Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03504

Exhibit 29

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

7 Exhibit 29 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Christopher Corcoran, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Case No. 15-CV-3504-YGR Plaintiffs, v. REDACTED VERSION OF CVS Pharmacy, Inc. DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE Defendant. SEALED (L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(C)) JANUARY 27, 2017 REBUTTAL REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Table of Contents I. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................................. 3 II. OPINIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3 a. The Prescription Purchase Data, and even Dr. Hay's own analysis, demonstrate that CVS collected the HSP annual membership fee from HSP members in accordance with company policy. ........................ 3 b. The Prescription Purchase Data shows that CVS did not offer the HSP price to Cash customers. ...... 9 1. Cash Purchases of Usual Drugs for a 90-Day Supply (Dr. Hay's Table 3) ......................................... 9 2. Usual Drug Cash Purchases Across All Days Supply (Dr. Hay's Table 2)........................................ 12 c. The Prescription Purchase Data shows that CVS did not prorate HSP prices. ................................... 16 d. The Prescription Purchase Data shows that CVS's U&C prices submitted to PBMs and Third Party Payers were routinely paid by Cash customers. .......................................................................................... 19 e. Dr. Hay's alternative calculations of U&C – his HSP-Based U&C price and his one percentile U&C price – fail to meet what Dr. Hay says constitutes the industry standard definition of U&C pricing. ........ 22 1. HSP-Based U&C ................................................................................................................................ 23 2. First Percentile Price U&C ................................................................................................................ 28 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 7 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 5. First, in his 69% of patients showing "no evidence" of membership fee payment, Dr. Hay includes any HSP member for whom he cannot observe payment of the membership fee in every calendar year for which the member was enrolled in the HSP program (i.e., in each calendar year the member made HSP program purchases). In his 56.71% calculation, Dr. Hay similarly counts an HSP member for whom he cannot observe payment of the membership fee in every 365-day period in which the member made HSP program purchases. For example, if the Prescription Purchase Data showed the member making HSP purchases over a seven-year period, and the data shows the membership fee payment for only six of those seven years, Dr. Hay counts that individual in his 69% of patients with "no evidence" of membership fee payments, as well as in his 56.71% of patients who did not pay the membership fee in at least one 365-day period.4 He does so despite the data clearly showing that the membership fee for the individual was paid 85% of the time (i.e., in six of seven years of membership). Thus, Dr. Hay's percentages understate the observable instances in which the data demonstrate the membership fee was paid. 6. In Figure 1 below, I display an example of an HSP member's history of HSP purchases and paying the HSP membership fee observed in the Prescription Purchase Data. The Figure reveals the misleading nature of Dr. Hay's 69% and 56.71% statistics, which fail to account for instances when HSP membership fees were demonstrably paid by the HSP member over multiple years of the HSP program but are not observed, for example, for the first year of enrollment. Figure 1: Example of HSP Membership Fee Payment Observable in Six of Seven Years5 7. Under Dr. Hay's approach, he would count the HSP member in the Figure above toward his 69%/56.71% calculations based solely on the absence of a membership fee in the Prescription Purchase Data prior to May 2010. However, his approach and resulting percentages exploit a limitation of the data that prevents both Dr. Hay and myself from observing in these data all instances 4 The 56.71% figure is reported as 56.73% elsewhere in Dr. Hay's Rebuttal Declaration. Compare Rebuttal Declaration ¶¶ 9 and 32. Dr. Hay does not explain which percentage reflects his actual calculation. 5 This member filled a prescription on 4/9/2010, one week before the end of their first HSP membership year. The next HSP prescription filled by this patient was on 8/5/2010, at which point they paid the membership fee for their second membership year. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in which HSP members paid annual membership fees. Specifically, the membership fee payments that HSP members paid prior to September 29, 2009 are not contained in the Prescription Purchase Data.6 8. The Prescription Purchase Data consists of transaction records of prescription purchases of medications on the HSP formulary occurring from November 9, 2008 through December 7, 2015 in certain states.7 On each transaction record within the Prescription Purchase Data, the purchased medication is identified by its National Drug Code ("NDC"). Before September 29, 2009, CVS did not process the HSP membership fee on the same transaction record as the HSP purchase itself (i.e., the transaction record reflecting the purchase of the HSP medication); instead, CVS pharmacists were to process the membership fee through a separate, dedicated transaction