts

Holding Company, which is a publicly held and traded corporation. No publicly

held corporation owns more than 10% of the stock of Express Scripts Holding

Company.
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page4
Filed 04/13/18 Page 4ofof12
18 PageID: 2523

Defendant-Appellee Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") respectfully submits this

opposition to Plaintiffs-Appellants' and Consolidated Plaintiffs-Appellants'

(together, "Appellants") Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Amicus Curiae

Briefs.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Appellants seek a general extension of time for as-yet unnamed, potential

amici to file briefs concerning unspecified topics. But Appellants offer no

)
specifics as to why those amici cannot comply with the standard deadlines as any

amici normally would. Because Appellants offer no cause-much less "good

cause"-for this Court to revise the expedited briefing schedule it ordered on

March 7, 2018 (without opposition by Appellants), ESI respectfully opposes this

novel request, for the reasons set forth below.

First, Appellants indicate that, a full two months after filing their Notice of 1

Appeal, they have not yet persuaded a single amicus to file a brief on their behalf.

They also do not claim that any purported potential amicus has expressed a need

for additional time or asked Appellants to make this motion, and they offer no ,

reason why a potential amicus, if it actually did need an extension, could not seek

the extension on its own behalf. Appellants' failure to persuade amici to file briefs

supporting their appeal is not "good cause" for additional time to try to do so.

1
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page5
Filed 04/13/18 Page 5ofof12
18 PageID: 2524

Second, Appellants offer no facts showing that they have been diligent in

approaching amici or in persuading them to file briefs. As such, the Court has no

way of knowing whether Appellants have made this motion simply to compensate

for Appellants' own unexplained delay.

Third, Appellants offer no argument as to why ESl's alleged status as a

fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")

is especially important, much less important enough to warrant extending the time

for Appellants to try to recruit amici. That Appellants have yet to persuade a single

amicus to participate suggests that amici do not consider the issue sufficiently

important.

Fourth, Appellants' request for relief on behalf of unidentified amici puts

this Court in the untenable position of potentially granting relief to entities that,

pursuant to Local Rule 29 .1 (a), might cause the Court to be conflicted. The Court

should not compromise its rules and practices for the sake of entertaining

Appellants' bid to serve as proxy for an unspecified, undefined universe of putative

am1c1.

Finally, although Appellants submit that their instant request to extend

amicus deadlines need not disrupt the operative briefing schedule for the parties,

that assurance rings hollow. Either the Appellees' will be prejudiced by having

their time shortened to process and account for any amicus submission, or else

2
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page6
Filed 04/13/18 Page 6ofof12
18 PageID: 2525

Appellees' deadline for filing their answering briefs will be extended. Neither

result is warranted or desirable.

For these reasons, and those detailed herein, the motion should be denied.

BACKGROUND
Appellants' case has been proceeding for nearly two years. Plaintiffs John

Doe One and John Doe Two filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York

on May 6, 2016 (ECF No. 1, 16-cv-3399), and Plaintiffs Burnett, Farrell, and

Shullich filed a complaint on June 24, 2016 (ECF No. 1, 16-cv-4948). On August

1, 2016, the cases were consolidated, with No. 16-cv-3399 designated as the lead

case. The plaintiffs, along with Brian Corrigan, filed an amended complaint on

September 30, 2016 (ECF No. 41), and a second amended complaint on March 2,

2017 (ECF No. 78), after Appellees ESI and Anthem, Inc. ("Anthem") had moved

to dismiss. After a full round of briefing, the District Court (Ramos, J.) dismissed 1

the second amended complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, on January 5, 1

2018 (ECF No. 156).

Rather than file a third amended complaint, Appellants filed their Notice of

Appeal on February 2 (ECF No. 162), followed by a Corrected Notice of Appeal

three days later (ECF No. 163). On March 7, pursuant to Local Rule 31.2(b), the

Court sua sponte placed this appeal on the Expedited Appeals Calendar, setting a

deadline of April 11 for Appellants' brief and May 16 for Appellees' brief.

3
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page7
Filed 04/13/18 Page 7ofof12
18 PageID: 2526

Appellants did not move under Local Rule 3 l .2(b)(2) to remove the case from the

Expedited Appeals Calendar.

On March 30, Appellants asked counsel for ESI via e-mail for consent to a

blanket extension of time for any amici who might file briefs in support of

Appellants. Mot. if 8. ESI responded the same day that it could not determine

whether to consent without knowing the identities of the potential amici, the topics

they plan to address, and the reasons they require additional time. 1 Appellants

declined to provide that information "until we are certain that the potential amici

definitely want to file. " 2 Appellants' motion states that ESI "would [not] consent

in the absence of information as to the identities of potential amici," Mot. if 8, but it

omits that ESI also asked for the reason Appellants seek extra time, which the

Appellants declined to provide. 3

Appellants filed this motion on April 2, 2018.

