SPAY v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE PLAINTIFF/RELATOR ANTHONY SPAY'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDSES (DOC. NO.81) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 4/23/2013. 4/24/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kk, )

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

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.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 09-4672

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Defenses are STRICKEN after being voluntarily withdrawn by Defendants.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:

s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.