Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Filing 472

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/18/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2021)

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 11

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7

9

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

vs.

8

CASE NO. 15-cv-03504-YGR

Re: Dkt. Nos. 433, 438, 440

CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court, having considered the pending motions in limine submitted by plaintiffs and

13

defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“CVS”) HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

14

A. Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine

15

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 is Denied.

16

Plaintiff moves for an order that defendant not elicit testimony from, or otherwise present

17

evidence or argument regarding, six former pharmacy benefit manager (“PBM”) employees

18

(Joseph Zavalishin, Michael Reichardt, Franceen Spadaccino, William Strein, Cal Corum, and

19

William Barre) and a current PBM employee (Amber Compton) regarding the “usual and

20

customary” (“U&C”) terms in the five CVS-PBM agreements at issue in this case (the “PBM

21

agreements”) and further that defendant not present evidence or argument that the PBMs “were

22

not deceived” by CVS’s failure to report its HSP prices as U&C.

23

The motion is DENIED. The fundamental concern here relates to the foundation for any

24

statements made by this group of individuals. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply and address

25

the concerns which the Court will consider on a case-by-case basis. The proper foundation will

26

need to be laid before the testimony is allowed. The parties may remind the Court prior to the

27

testimony of any particular witness of any concerns so that the Court is prepared to address them.

28

//

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 11

1

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is Denied Without Prejudice.

2

Plaintiffs move for an order excluding (i) evidence or argument about whether pharmacies,

3

other than defendant, did or did not report membership cash discount prices as U&C prices and (ii)

4

evidence or argument concerning federal or state governmental actors’ positions on membership

5

prices and U&C reporting, including regulations, litigation and enforcement actions. However,

6

plaintiffs request the limitation not encompass evidence (e.g., documents, depositions, or trial

7

testimony) produced or generated in such lawsuits that is otherwise relevant and admissible in this

8

case, and that, if such evidence is admitted, it be introduced without reference to the name or

9

nature of the lawsuit in which it was originally adduced.

10

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court’s Standing Order re: Pretrial

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Instructions in Civil Cases Section 4.a (“Standing Order”) warned parties not to “misuse motions

12

in limine in an attempt to exclude broad categories of possible evidence [and advised that such]

13

motions are routinely denied. Any motion in limine must specify the precise exhibits or proffered

14

testimony the party seeks to exclude.” Here, plaintiffs failed to heed the warning.

15

Evidence must be probative of some element of a claim or affirmative defense. The Court

16

agrees that this case concerns the meaning of “usual and customary prices” as the term is used in

17

the PBM agreements. Accordingly, the Court anticipates that there will be evidence beyond the

18

contracts at issue and which will be probative of the meaning of “usual and customary prices.”

19

The Court cannot determine at this juncture what form such evidence will take. That said, the

20

Court will not allow mini-trials of other actions to be tried here. The parties should plan

21

accordingly.

22

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is Denied.

23

Plaintiffs move for an order excluding defendant from presenting evidence or argument

24

that Plaintiffs did make, or could have made, purchases of their relevant prescriptions at a

25

pharmacy other than CVS during the class period.

26

This motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ purchases of the same prescriptions at other pharmacies

27

are relevant to elements of the asserted claims and defenses thereto. Plaintiffs’ relevance

28

objection is essentially an attack on the weight of this evidence, not its admissibility. Further,
2

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 11

1

plaintiffs have failed to show how the probative value of such evidence would be outweighed by a

2

danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, undue delay, wasting of

3

time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

4

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is Denied Without Prejudice.

5

Plaintiffs move for an order limiting defendant to only one expert on the grounds that the

6

proffered testimony from its three expert witnesses (Pamela Wyett, John Jones, and Edward

7

McGinley) is duplicative.

8

The fact that multiple witnesses may offer similar opinions is not in and of itself

9

cumulative, particularly if the same topic is addressed from different perspectives. Further, the
Court has imposed time limits to ensure that the parties are being efficient with the presentation of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

evidence. See U.S. v. Elksnis, 528 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The district court has

12

considerable discretion even with admittedly relevant evidence in rejecting that which is

13

cumulative.”). It would therefore be premature for the Court to conclude that the testimony is

14

cumulative when such evidence has yet to be presented. The motion to exclude the other from

15

introducing needlessly cumulative trial testimony and wasting the jury’s time is DENIED

16

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to reasserting at trial if warranted.