ARGUMENT

APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

FOR UNNAMED AMICI SHOULD BE DENIED

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP"), and Local Rules of

I '
this Court, indicate that extensions of time for briefing are disfavored. Local Rule
I

1
See Declaration of Jacob J. Waldman ("Waldman Deel.") Ex. 1 at 2.
2
Id. at 1.
3
See id.

4
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Pages
Filed 04/13/18 Page 8of
of12
18 PageID: 2527

27. l(f) reqmres an "extraordinary circumstance," which is nothing short of

"serious personal illness or death in counsel's immediate family," to extend the

time to file a brief, and FRAP 26(b) requires "good cause" to "extend the time

prescribed by these rules." 4 In the March 7 notice placing this appeal on the

Expedited Appeals Calendar, the Court reiterated that "[a]bsent extraordinary

circumstances, the Court will not grant a motion to extend the time to file a brief."

Here, Appellants fail to offer any justification, much less "good cause,'' to grant a

blanket extension of time to unnamed amici for unspecified reasons.

A. Appellants Offer No Cause for Amending the Schedule

Pursuant to Local Rule 31.2, the Court expedited briefing for this appeal.
\

Having prevailed in the District Court, ESI is eager to resolve this appeal and

complete briefing. Appellants, who made no challenge to the expedited schedule

pursuant to Rule 31.2(b), now seek nonetheless to delay resolution of this appeal ,

or, at the very least, reduce substantially ES I's ability to respond to Appellants'

potential amici. Appellants offer no meaningful justification for amending the

briefing schedule.

Appellants' main purported justification for their motion is that none of the 1

potential amici has completed the "organizational process" necessary for them

4
Although FRAP 29(a)( 6) does not prescribe a standard for determining
when an extension of time is appropriate for filing an amicus brief, the Advisory
Committee Notes to FRAP 29 specify that "Rule 26(b) grants general authority to
enlarge the time prescribed in these rules for good cause shown."

5
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page9
Filed 04/13/18 Page 9ofof12
18 PageID: 2528

even to commence briefing. Mot. 2. Appellants' sworn Declaration is more

candid, however, and concedes that none of the amici who have supposedly

"indicated interest" has actually decided "whether to participate as amicus." Deel.

8. Appellants' failure to persuade amici to support their appeal is not "good

cause" for giving Appellants extra time to do so-especially given that they have

had more than two months since they noticed their appeal, and nearly two years

since they initiated their lawsuit, to recruit amici. Appellants do not even claim

that any purported potential amicus has expressed a desire for additional time or

asked Appellants to make this motion. Indeed, there is no reason that, if potential

amici are sufficiently motivated to support Appellants, they cannot seek an

extension of time on behalf of themselves.

Nor do Appellants purport to show that they were diligent in attempting to

recruit amici. They nowhere specify the dates on which they contacted whatever

organizations have supposedly "indicated interest," or what efforts they made to

persuade potential amici to file briefs. Further still, because Appellants provide no

facts as to the steps or timing involved in an amicus' "organizational process," they

fail to show that those processes-rather than Appellants' dilatory conduct-are

prompting Appellants' request for additional time. If nothing else, Appellants

should at the very least be supplying facts indicating that their demand for

6
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, PagelO
Filed 04/13/18 Page 10ofof12
18 PageID: 2529

additional time does not arise from their own unjustified delay. Tellingly, however,

Appellants have supplied no such facts.

Appellants also fail to offer any reason that the subject matter of the appeal

is sufficiently important to warrant additional time to recruit amici, asserting only

that "fiduciary status in employee benefit plans" covered by ERISA is one of the

"important issues raised in this appeal." Mot. 1. Apart from this conclusory

assertion, however, Appellants offer no argument or reason that ESI's alleged

fiduciary status under ERISA is important-beyond that Appellants would like to

reverse the District Court's ruling on the issue. Indeed, the facts that (i) Appellants

have concededly failed to persuade any parties to commit to filing an amicus brief

and (ii) no potential amicus has requested more time on its own behalf strongly I

suggest that the potential amici do not consider the issues raised in this appeal to be 1

important enough to spur themselves to action.