involving a so-called "dummy" NDC number (i.e., an NDC not associated with an actual medicine).8 It was not until September 29, 2009 that the membership fee was included on the same transaction record as the prescription purchase.9 Because the Prescription Purchase Data is limited to purchases of actual medications on the HSP formulary and thus does not contain transactions associated with the dummy NDC number, it does not reflect membership fees processed and paid through the dedicated dummy NDC.10 9. Given this limitation of the Prescription Purchase Data, one would not expect to observe in the data membership fees that HSP members paid prior to September 29, 2009. Dr. Hay's all-or-nothing approach to quantifying the incidence rate of membership fee payments thus distorts the record. To demonstrate this point, consider the following: 174,314 of the 517,479 HSP members in the Prescription Purchase Data (i.e., 33.69% of all HSP members) enrolled in the program prior to September 29, 2009 based on the earliest date of an observed HSP purchase.11 As a result, before ever analyzing a single transaction, Dr. Hay's approach would dictate that 33.69% of HSP members – or over half of Dr. Hay's 56.71% figure – did not pay the membership fee in at least one year that they were a member of the program. Furthermore, any HSP member who (1) enrolled in the program prior to September 29, 2009, and (2) did not re-enroll in the program at any point after September 29, 6 CVSC-0022954-22956. 7 Bates numbered DCVS-00000000001 through DCVS-00936214895; February 26, 2016 and April 15, 2016 Transmittal letters from G. Geyerman to R. Gilmore regarding data production. 8 CVSC-0022954-22956; CVSC-0397707. 9 CVSC-0022954-22956. 10 During that period HSP members could also pay their membership fees over the phone and online. See CVSC- 0022954-22956. Those payments would also not be reflected in the Prescription Purchase Data. 11 Due to differences in preparation of the transaction data, in certain instances, Dr. Hay may calculate slightly different numbers. My analysis indicates that any differences would not be material. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 5 7 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. viewed in light of the data's limitations) are largely consistent and confirm that the membership fee consistently was paid by HSP members. 12. Second, unlike in my Original Report, Dr. Hay does not provide any reasons why neither he nor I should expect to observe all membership fees that HSP members actually paid, given the limitations of the Prescription Purchase Data. That is to say, Dr. Hay does not explain why his calculations about the membership fee (as well as my calculations) necessarily understate the incidence rate of HSP members paying the membership fee. I briefly address these reasons below, so that they may be considered when weighing Dr. Hay's calculations (and mine). 13. Membership fees paid prior to September 29, 2009. I discuss above the fact that HSP membership fees paid before September 29, 2009 are not reflected in the Prescription Purchase Data. Dr. Hay has not addressed this limitation. 14. Membership fees paid via telephone or online. In my Original Report, I referenced how HSP members were not limited to paying their membership fees at a CVS pharmacy store.15 HSP 16 members could pay their membership fee over the phone or online. Payments made over the phone or online are not reflected in the Prescription Purchase Data. Dr. Hay has not addressed this fact. 15. Membership fees paid outside the Corcoran Plaintiffs' 11 states. HSP members could pay their annual membership fee at any CVS pharmacy in the United States. Yet the Prescription Purchase Data is limited to transactions occurring at CVS pharmacies in the 11 states in which the Corcoran Plaintiffs reside and on behalf of whose consumers they are attempting to assert claims. Thus, the following potential arises: an HSP member made his or her HSP purchase(s) within the 11 states (and thus appears in the Prescription Purchase Data), but he or she paid the membership fee in a different state not within the Prescription Purchase Data. Because their HSP purchase occurred within the 11 states, both Dr. Hay and I would be looking for a membership fee payment by that member but would be unable to find one in the available data. Dr. Hay has not addressed this fact. 16. I can say with certainty that this circumstance – HSP members paid their annual membership fee outside the 11 Corcoran states – occurred. First, the data show that CVS customers can and do fill prescriptions in multiple states. The data reflect the customer's state of residence, which is not always one of the 11 states. Second, there is proof of payment of the membership fee outside the 11 15 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶ 56 fn. 25. 16 CVSC-0022954-22956. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 7 7 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. CVS stores nationwide were available for analysis, the percentage of the HSP members for whom payment of membership fees could be observed would only increase. 18. As demonstrated by my analysis, and confirmed by Dr. Hay's analysis, the Prescription Purchase Data demonstrate that CVS routinely collected the annual HSP membership fee from HSP members. b. The Prescription Purchase Data shows that CVS did not offer the HSP price to Cash customers. 