17

5. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 5 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part.

18

Plaintiffs move for an order prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence or argument

19

(i) that this litigation is “lawyer-driven”, (ii) as to the motivations or circumstances of how, when,

20

or why the parties selected or hired counsel, or to any referral arrangements or other counsel the

21

parties may have retained or consulted beyond their current counsel, or (iii) as to the parties’

22

attorneys’ fees arrangements, or how litigation expenses are paid or the amount of those expenses,

23

in connection with this or any similar litigation.

24

With respect to subsection (i), the motion is GRANTED. Class actions are frequently driven

25

by lawyers. Rule 23 and case law recognize that reality and, in fact, the rule exists in part to

26

address conduct where the value of recovery to an individual would not justify the cost of suit.

27

CVS can argue that prescription-drug industry participants hold a particular view about U&C

28

prices without asserting that any contrary position is “an invention for litigation.”
3

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 4 of 11

1

With respect to subsection (ii), the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2

Issues of concern regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of the class representatives should

3

have been raised at the class certification stage. How plaintiffs came to be the class

4

representatives does not have any tendency to make a fact relevant to the claims here more or less

5

probable. CVS can adequately explore plaintiffs’ damages without touching upon how they

6

became to be involved in the case. Nor is this evidence relevant to their credibility as it does not

7

tend to prove that they are biased or untrustworthy. However, for purposes of CVS’s statute of

8

limitations defense, evidence of when plaintiffs first learned of their injuries is permitted.

9

Examination beyond this limited point regarding the circumstances of retaining counsel is not

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

permitted.
With respect to subsection (iii) regarding attorneys’ fees and expenses, the motion is
GRANTED as unopposed.

13

6. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 6 is Denied Without Prejudice.

14

Plaintiffs move for an order prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence or argument of

15

any potential class representative incentive awards that plaintiffs might receive as a result of a

16

litigated judgment or settlement.

17

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ financial interest in the outcome

18

of the case and any benefits they may receive by being class representatives are probative of their

19

credibility. See Ninth Circuit Civil Jury Instructions (2017 Edition), 1.14 (credibility of

20

witnesses), subsection (4) (the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case). That said, an

21

objection on Rule 403 grounds may be made at the time of trial if warranted.

22

7. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 7 is Denied.

23

Plaintiffs move for an order prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence or argument

24

that the modest size of the individual plaintiffs’ and class members’ injuries or damages makes

25

their claims inconsequential.

26

The motion is DENIED. The nature and extent of plaintiffs’ damages are relevant to the

27

materiality and reliance elements of certain of plaintiffs’ claims. The relevance objection is

28

merely an attack on the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Counsel may argue weight.
4

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 5 of 11

1

Further, plaintiffs have failed to show how the probative value of such evidence would be

2

outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, undue

3

delay, wasting of time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

4

8. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 8 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part.

5

Plaintiffs move for an order prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence or argument as

6

to the Defendant’s supposed “good” corporate conduct such as philanthropic work, charitable

7

donations, or other similar conduct unrelated to the conduct in this case.

8
9

The motion is GRANTED for the first phase of the trial which shall not consider punitive
damages. Background information, including CVS’s mission statement, does not fall within the
purview of this Order. The motion is DENIED insofar as a limited amount of this evidence will be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

allowed during the second punitive-damages phase, if one occurs. The Order is WITHOUT

12

PREJUDICE to lodging objections under Rule 403 if warranted.

13

9. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 9 is Denied as Overbroad.

14

Plaintiffs move for an order prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence or argument

15

regarding experts retained or designated by plaintiffs but whose testimony – in whole or in part –

16

has been excluded or is otherwise not proffered at trial.

17

Again, parties were warned not to “misuse motions in limine in an attempt to exclude

18

broad categories of possible evidence.” (Standing Order, Section 4.a.) Given the failure to

19

provide any specificity, the motion is DENIED. Further, as noted in this Court’s order regarding

20

the substitution of Dr. Hay (Dkt. No. 471), the Court will consider allowing evidence from Dr.