In sum, Appellants' few, vague, conclusory paragraphs fall well short of

establishing "good cause" for the Court to revise its briefing schedule by means of

a blanket extension of time for unnamed amici to file briefs concerning unspecified

issues. 5

5
If the Court is nonetheless inclined to grant Appellants' motion, the Court
should also extend the deadline for Appellees' briefs from May 16 to May 30 in
order to maintain the same interval between the due dates for amici and Appellees.
Appellants' assertion that reducing ESI's time to respond to the amici by two
weeks leaves "ample time to review" is conclusory and incorrect. Mot. 6.

7
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Pagell
Filed 04/13/18 Page 11ofof12
18 PageID: 2530

B. The Court Should Not Grant Relief to Anonymous Entities

Local Rule 29 .1 (a) requires that this Court "deny leave to file an amicus

brief when, by reason of a relationship between a judge assigned to hear the

proceeding and the amicus curiae or its counsel, the filing of the brief might cause

the recusal of the judge." Here, Appellants are purporting to seek relief on behalf

of various potential amici, without disclosing to the Court the identity of any of the

potential amici. This request therefore puts the Court in a position where it could

unwittingly be proceeding contrary to Local Rule 29.l(a) by providing relief to

various anonymous entities with whom the Judge or Judges determining this

motion-or the Judges on the ultimate merits panel-might have a relationship that

amounts to a disabling conflict. There is no reason for the Court to put itself in

such an awkward and possibly compromised position, particularly considering that

Appellants have not explained why potential amici cannot, on their own behalves,

declare their potential interest and seek any additional time they may need.

Notably, Appellants' assertion is at odds with the Advisory Committee Notes for
FRAP 29, which explain that an amicus brief ordinarily must be filed within seven
days of the brief of the party being supported in order to enable the opposing party
to "have sufficient time to review arguments made by the amicus and address them
in the party's responsive pleading." If the deadline for amicus briefs is extended
from seven days after the Appellants' brief to 21 days after the Appellants' brief, it
follows that the Appellees should receive an extra 14 days as well. The result, of
course, would be to protract the parties' briefing, which is inconsistent with the
expedition ordered by this Court and undesirable.

8
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-1,148-1
Document 04/09/2018, 2275216, Page
Filed 04/13/18 Page12
12of
of12
18 PageID: 2531

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, ESI respectfully requests that the Court deny

Appellants' motion.

DATED: New York, New York

April 9, 2018
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

By: Isl Derek L. Shaffer

Derek L. Shaffer
Michael J. Lyle
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 538-8000
Facsimile: (202) 538-8100

Michael B. Carlinsky
Andrew S. Corkhill
Jacob J. Waldman
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010-1601
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100

Attorneys for Appellee

Express Scripts, Inc.

9
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-2,
Document 04/09/2018,
148-1 2275216,Page
Filed 04/13/18 Pagel
13ofof618 PageID: 2532

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

JOHN DOE 1, on behalf of Case No. 18-346

themselves and all others similarly
situated, JOHN DOE 2, on behalf of DECLARATION OF
themselves and all others similarly COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF
situated, BRIAN CORRIGAN, APPELLEE EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
STAMFORD HEALTH, INC., and INC.'s OPPOSITION TO
BROTHERS TRADING CO., INC., APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
Plaintiffs-Appellants, AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

KAREN BURNETT, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, BRENDAN FARRELL,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, ROBERT
SHULLICH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Consolidated Plaintiffs-
Appellants

v.

Express Scripts, Inc., Anthem, Inc.,

1-10 Inclusive Does,

Defendants-Appellees.

Jacob J. Waldman declares as follows:

1. I am Of Counsel at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. I submit

this Declaration in support of Appellee Express Scripts, Inc.' s ("ESI") opposition to

Appellants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Amicus Curiae Briefs, and to place

1
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-2,
Document 04/09/2018,
148-1 2275216,Page
Filed 04/13/18 Page2
14ofof618 PageID: 2533

a relevant document before the Court.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an e-mail

chain between counsel for Appellants and counsel for ESI, copying other counsel

including counsel for Appellee Anthem, Inc., dated March 30, 2018 - April 2, 2018.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April 9, 2018

Isl Jacob J. Waldman

Jacob J. Waldman

2
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-2,
Document 04/09/2018,
148-1 2275216,Page
Filed 04/13/18 Page3
15ofof618 PageID: 2534

EXHIBIT A
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-2,
Document 04/09/2018,
148-1 2275216,Page
Filed 04/13/18 Page4
16of
of618 PageID: 2535

Jacob Waldman

From: Jacob Waldman

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 10:14 AM
To: Jeffrey Lewis
Cc: Glenn Kurtz; ccolumbres@whitecase.com; David Ko; Derek Loeser; Rachel Morowitz;
kwhatley; hquillen; ekallas; amansfield; pam; ndorman; Andrew Corkhill; Asia Lenard;
Jacob Waldman
Subject: RE: ESI-Anthem Litigation

Jeff,
.i
It would be misleading to file a motion that includes the information we asked for-such as the reason additional is
required-and then simply represent that we did not consent to the motion. As indicated below, at this point we do
know what we are being asked to consent to. Ii

I
Best, I

I·
!'