1. Cash Purchases of Usual Drugs for a 90-Day Supply (Dr. Hay's Table 3) 19. In his Report, Dr. Hay states "[t]he HSP price is offered to the general public and is the most common cash price for the covered drugs."17 His claim is based, in part, on the figures he cites in Table 3 in his Report.18 Table 3 analyzes together both HSP and Cash purchases of Usual Drugs at a 90-day supply. From Table 3, Dr. Hay concludes that the "HSP price" was the "most common cash price" paid by cash customers during the class period.19 I disagree with Dr. Hay. 20. As discussed in my Original Report, the analysis underlying Table 3 in Dr. Hay's Report is misleading.20 HSP purchases at a 90-day supply occur 3.46 times more often than 90-day Cash purchases (i.e., HSP is 4,575,555 of the 5,899,011 HSP and Cash transactions analyzed here). Also, HSP purchases for Usual Drugs at a 90-day supply happened at a predetermined price, whereas customers making a Cash purchase were not entitled to a predetermined price and were instead expected to pay CVS's retail price, whatever that price may be on the day of purchase for the given drug at the given quantity at the given pharmacy. Thus, by combining 90-day HSP and Cash purchases in his Table 3 analysis, Dr. Hay essentially ensures that the HSP program price will be selected as the "most common cash price." Accordingly, in order to evaluate the credibility of Dr. Hay's conclusions about CVS supposedly offering HSP prices to Cash customers, one should look at only Cash purchases in the Prescription Purchase Data, not Cash and HSP purchases collectively. When one does so, the data plainly show that the HSP price was not, in fact, offered to Cash customers. Instead, Cash customers regularly paid more than the expected HSP price. On this issue, I have responses to three particular points made in Dr. Hay's Report. 17 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 40. 18 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶¶ 40 - 41. 19 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶¶ 40 - 41. 20 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶ 91. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 9 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 21. First, as concerns the Cash purchases in Table 3, Dr. Hay states that "more than 60,000 non-HSP members [Cash customers] purchased prescriptions at the HSP price."21 That statistic is provided without context. These 60,000 customers represent approximately 10% of the 614,796 Cash customers who purchased a 90-day prescription during the putative class period.22 Thus, even before probing further into his analysis, Dr. Hay's own results show that approximately 90% of Cash customers purchased the prescriptions at issue (i.e., 90-day prescriptions) at a price other than the HSP price—i.e., prices other than $9.99 or $11.99. The Figure below provides the missing context for Dr. Hay's "60,000 non-HSP member" statistic. Figure 4: The Non-HSP Members (i.e., Cash Customers) and Their Purchases From Table 3 of Dr. Hay's December 9, 2016 Report Number of Category Patient IDs All Non-HSP (i.e., Cash) 90-Day Usual Drug Purchases 614,796 Non-HSP (i.e., Cash) 90-Day Usual Drug Purchases at $9.99 or $11.99 60,000 % of Cash Customers with Purchases at $9.99 or $11.99 9.76% 22. Second, not only did just 10% of Cash customers in Dr. Hay's Table 3 analysis pay $9.99 or $11.99 but the vast majority of customers in Table 3 routinely paid more than $9.99 (prior to 2011) and $11.99 (starting in 2011). Specifically, my analysis of the Cash prescription purchases subsumed in Table 3 shows that Cash customers paid a price higher than the HSP price on more than 78% of their purchases.23 Although Dr. Hay says that "Cash paying customers pay the HSP price or lower more than 75% of the time for these prescriptions [Usual Drugs for the standard HSP quantity],"24 he includes HSP members in his calculation in making that statement. Given that (1) over 99% of the HSP members' purchases included in Table 3 occurred at the expected HSP price and (2) HSP members made 3.46 times as many 90-day purchases as Cash customers, it is not surprising that Dr. Hay is able to arrive at his 75% figure by including the purchases of HSP members and Cash customers together in the calculation. However, if one analyzes Cash purchases only the result is quite different: Cash customers paid above the HSP price—not the HSP price or lower—more than 78% of the time. Analyzing Cash customers by themselves is the appropriate approach if one's task is assessing whether HSP prices are offered to Cash customers. But Dr. Hay did not do so in Table 3. 21 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 41. 22 The 60,000 individuals represent 0.43% of all Cash customers in the Prescription Purchase Data. 23 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶ 81. 24 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 40. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 23. Third, even considering the minority of Cash purchases within Table 3 that were actually priced at $9.99 or $11.99, it is apparent that such purchases did not involve extending the HSP price to Cash customers. As the Figure below and subsequent comments show, Cash purchases at $9.99 were de minimis from 2008 through 2010, and the vast majority of Cash purchases at $11.99 from 2011 forward reflect CVS charging its Minimum Retail Price, not extending HSP pricing to non-HSP members. Figure 5: Summary of 90-Day "Usual Drug" Cash Purchases Category 2008 – 2010 2011 – 2015 All Usual Drug Cash Purchases – 90-Day Supply 444,059 874,353 90-Day Usual Drug Cash Purchases at $9.99 or $11.99 6,097 110,657 % of 90-Day Usual Drug Cash Purchases at $9.99 or $11.99 1.37% 12.66% a. 2008 – 2010: The HSP price from 2008 through 2010 was $9.99. Of the Cash purchases analyzed during that period, only 6,097 purchases (1.37%) were made at $9.99; that equates to