21

Hay as a means of addressing the prejudice from the eleventh-hour request to substitute him.

22

10. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 10 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part.

23

Plaintiffs move for an order prohibiting defendant from playing its deposition designations

24

in plaintiffs’ case-in-chief except when otherwise required for completeness; instead, defendant’s

25

designated deposition testimony will be played in defendant’s case-in-chief (along with Plaintiffs’

26

designations for completeness).

27
28

In general, the Court intends to make trial evidence as accessible to the jury as possible.
Parties are admonished to avoid gamesmanship in this regard. The motion is GRANTED to the
5

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 6 of 11

1

extent that the Court will enforce the rule of completeness. The motion is DENIED given that it is

2

overbroad and therefore the Court is not ruling on any specific designation.

3

B. Defendant’s Motions in Limine

4

1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is Granted.

5

Defendant seeks an order excluding evidence and argument of the following seven Health
Savings Pass (“HSP”)-related lawsuits and government investigations: United States ex rel.

7

Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 11-11398-DJC (D. Mass.) (including pre-suit

8

investigation); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Pharmacy,

9

Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00046-WES-PAS (D.R.I.); Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health

10

Corp., 1:16-cv-00447-S (D.R.I); State of Texas ex rel. Winkelman v. CVS Health Corp., No. D1-

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

GV-14-00038 (353rd Dist. Ct. Travis Cnty. Tex.) (including pre-suit investigation); State of

12

California ex rel. Omlansky v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 34-2013-00147458 (Sacramento Cty.,

13

Cal. Super. Ct.); Mississippi v. CVS Health Corp., 17-cv-00030-CW (DeSoto Cty., Miss. Cir. Ct.);

14

and Civil Investigative Demand, Connecticut Attorney General’s Office (June 24, 2010).

15

With respect to evidence and argument related to United States ex rel. Winkelman (D.

16

Mass.) and State of Texas ex rel. Winkelman (353rd Dist. Ct. Travis Cnty. Tex.), plaintiffs do not

17

oppose. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion as to the fact of these two proceedings.

18

However, plaintiffs seek to carve out “evidence adduced in the two Winkelman cases and any

19

other case involving CVS’s U&C pricing and HSP program, such as trial or deposition testimony,

20

produced documents, etc., as long as such evidence is otherwise relevant and admissible.” This

21

accommodation cannot be decided in a vacuum. The Court will therefore consider specific

22

objections regarding such evidence as they are proffered.

23

Plaintiff does not specifically address the motion as to the fact of the other

24

proceedings/investigations brought by the states of California, Mississippi, and Connecticut. The

25

Court therefore GRANTS the motion as to these proceedings as well.

26

With respect to the private litigation involving third-party payors, i.e., Sheet Metal Worker

27

and Plumbers, both pending in the District of Rhode Island, plaintiffs argue that the fact of these

28

proceedings is relevant “to establish CVS’s knowledge that payors—looking at the same sort of
6

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 7 of 11

1

U&C definitions and pricing arrangements as in this case—evidently disagree with CVS on

2

whether CVS’s HSP pricing qualified as a U&C price” and therefore evidence of these private

3

lawsuits should be admissible under Rule 404(b).

4

On the one hand, Rule 404(b) analysis cannot be made as globally as plaintiffs would like.
However, as plaintiffs note, Rule 404(b) evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as

6

“proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake,

7

or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Given defendant’s prior positions, it is reasonable that

8

plaintiffs will be able to introduce the fact of lawsuits within the industry to challenge defendant’s

9

theories and show knowledge. Without a review of the actual evidence, the Court cannot make a

10

proper ruling and, on this basis, the motion is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to these private

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

actions. Counsel must first seek permission from the Court so that a more considered evaluation

12

can be made. As previously indicated, the Court will not conduct mini-trials on matters tangential

13

to this specific case.

14

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 is Denied.

