Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America, Ex Rel. v. Cvs Caremark Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 23, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. ANTHONY R. SPAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION; CAREMARK RX, LLC (F/K/A CAREMARK RX, INC.); CAREMARK, LLC (F/K/A CAREMARK, INC.); SILVERSCRIPT, LLC : (F/K/A SILVERSCRIPT INC.), DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald L. Buckwalter, S.J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff/Relator Anthony Spay's Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses (Docket No. 81), the Response by Defendants CVS Caremark Corporation, Caremark Rx, LLC, Caremark, LLC, and Silverscript, LLC (collectively "Defendants") Response (Docket No. 89), and Plaintiff's Reply Brief (Docket No. 91), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. With Respect to the allegation of unclean hands in Defendants' Twelfth Affirmative Defense and Defendants' Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense, these Defenses are STRICKEN after being voluntarily withdrawn by Defendants.

2. With respect to Defendants' First, Second, Tenth, Twenty-Third, and Twenty Eighth Affirmative Defenses, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED;

3. With respect to Defendants' Twelfth Affirmative Defense, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED to the extent this Defense challenges the Amended Complaint on grounds of laches, waiver, and ratification, but DENIED to the extent it challenges the Amended Complaint on grounds of estoppel.

4. With respect to Defendants' Third Affirmative Defense, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED, but Defendants shall only be allowed to proceed under the theory that there was a written agency response to a Freedom of Information Act request that publicly disclosed the PDE data at issue.

5. With respect to Defendants' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Affirmative Defenses, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

Ronald L. Buckwalter

20130423

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.