Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1845 Filed: 07/15/19 1 of 2. PageID #: 57487 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: “Track One Cases” ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:17-MD-2804 JUDGE POLSTER ORDER REGARDING ARCOS DATA PROTECTIVE ORDER This Court earlier directed the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, the DEA, and the MediaIntervenors to submit position papers regarding: “(a) whether it should lift entirely its Protective Orders regarding all ARCOS data produced to the parties in this case; and (b) the extent to which it should lift its Protective Orders regarding all Suspicious Order Reports produced to and by the parties in this case.” Order at 1 (docket no. 1725). The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions1 and now rules as follows. The DEA asks “that the Court allow the DEA, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Media Intervenors to meet and confer toward a modified Protective Order.” Docket no. 1833 at 4. The Court concludes this request is well-taken, with a caveat. The parties’ submissions show that the older the ARCOS data, the less reason for any Protective Order. The Court concludes there is clearly no basis to shield from public view ARCOS data dated on or before December 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Protective Order is hereby lifted as to ARCOS data dated on or before 1 See docket nos. 1798, 1807, 1808, 1809 (position papers); docket nos. 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833 (responses thereto). Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1845 Filed: 07/15/19 2 of 2. PageID #: 57488 December 31, 2012. See docket no. 1725 at 2 n.1 (defining “ARCOS data”). The Court’s July 5, 2019 Order Amending Procedures Regarding Redactions and Filing of Briefs Under Seal, docket no. 1813 at 2-3, is modified to reflect this change. With regard to subsequent ARCOS data and all Suspicious Order Reports, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and submit, on or before noon on July 25, 2019, a proposed modified protective order. To the extent the parties cannot reach full agreement, they shall submit a proposal identifying their areas of agreement and their positions on areas of disagreement. This Order does not change the Court’s instructions regarding redaction of briefs, see docket no. 1813. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan Aaron Polster DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 15, 2019 2