15

Defendant seeks an order excluding evidence and argument that the U&C definitions in the

16
17

contracts between CVS and the PBMs are clear or unambiguous.
The motion is DENIED. Although the Court had rejected “[p]laintiff’s argument that the

18

contracts are clear and unambiguous [as] belied by the contractual language itself” (Dkt. No. 327

19

at 20), this finding does not support the motion here as defendant attempts to do. The Court’s

20

ruling merely expands the sources of evidence allowed at trial. The parties may have positions

21

regarding the clarity, or lack thereof, of provisions in the contract, and the lawyers can ultimately

22

argue the issue. However, the Court is not inclined to restrain those arguments artificially by

23

limiting counsel’s vocabulary. The jury will be instructed on the objective bases for evaluating

24

lay opinions.

25

3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 is Granted Without Prejudice.

26

Defendant seeks an order excluding evidence and argument that CVS and the PBMs

27

conspired or schemed that HSP prices are not U&C prices.

28
7

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 8 of 11

1

The Court construes this motion as narrowly focused on nefarious or illegal activity and

2

therefore the motion is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The word “conspire” means to “join in

3

a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result

4

of the secret agreement,” and the word “scheme” includes a meaning such as “calculation of the

5

end in view and may apply to a plan motivated by craftiness and self-interest.”1 Without a good

6

faith, evidentiary basis, counsel is prohibited from suggesting that CVS and the PBMs conspired

7

or schemed toward an unlawful objective. The inquiry shall not be made without first seeking

8

Court approval so that the evidentiary basis can be evaluated.

9

That said, evidence of lawful contracts, statements regarding mutual understandings, and
the like cannot reasonably be excluded given the nature of this case. Moreover, the jury will be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

instructed that in evaluating the truth of a witness’s testimony they may consider any biases or

12

interest in the outcome of the case. To the extent that CVS and the PBMs have ongoing business

13

relations, counsel may explore potential bias.

14

4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is Denied.

15

Defendant seeks an order excluding evidence and argument concerning the January 29,

16

2015 contract between CVS and OptumRx as a “subsequent remedial measure” and inadmissible

17

under Rule 407 and outside the Class Period.

18

This motion is DENIED. The Court recognizes the import of Rule 407 and the social

19

policies underlying the provision to encourage subsequent remedial measures. Here, however, the

20

amended contract language is admissible to support competing interpretations of the disputed

21

terms, as the Ninth Circuit observed in its decision. See Corcoran v. CVS Health Corp., 779 F.

22

App’x 431, 433 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A jury could reasonably infer that subsequent modifications of

23

the agreements indicate that the prior definitions of U & C included HSP prices.”). The evidence

24

is especially probative in light of defendant’s policies with respect to negotiating such provisions.

25

Further, whether such contract revision can even be considered a “subsequent remedial measure”

26
27
28

1

See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/conspire; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme (last
visited February 18, 2021).
8

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 9 of 11

1

is debatable and, in any event, an insufficient showing has been made to warrant exclusion under

2

Rule 403 grounds.

3

5. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part.

4

Defendant seeks an order barring plaintiffs from arguing or implying that CVS’s liability

5

may arise from (a) a failure to disclose information to Class Members or (b) any affirmative

6

representation to Class Members concerning the accuracy of their copayments.

7

This motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The issue of a failure to disclose

8

concerns a fine distinction between theory and fact. Defendant accurately recounts that plaintiffs:

9

15

sued for fraudulent concealment premised on CVS’s failure to
inform customers, at the point of sale, about the HSP program, the
HSP price, and CVS’s practice of submitting a higher-than-HSP
price as the U&C price. Plaintiffs argued that “a duty [existed] on
the part of CVS to disclose information relevant to drug pricing.”
The Court dismissed that claim for lack of any authority to support
such a duty to disclose. Corcoran, 169 F. Supp. 3d at 989. The
Court “decline[d] Plaintiffs’ invitation to impose a duty on
pharmacists as a matter of law which encompasses matters of drug
pricing.” Id. Plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling when they
appealed from the prior judgment.

16

CVS MIL #5 at 3. Thus, as no affirmative duty to disclose exists, plaintiffs are prohibited from

17

suggesting otherwise.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

That said, the fact of a non-disclosure is admissible evidence, nor is it prejudicial as it

18
19

accurately reflects the evidence. Likewise, with respect to the issue of representations about the

20

accuracy of copayments, plaintiffs may offer evidence of what occurred at the point of sale and

21

may argue, based upon admissible evidence, that the copayments made at the point of sale were

22

inflated. That is different from arguing a duty to disclose which plaintiffs may not argue. Counsel

23

are cautioned NOT to confuse the jury which would then require a clarifying instruction from the

24

Court.