Jacob II

From: Jeffrey Lewis [mailto:jlewis@KellerRohrback.com]

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 7:48 PM
To: Jacob Waldman <jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com> l·
:1

Cc: Glenn Kurtz <gkurtz@whitecase.com>; ccolumbres@whitecase.com; David Ko <dko@KellerRohrback.com>;

Loeser <dloeser@KellerRohrback.com>; Rachel Morowitz <rmorowitz@KellerRohrback.com>; kwhatley
<jwhatley@whatleykallas.com>; hquillen <hquillen@whatleykallas.com>; ekallas <ekallas@whatleykallas.com>;
amansfield <amansfield@whatleykallas.com>; pam <pam@consumerwatchdog.org>; ndorman
<ndorman@whatleykallas.com>; Andrew Corkhill <andrewcorkhill@quinnemanuel.com>; Asia Lenard
<asialenard@quinnemanuel.com>
Subject: RE: ESl-Anthem Litigation

Jacob:

It has been our practice to agree on an across-the-board basis to the filing of amicus :,'
briefs by both sides. We are not willing to share the information you seek until we are
certain that the potential amici definitely want to file. We will file a motion or application
requesting an extension for potential amici. We will represent that you have not
consented to that motion.

Jeff

Jeffrey Lewis
Partner
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Phone: (510} 463-3900

Fax: (510) 463-3901

1
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-2,
Document 04/09/2018,
148-1 2275216,Page
Filed 04/13/18 Page5
17 of
of 618 PageID: 2536
Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., which may
be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If
you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

From: Jacob Waldman [mailto:jacobwaldman@guinnemanuel.com]

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Jeffrey Lewis <jlewis@KellerRohrback.com>
Cc: Glenn Kurtz <gkurtz@whitecase.com>; ccolumbres@whitecase.com: David Ko <dko@KellerRohrback.com>;
Loeser <dloeser@KellerRohrback.com>; Rachel Morowitz <rmorowitz@KellerRohrback.com>; kwhatley
< jwhatley@whatleyka!las.com>; hq uii len < hg uillen@whatleyka!las.com>; eka llas <eka llas@whatleyka Ilas.com>;
amansfield <amansfield@whatleykallas.com>; pam <pam@consumerwatchdog.org>; ndorman
<ndorman@whatleykallas.com>; Andrew Corkhill <andrewcorkhill@quinnemanuel.com>; Asia Lenard
<asialenard@quinnemanuel.com>
Subject: Fwd: ESl-Anthem Litigation

Jeff,

Before we can make any determination we need to know who the amici are, what they are planning to address, and "YhY
they need additional time. '

Please also include me on future emails relating to this matter.

Best,

Jacob

From: Jeffrey Lewis [mailto:jlewis@KellerRohrback.com]

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 12:23 PM
To: Andrew Corkhill <andrewcorkhill@quinnemanuel.com>; Glenn Kurtz <gkurtz@whitecase.com>;
Columbres, Claudine <ccolumbres@whitecase.com>
Cc: David Ko <dko@KellerRohrback.com>; Derek Loeser <dloeser@KellerRohrback.com>; Rachel
Morowitz <rmorowitz@KellerRohrback.com>; kwhatley <jwhatley@whatleykallas.com>; hquillen
<hquillen@whatleykallas.com>; ekallas <ekallas@whatleykallas.com>; amansfield
<amansfield@whatleykallas.com>; pam <pam@consumerwatchdog.org>; ndorman
<ndorman@whatleykallas.com>
Subject: ESl-Anthem Litigation

Andy, Glen, and Claudine:

2
 Case 18-346, Document
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG 55-2,
Document 04/09/2018,
148-1 2275216,Page
Filed 04/13/18 Page6
18of
of618 PageID: 2537
We are in communication with several potential amici with regard to our
appeal. They have indicated to us that they would like a bit more time to
file- any amicus briefs that they may file. As a result, we are going to
request that the court grant potential amici an additional 14 days. (We are
not going to seek additional time for our opening brief.) Will your clients
consent to this?

In addition, will your clients consent to filing of amicus briefs generally? We

would be willing to do the same for you.