effectively one Cash purchase per CVS store over the course of the two-plus-year period. Perhaps because of the de minimis number of Cash purchases at $9.99, Dr. Hay also considers 32,635 Cash purchases with a price of $10.00 as occurring at the HSP price.25 Ten dollars, however, was not the HSP program price. The original HSP program price was $9.99. In any event, those $10.00 purchases represent only 7.35% of all Cash purchases analyzed from 2008 to 2010.26 b. 2011 – 2015: The HSP price starting on January 1, 2011 was $11.99. Of the Cash purchases analyzed from 2011 onward, only 110,657 purchases (12.66%) were made at $11.99; that equates to less than 5 Cash purchases per CVS store each year. Furthermore, 84.46% of these 110,657 Cash purchases were for five extremely low-cost GCNs which, even at the 90-day supply level, did not exceed CVS's Minimum Retail Price.27 In accordance with CVS's retail 25 January 9, 2017 Rebuttal Declaration of Joel Hay, p.5 Table 1. 26 $10 was a common 90-day price point charged by certain pharmacies like Walmart, whose special pricing was charged to all customers and did not require enrollment in a program to obtain that pricing. http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2009/02/19/walmarts-4-generic-prescription-drug-list-added-to- epocrates-drug-reference-application. 27 1) GCN 94781: FOLIC ACID 1 MG TABLET; 2) GCN 34824: HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE 25 MG TAB; 3) GCN 7512: SODIUM FLUORIDE 1 MG (2.2 MG); 4) GCN 7511: SODIUM FLUORIDE 0.5 MG (1.1 MG); and 5) GCN 34961: FUROSEMIDE 20 MG TABLET. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 7 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. a. $11.99 Cash purchases started in August 2010 27. 29 November 9, 2016 Deposition of Joel Hay, Exhibit 287. 30 February 4, 2016 Deposition of Sevak Melkonian, Tr. 62:19-63:2. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 28. 29. Dr. Hay characterizes Cash purchases at $11.99 as purchases at "the HSP price."31 But Dr. Hay cannot credibly suggest that Cash customers received "the HSP price" simply by virtue of them having paid $11.99, as there were Cash transactions taking place at $11.99 observed five months before the HSP price had even become 31 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 40. 32 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 40. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. $11.99. b. The vast majority of Cash purchases at $11.99 involved a smaller quantity 30. 31. 33 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶¶ 67 - 68. 34 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶ 68. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 8: Cash Price Within the Prescription Purchase Data for Allopurinol – 300MG Tablet at Specific Quantities 32. My analysis of the 25.01% of Cash purchases from Table 2 reveals that over 84% of those purchases involved a quantity of 30 or fewer, and over half of those were for a quantity less than 30. c. The Prescription Purchase Data shows that CVS did not prorate HSP prices. 33. As I explained in my Original Report, the data demonstrate that CVS pharmacists did not "prorate" the HSP price for an HSP member when the member filled less than the standard HSP days supply. I calculated that 99.46% of the HSP purchases involving less than the standard HSP days supply were charged the expected HSP price and not below that price. Of the remaining 0.54% of HSP purchases, where the price charged at the point of sale was less than the standard HSP price, during the entire class period, only 16 purchases were at a quantity and price potentially suggestive of proration. If we assume all 16 purchases reflect proration of the HSP program price, the incidence rate of proration across all HSP purchases was 0.0001%.35 35 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶¶ 94 - 95. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 16 7 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. third the HSP quantity occurred during this time period, the customer should have been charged $3.33, not the $4.00 price Dr. Hay cites. Thus, Dr. Hay wrongly concludes that these 202,353 transactions are instances of prorated HSP prices being charged to Cash customers. Instead, these are likely purchases where a register adjustment was made, a practice which Dr. Hay testified can occur in the pharmacy industry for different, legitimate reasons.43 d. Of the remaining 219,392 $4.00 purchases, which occurred from 2011 through 2015, even if one assumes they are instances of prorating HSP prices (I have been presented no testimony indicating that to be the case), the transactions represent less than 1.81% of all Cash purchases of Usual Drugs involving less than the standard HSP days supply. Moreover, as with $4.00 transactions occurring from 2008 through 2010, it is likely that these $4.00 transactions, too, reflect relatively infrequent register adjustments. 37. In furtherance of his opinion that prorated HSP prices were offered to Cash customers, in his Rebuttal Declaration, Dr. Hay states that the $4.00 price is the second most common price among 30- day Cash purchases from 2008 through 2010, and the third most common price among 30-day Cash purchases from 2011 through 2015. Dr. Hay provides no context or perspective from which to judge the relative frequency of these $4.00 transactions. The data show fewer than 4.6% of all 30-day Cash purchases from 2008 through 2010 occurred at $4.00, and fewer than 3.1% of 30-day Cash purchases from 2011 through 2015 occurred at $4.00. Fewer than 2.31% of Cash customers paid the $4.00 price on 30-day prescriptions. Moreover, the vast majority of these $4.00 purchases—greater than 75%— were concentrated at 100 of CVS's 5,044 pharmacies in the 11 states under analysis. None of the named Plaintiffs purchased prescriptions at those 100 pharmacies. 