From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Caremark Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
Sep 2, 2008
No. SA-99-CA-00914-WRF (W.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2008)

Opinion

No. SA-99-CA-00914-WRF.

September 2, 2008


ORDER GRANTING TEXAS'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR FILING ITS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CAREMARK'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REBATE DISCOVERY


Upon consideration of the State of Texas's Unopposed Motion to Exceed the Page Limit for Filing Its Reply in Support of Its Objections to Special Master's Recommendations With Respect to Caremark's Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Compel Rebate Discovery (Docket No. 642), and noting that the Motion is unopposed, good cause for granting the motion has been show.

It is hereby ORDERED that the State of Texas's motion is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Texas may file its Reply In Support of Its Objections to Special Master's Recommendation With Respect to Caremark's Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Compel Rebate Discovery, that is up to eight (8) pages in length excluding the signature block and certificate of service.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION BY CAREMARK TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT FOR FILING CAREMARK'S RESPONSE TO STATE OF TEXAS' OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CAREMARK'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REBATE DISCOVERY After due consideration of Caremark's Unopposed Motion to Exceed the Page Limit for Filing Caremark's Response to State of Texas' Objections to Special Master's Recommendations with Respect to Caremark's Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Compel Rebate Discovery (Docket No. 631), the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Caremark's Response to State of Texas' Objections to Special Master's Recommendations with Respect to Caremark's Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Compel Rebate Discovery may be extended up to and including fourteen (14) pages of text, exclusive of the Certificate of Service.

It is so ORDERED.

ORDER GRANTING STATE OF TEXAS'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR FILING ITS OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CAREMARK'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL REBATE DISCOVERY Upon consideration of the State of Texas's Unopposed Motion to Exceed the Page Limit for Filing Its Objections to Special Master's Recommendations With Respect to Caremark's Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Compel Rebate Discovery (Docket No. 620), and noting that the Motion is unopposed, good cause for granting the motion has been shown.

It is hereby ORDERED that the State of Texas's motion is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Texas may file its Objections to Special Master's Recommendations With Respect to Caremark's Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Compel Rebate Discovery, that is up to seventeen (17) pages in length, excluding the signature block and certificate of service.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CAREMARK'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO TEXAS'S MOTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2(C) OF FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ON THIS DATE, came to be considered Caremark's Motion to File Under Seal Caremark's Response In Opposition To Texas's Motion To Enforce Compliance With Section 2(c) Of First Amended Scheduling Order (Docket No. 561). The Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Caremark's Response In Opposition To Texas's Motion To Enforce Compliance With Section 2(c) Of First Amended Scheduling Order shall remained sealed until further order of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Caremark Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
Sep 2, 2008
No. SA-99-CA-00914-WRF (W.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Caremark Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. JANAKI RAMADOSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division

Date published: Sep 2, 2008

Citations

No. SA-99-CA-00914-WRF (W.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2008)