Jeff

Jeffrey Lewis

Partner

Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Phone: (510) 463-3900

Fax: (510) 463-3901

Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the law firm of Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received
this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

3
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148-2 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 2538

EXHIBITB
 Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148-2 Filed 04/13/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 4/11/18,
18-346 Summary
253910:58 AM

If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 5 Pages $0.50

General Docket
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 18-346 Docketed: 0210512018 ,

Nature of Suit: 3791 LABOR LAWS-Retirement Act 1974
In re Express Scripts/Anthem
Appeal From: SONY (NEW YORK CITY)
Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:

1) Civil
2) Private
3) -

Originating Court Information:

District: 0208-1 : 16-cv-3399 I

Trial Judge: Edgardo Ramos, U.S. District Judge

Date Filed: 05/06/2016
Date Order/Judgment: Date NOA Filed:
01/05/2018 02/05/2018
.. ..... ......
., ., .........

https://ecf.ca2.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet= .... jsp?caseNum=18-346&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Page 1 of 2

 Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 148-2 Filed 04/13/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 4/11/18,
18-346 Summary
2540 10:58 AM
I

04/02/2018 49 MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellant Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Karen Burnett, Brian Corrigan, John Doe
1, John Doe 2, Brendan Farrell and Robert Shullich, FILED. Service date 04/02/2018 by CM/ECF. [2270037] [18-346]
[Entered: 04/02/2018 07:46 PM]

04/03/2018 50 DEFE:CTIVE DOCUMENT, Motion to extend time, [49], on behalf of Appellants Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Ka.ren
Burnett, Brian Corrigan, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Brendan Farrell and Robert Shullich, FILED,[2270085] [18.:346] :
•
[Entered: 04/03/2018 08:47 AM]

04/03/2018 51 ATTORNEY, Jeffrey Lewis for Brothers Trading Co., Inc. Karen Burnett Brendan Farrell Brian Corrigan John Doe 2
John Doe 1 Stamford Health, Inc. Robert Shullich, in case 18-346, [48], ADDED.[2270092] [18-346] [Entered:
04/03/2018 08:53 AM]

04/03/2018 MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellant Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Karen Burnett, Brian Corrigan, John Doe
1, John Doe 2, Brendan Farrell, Robert Shullich and Stamford Health, Inc., FILED. Service date 04/03/2018 by
CM/ECF. [2270771] [18-346] [Entered: 04/03/2018 03:22 PM] '

04/03/2018 53 CURED DEFECTIVE Motion to extend time [filll, on behalf of Appellant Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Karen
Burnett, Brian Corrigan, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Brendan Farrell, Robert Shullich and Stamford Health, Inc., FILED.
[2270777] [18-346] [Entered: 04/03/2018 03:27 PM]

04/09/2018 55 OPPOSITION TO on behalf of Appellee Express Scripts, Inc., FILED. Service date 04/09/2018 by •
CM/ECF. [2275216] [18-346] [Entered: 04/09/2018 06:29 PM]

04/09/2018 56 MOTION, to seal document, on behalf of Appellant Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Karen Burnett, Brian Corrigan, John ,
Doe 1, John Doe 2, Brendan Farrell, Robert Shullich and Stamford Health, Inc., FILED. Service date 04/09/2018 by
CM/ECF. [2275225] [18-346] [Entered: 04/09/2018 08:21 PM]
.
• 04/10/2018 60 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Brothers Trading Co., Inc., K'.,aren ·.
Burnett, Brian Corrigan, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Brendan Farrell, Robert Shullich and Stamford Health, Inc., FILED.
Service date 04/10/2018 by CM/ECF. [2276234] [18-346] [Entered: 04/10/2018 06:27 PM] .
04/11/2018 61 ATIORNEY, Gretchen Obrist for Brothers Trading Co., Inc. Karen Burnett Brendan Farrell Brian Corrigan John Doe 2 •
John Doe 1 Stamford Health, Inc. Robert Shullich, in case 18-346, [§Q], ADDED.[2276324] [18-346] [Entered: •
04/11/2018 09:12 AM] ,
'

04/11/2018 63 MOTION ORDER, granting motion to seal brief and special appendix, subject to Appellants also filing redacted, '
'
copies of both the brief and special appendix within two weeks of the date of this filed by Appellant John
Doe 2, John Doe 1, Brian Corrigan, Stamford Health, Inc., Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell ·
and Robert Shullich, by DAL, FILEO. [2276722][63] [18-346] [Entered: 04/11/2018 01:15 PM] j •

-·--·------------- · - - - - -

https://ecf.ca2.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet= .... jsp?caseNum=18-346&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Page 2 of 2