25

6. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6 is Denied.

26

Defendant seeks an order excluding plaintiffs’ expert opinions that: (a) “HSP prices

27

themselves are the single most common cash prices appearing in the transaction data as many as

28

52 times more than the next most common cash prices,” (b) “the HSP program was broadly
9

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 10 of 11

1

available to cash customers,” and (c) “the HSP membership fee was nominal.” Declaration of

2

Grant Geyerman in Support of CVS’s Motions in Limine, Ex. 24 ¶¶ 10, 47 (Hay Expert Report)

3

(Dec. 9, 2016), Dkt. No. 435-12; Ex. 25 ¶¶ 20, 30–33 (Hay Rebuttal Report) (Jan. 27, 2017), Dkt.

4

No. 435-13.
Defendant appears to concede that, in 2017, it moved this Court to exclude two different

6

opinions, “not the three narrow opinions challenged here.” (CVS MIL # 6 at 4.) This motion is

7

therefore DENIED as these concerns were not timely raised before the Court. Motions in limine are

8

not to be used as a backdoor attempt to get around the scheduling order’s deadline for the filing of

9

Daubert motions. Defendant’s fundamental argument is that the opinions lack a sound basis

10

“because they depend on irrelevant and misleading statistics.” (Id. at 1.) In light of the Ninth

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

Circuit’s broad sweep in this case, the Court will not exclude these opinions if the new expert

12

chooses to adopt them.

13

7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 7 is Granted.

14

Defendant seeks an order barring plaintiffs’ expert from opining specifically as to the

15

definition of usual and customary in the PBM contracts or what CVS and the PBMs intended

16

when including the defined term of U&C price in their contracts.

17

This motion is GRANTED as unopposed. It is undisputed that while experts may testify as

18

to industry custom and practice and may testify generally about their experience in the industry,

19

only persons who were engaged in the negotiation of contracts can testify from personal

20

knowledge regarding their understanding of the terms at the time of the execution. See Energy

21

Oils, Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 626 F.2d 731, 737 (9th Cir. 1980) (district court erred by “admitting

22

testimony of expert witnesses concerning their opinions as to the legal effect of the agreements

23

and also by permitting a witness to express the subjective intent of the parties in entering into the

24

agreements”).2

25

//

26
27
28

2

In their response to this MIL, plaintiffs make reference to certain of CVS’s experts but
have not made a motion as to any specific opinions they seek to exclude in this regard.
Accordingly, the Court will not attempt to make any ruling.
10

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 472 Filed 02/18/21 Page 11 of 11

1

8. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 8 is Denied.

2

Defendant seeks an order barring (a) examination of CVS’s corporate representative on

3

matters outside of the individual’s personal knowledge and (b) calling in-house counsel Hillary

4

Dudley as a live trial witness.

5

With respect to the examination of corporate representatives, the motion is DENIED. “The

6

parties are correct that the case authority is split on the issue of whether a corporate designee may

7

testify concerning matters outside of his or her personal knowledge at trial.” Lister v. Hyatt Corp.,

8

No. 18-CV-961 (JLR), 2020 WL 419454, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2020) (citing cases). “[N]o

9

authoritative ruling from the Ninth Circuit” has issued on this matter. Id. Notwithstanding, a
corporation is deemed to be a “person” and therefore can only testify through the embodiment of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

individuals. It is this Court’s view that persons who have been designated to testify on behalf of

12

the corporation may be examined on specifically articulated topics whether the representative

13

obtained the information by personal experience or upon investigation in their corporate capacity.

14
15

With respect to the issue of Ms. Dudley, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as
premature as the Court has not seen a witness list.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 433, 438, 440.3

18
19
20

Dated: February 18, 2021
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

For purposes of these motions, the Court need not rely on matters which were filed with a
request to seal. Thus, while the Court GRANTS CVS’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 438), it does so
only given the procedural context. The parties should not assume that the material will be sealed
at trial.
11