43 November 9, 2016 Deposition of Joel Hay, Tr. 115:3-116:20. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 18 7 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and TPPs are paid by Cash customers 98.39% of the time. As demonstrated in Figure 10 below, the U&Cs submitted to PBMs and TPPs on Third Party claims were consistently observed as paid by Cash customers in the Prescription Purchase Data in every year from 2009 through 2015. Figure 10: Percentage of Submitted U&C Prices Paid by Cash Customers Observed in Cash Transactions 41. To more thoroughly examine whether CVS submits as its U&C price the retail price it charges Cash customers, I looked at the price CVS submitted on Third Party claims for various groups of comparable Cash purchases (i.e., same drug, same quantity, same day, and same pharmacy). Regardless of the subgroup analyzed, the submitted U&C consistently reflected the price CVS had charged Cash customers. 42. First, I looked at the Cash price actually paid (i.e., the POS field amount) on all 27,193,389 of the Cash purchases in the Prescription Purchase Data and compared that price to the U&Cs submitted by CVS on comparable Third Party purchases. The Cash price paid was equal to or higher than the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. submitted U&C on 94.3% of comparable Third Party prescription purchases. This is the most conservative approach, as it even considers any ad hoc register adjustments an individual pharmacist may have made in providing a prescription-specific accommodation.47 43. Second, I looked at the data field titled "Charged U&C" in the Prescription Purchase Data. The value in that field is generated by CVS's dispensing system and is the price CVS expects pharmacists to charge to Cash customers during a Cash transaction; it will be the price in fact charged to a Cash customer absent some intervention, such as an ad hoc register adjustment.48 Looking at the "Charged U&C" for all Cash purchases in the Prescription Purchase Data, the data show that CVS submitted as its U&C price the same value or a lower value as the "Charged U&C" on 99.2% of comparable Third Party prescription purchases. This finding demonstrates that CVS's system is operating as expected—CVS is submitting as its U&C price to PBMs and third-party payors the price its system instructs its pharmacists to charge cash customers. 44. Third, I looked at the subset of Cash transactions from Table 2 in Dr. Hay's Rebuttal Declaration which, as Dr. Hay says it, occurred at "the HSP Price" ($9.99 or $11.99).49 The data shows that CVS submitted a U&C price equal to, if not lower than, $9.99/$11.99 for 99.8% of the comparable Third Party prescription purchases. 45. Fourth, I looked at the Cash purchases subsumed in Table 3 in Dr. Hay's Report (i.e., Usual Drug purchases with a dispensed quantity of 90); that data show that CVS submitted a U&C price equal to or lower than $11.99 (i.e., the most common cash price according to Dr. Hay's Table 3 analysis) on 98.3% of the comparable Third Party prescription purchases. 46. Synthesizing the information above, at least four different analyses (in addition to Dr. Hay's own analyses, see Figure 10) confirm the critical overriding fact: CVS submitted as its U&C prices on Third Party transactions the Cash price CVS charges its Cash customers. The results of my four different analyses are displayed together in the Figure below. 47 I have not investigated the circumstances of the transactions underlying the remaining 5.7% and thus offer no opinions in that regard. However, I observed a range of price points among the claims including those potentially indicative of compassionate and customer service discounts (i.e., $0.00), other register adjustments, or data processing anomalies. See, e.g., CVSC-0222093. 48 September 13, 2016 Deposition of Scott Tierney, Tr. 78:22-79:17, 196:21-197:12; February 4, 2016 Deposition of Sevak Melkonian, Tr. 91:2-6; July 21, 2016 Deposition of Sevak Melkonian, Tr. 114:24-115:9. 49 In Table 2, Dr. Hay also considers Cash purchases with a price of $10.00 as occurring at the HSP price. $10 was not the HSP program price and I have therefore excluded them from this analysis. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 11: Comparison of Various Groups of Cash Purchases and Submitted U&Cs on Comparable Third Party Purchases e. Dr. Hay's alternative calculations of U&C – his HSP-Based U&C price and his one percentile U&C price – fail to meet what Dr. Hay says constitutes the industry standard definition of U&C pricing. 47. The Prescription Purchase Data shows that the vast majority (80.55%) of Third Party purchases – those purchases contributing to Plaintiffs' damages calculations, if the patient copayment is greater than Dr. Hay's recalculated U&C price – involved a patient copayment that was less than $10, including a large majority at or below $5 (see Figure 12 below). Thus, in order for damages to exist on a significant percentage of Third Party purchases, it is necessary for Dr. Hay's recalculated U&C to be less than $10. Dr. Hay has constructed two novel approaches to determine a recalculated U&C: HSP-Based U&C prices and First Percentile Price U&C prices. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 12: Distribution of Third Party Purchases by Their Co-Pay Amount 1. HSP-Based U&C 48. Under Dr. Hay's original approach first advanced in his October 3, 2016 Declaration, he prorates the standard HSP price down to a per-unit level in order to generate a recalculated HSP-Based U&C price – a price which is considerably less than the standard HSP price from which he started his analysis. He then calculates damages by comparing the patient copayments on Third Party prescription purchases to the recalculated HSP-Based U&C price where the difference is the amount of the purported overcharge (i.e., damage).50 49. In my Original Report, I described several problems with the reliability of Dr. Hay's damages calculations under this HSP-Based U&C approach.51 Chief among them is the fact that his 50 Appendix B contains a list of the Condor Codes associated with HSP-Based U&C damage models from Dr. Hay's November 7, 2016 Supplemental Declaration. I have also identified the Condor Codes associated with Dr. Hay's HSP-Based U&C model and First Percentile Price model from his December 9, 2016 Report. 51 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag, p. 41 Opinion 5. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 23 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. recalculated HSP-Based U&C prices were not routinely paid, if they were ever paid, by CVS's Cash customers. According to Dr. Hay's own standard, however, U&C prices that are rarely paid by Cash customers supposedly are "contrary to the industry standard of a U&C price."52 In other words, Dr. Hay's HSP-Based U&C prices do not fit the definition of what Dr. Hay has said constitutes a U&C price. Strikingly, in a section that is otherwise identical in his October 3, 2016 Declaration, Dr. Hay has deleted from his December 9, 2016 Report this statement—"For a pharmacy to submit U&C prices to TPPs and PBMs that are not routinely paid by cash customers, much less not paid at all, is contrary to the industry standard of a U&C price and the concept of the U&C fee screen."53 —which was critical to his HSP-Based U&C methodology. The Figure below shows how this statement has been removed from Dr. Hay's recent Report. Figure 13: Comparing Dr. Hay's Statements on Oct. 3 vs. Dec. 9 About Prices Paid by Cash Customers Oct. 3, 2016 Declaration Dec. 9, 2016 Report 50. In addition to describing the methodological flaws in Dr. Hay's HSP-Based U&C damages, my Original Report also quantified the impact of adjusting for those flaws. Because Dr. Hay's Rebuttal Declaration revises the damages numbers that my Original Report addressed, I have now re- quantified below the impact of my adjustments. 51. First, Dr. Hay calculated over $473 million in damages from purchases where his HSP-Based U&C price was not a price paid by a Cash customer for that GCN and days supply. Similarly, Dr. Hay calculated over $1.071 billion in damages from purchases where the HSP-Based U&C price was 52 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶¶ 119 - 121. 53 October 3, 2016 Declaration of Joel Hay ¶ 39; Passage excluded from his December 9, 2016 Report. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 24 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. paid in less than 1% of Cash purchases for that same GCN and days supply. And Dr. Hay calculated over $1.46 billion in damages from purchases where the HSP-Based U&C price was paid in less than 5% of Cash purchases for that same GCN and days supply. Here again, insofar as Dr. Hay stands by the proposition he originally espoused – that a price "not routinely paid by cash customers, much less paid at all, is contrary to the industry standard of a U&C price" – then he should agree his own recalculated HSP-Based U&C prices are intrinsically flawed. The Figure below quantifies, by state, the amount of Dr. Hay's damages generated by an HSP-Based U&C price that would seemingly not meet Dr. Hay's own standard. Figure 14: Dr. Hay's HSP-Based U&C Damages from Prices Not Routinely Observed in the Cash Data HSP-Based U&C Damages Calculated From: U&C Prices Not U&C Prices Paid on U&C Prices Paid on State Observed In the Less than 1% of Less than 5% of Cash Data Cash Purchases Cash Purchases Arizona $10,924,915 $25,356,028 $35,148,683 California $87,568,103 $197,566,380 $280,675,018 Florida $54,163,394 $120,932,963 $163,542,205 Georgia $35,780,809 $78,522,323 $108,000,347 Illinois $20,571,137 $49,177,341 $68,461,367 Massachusetts $60,414,432 $145,671,203 $196,522,700 New Jersey $29,742,733 $64,098,634 $85,945,743 New York $43,982,320 $97,192,082 $132,294,526 Ohio $30,119,904 $70,505,766 $94,970,747 Pennsylvania $42,652,372 $98,814,793 $131,316,129 Texas $57,842,042 $123,984,635 $167,712,565 Total $473,762,161 $1,071,822,148 $1,464,590,031 52. Second, if Dr. Hay's damages methodology is adjusted simply to account for the fact that HSP prices were not prorated downward, the result of his damages calculation becomes $376,638,799. This amount reflects the difference between the copay amounts actually paid (i.e., the POS paid by customers in Third Party transactions) and the expected HSP price. Figure 15 shows the results of Dr. Hay's damages calculation, adjusted for the fact that HSP prices were not prorated downward but charged a minimum price regardless of a lesser quantity, by each state for which Plaintiffs are attempting to certify a class. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 25 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 15: Results of Dr. Hay's HSP-Based Damages Calculation Adjusted Because HSP Prices Were Not Prorated Down State Purchases Damages Arizona 2,374,083 $ 10,631,587 California 17,345,795 $ 56,234,641 Florida 10,320,320 $ 44,769,945 Georgia 6,576,522 $ 30,766,489 Illinois 4,480,597 $ 20,739,262 Massachusetts 13,404,076 $ 46,625,249 New Jersey 5,682,033 $ 31,838,037 New York 8,930,814 $ 37,744,864 Ohio 5,974,256 $ 25,260,528 Pennsylvania 6,671,132 $ 29,107,682 Texas 10,628,505 $ 42,920,515 Total 92,388,133 $ 376,638,799 53. Third, I quantified and removed from damages prescriptions processed by one of the five PBMs already on record as stating that their U&C definition with CVS did not include HSP program pricing (i.e., Caremark, Express Scripts, Medco, MedImpact, and Optum).54 As a result of this adjustment, damages are reduced by $1,037,408,188, a reduction of 61.65%. This number will increase if, during further proceedings in the case, more PBMs or third-party payers confirm that they, too, did not expect HSP prices to be treated as U&C. In Figure 16, I show how the $1,037,408,188 reduction is spread over the 11 relevant states. 54 December 9, 2016 Report of Brett E. Barlag ¶¶ 123 - 125. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 26 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 16: Reduction in Dr. Hay's HSP-Based Damages, By State, Based on PBM Evidence Reduction in State Purchases Damages Arizona 5,640,692 $26,134,726 California 38,335,286 $163,518,196 Florida 24,904,629 $109,269,116 Georgia 15,357,349 $76,791,778 Illinois 9,753,285 $44,893,694 Massachusetts 36,164,145 $175,816,526 New Jersey 12,731,449 $62,928,525 New York 22,542,298 $99,050,041 Ohio 17,855,486 $71,357,598 Pennsylvania 22,620,255 $92,231,336 Texas 25,457,332 $115,416,655 Total 231,362,206 $1,037,408,188 54. Fourth, if I eliminate purchases associated with the five PBMs identified above, plus I adjust Dr. Hay's methodology to account for the fact that HSP prices were not prorated downward, damages are reduced to $135,937,750. In Figure 17, I show how the $135,937,750 is distributed across the 11 relevant states. Figure 17: Dr. Hay's Damages, By State, Adjusted Because the HSP Price was Not Prorated Downward and for PBM Evidence State Purchases Damages Arizona 758,321 $3,214,804 California 8,284,529 $22,759,853 Florida 4,020,952 $18,699,786 Georgia 2,357,506 $10,838,824 Illinois 1,713,126 $8,210,781 Massachusetts 2,642,196 $10,535,007 New Jersey 1,856,371 $11,328,471 New York 2,845,298 $13,655,473 Ohio 1,939,009 $7,313,200 Pennsylvania 2,419,332 $10,528,623 Texas 4,026,030 $18,852,928 Total 32,862,670 $135,937,750 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 27 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 55. My November 21, 2016 Declaration concluded that eight of the 15 named plaintiffs did not have a single Third Party purchase on which their copay was greater than the standard HSP price.55 That conclusion was based on my review of the prescription purchases identified in the interrogatory responses for the named Plaintiffs.56 In his Report, Dr. Hay provided a list of prescriptions for the named Plaintiffs which contained prescriptions beyond those identified in Plaintiff's interrogatory responses. I have reviewed Dr. Hay's list and reached conclusions similar to those in my Declaration. Specifically, five of the 15 named plaintiffs – Brown [TX], Corcoran [CA], Gilbert [TX], Hagert [PA], and Wulff [OH] – did not have a single Third Party purchase on which their copay was greater than the standard HSP price.57 If I consider the fact that the HSP price was prorated upward when the quantity dispensed was above the standard HSP quantity, I find that plaintiff Odorisio [NY] also did not have a single Third Party purchase on which her copay was greater than the expected HSP price.58 This brings to six the total number of named plaintiffs without any damage, even considering Dr. Hay's broader list of transactions. 2. First Percentile Price U&C 56. As an alternative to his HSP-Based U&C approach, Dr. Hay's Report introduces a First Percentile Fee Screen methodology not advanced in his original October 3, 2016 Declaration. The First Percentile Fee Screen methodology purports to recalculate CVS's U&C price based on the "1st percentile in the distribution of the cash prices."59 His new First Percentile Fee Screen approach focuses exclusively on CVS's Cash transactions and has nothing to do with CVS's HSP program. In this respect, the First Percentile Fee Screen method of calculating damages seems divorced from Plaintiffs' allegation that it was CVS's operation of the HSP program that caused the intentional inflating of U&C prices and thus damage to the putative class. 55 November 21, 2016 Declaration of Brett E. Barlag ¶18. 56 November 21, 2016 Declaration of Brett E. Barlag ¶18. 57 The only qualifying transaction identified by Dr. Hay for Plaintiff Brown is a prescription purchase of an Antibiotic in September 2013 with a POS amount of $10.00. I understand that the standard HSP price for Antibiotics increased from $8.99 to $10.99 in July 2013, see CVSC-0224842, CVSC-0001800, and as observed in the data; however, Dr. Hay assumes the $8.99 HSP price was not increased to $10.99 until November 2013, see December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶74 FN 27. 58 Of Plaintiff Odorisio's 59 purchases identified by Dr. Hay, that Plaintiff has only one transaction with a price above $9.99. That single purchase has a co-pay amount of $10.00; however, the quantity dispensed was 135 units, or 45 units more than the standard HSP quantity and a comparable HSP member would have purchased this prescription for $14.99 under the HSP program, above the co-pay paid by Odorisio. 59 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 49. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 28 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 57. Setting aside that the First Percentile Fee Screen method seemingly has nothing to do with the HSP program, the new method also results in a damages calculation that is, according to Dr. Hay, 22% lower than the damages calculated under his HSP-Based U&C methodology. A 22% difference in damages, in and of itself, raises serious questions about the reliability of Dr. Hay's proffered methods for recalculating what he calls CVS's "true" U&C prices.60 58. The Double-Counted Transactions. I believe that Dr. Hay's acknowledged 22% disparity in damages between his HSP-Based U&C methodology and his First Percentile Fee Screen methodology is understated. My review of the transactions underlying Dr. Hay's First Percentile Fee Screen calculations revealed that Dr. Hay double-counted over 46 million transactions to reach his recalculated damages number. If one removes from consideration the double-counted transactions, Dr. Hay's First Percentile Fee Screen approach produces a damages figure that is roughly 36% lower than his HSP-Based U&C damages. 59. Specifically, on December 21, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel provided CVS's counsel with 50 data files containing a list of the 306,067,498 prescription purchase records identified as incurring damages under Dr. Hay's First Percentile Fee Screen approach.61 For each prescription purchase record, the list identified the state in which the transaction occurred and the Bates number assigned to the particular transaction.62 Upon review of the 306,067,498 prescription records, I observed that 46,829,238 prescription records (Bates numbers) appeared on the list twice, suggesting they had been double-counted. The 46,829,238 records are a 18% increase of the total records Plaintiffs identified as being damage-generating records under Dr. Hay's new methodology. Nothing in Dr. Hay's description of the First Percentile Fee Screen methodology suggests that there could be a legitimate purpose for double-counting these records. 60. In order to quantify the impact of these 46,829,238 records, I attempted to recreate Dr. Hay's First Percentile Fee Screen analysis. Through a trial and error process, I eventually replicated his analysis and arrived at a damages figure of $1,280,947,755, which is within 2.15% of Dr. Hay's reported $1,308,985,500 damages amount.63 But I was only able to do so by considering both 60 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay, p.2 Opinion 2. 61 December 21, 2016 Letter from Cooley to Watts. 62 When CVS produced the Prescription Purchase Data, it assigned a unique Bates number to each individual transaction record. See November 21, 2016 Declaration of Brett E. Barlag ¶ 20. 63 I was forced to recreate the analysis because the list of Bates numbers provided by Plaintiffs did not report Dr. Hay's damages calculated on an individual prescription basis. Nevertheless, the 2.15% variance is not unexpected, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 29 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. instances of the double-counted records. When I excluded the double-counted records, my attempt to replicate Dr. Hay's damages amount fell short by 18.41% (i.e., I would calculate $1,068,002,021 in damages). This leads me to conclude that, in performing his First Percentile Fee Screen damages calculations, Dr. Hay did in fact double-count 46,829,238 records. 61. When one removes the double-counted records from Dr. Hay's damages calculation, Dr. Hay's damages is reduced to approximately $1.068 billion—an amount over $240 million less than the First Percentile Fee Screen damages amount provided in his Report and more than $600 million less than his HSP-Based U&C damages amount. 62. Internal Inconsistency Between the First Percentile Fee Screen Approach, the HSP-Based U&C Approach, and Dr. Hay's own U&C "Standard." As shown above, Dr. Hay's First Percentile Fee Screen approach produces a damages number that is approximately $600 million less than his HSP- Based U&C approach or approximately 36% lower. I disagree with Dr. Hay that a 36% difference (or a 22% difference for that matter) between the two methodologies "reinforces the validity" of either approach.64 Rather, the significant disparity in the amount of damages the two methods produce suggests the opposite—they are not reliable. 63. The reliability of the two methodologies is also questioned when one looks at Dr. Hay's damages calculation for a single claim under each method. The Figure below depicts, for a sample of Third Party prescriptions, (1) the damage for an individual prescription under the HSP-Based U&C method, (2) the damage for the same prescription under the First Percentile Fee Screen method, and (3) the difference in damages (absolute dollar and percentage) produced by the two methods. The magnitude of the difference is significant, particularly when one considers that Plaintiffs are claiming there are over 365 million overpriced prescriptions that fall within their class definition. as the starting point for our respective analyses differs slightly. See November 21, 2016 Declaration of Brett E. Barlag ¶ 22a-d. 64 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay ¶ 53. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 30 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 18: Comparison of Damages Calculated under Dr. Hay's HSP-Based U&C Approach and First Percentile Price Fee Screen Approach – Examples of Individual Prescription Records Damages Under Damages Under Dr. Hay's First Script Sequence Dr. Hay's HSP- Percentage Percentile Price Difference Number Based U&C Difference Fee Screen Approach Approach 7814311148 $0.01 $1.00 ($0.99) -9900.00% 7881774140 $1.02 $2.01 ($0.99) -97.06% 12434768479 $15.01 $17.00 ($1.99) -13.26% 6080170998 $6.67 $6.00 $0.67 10.04% 10820940126 $11.99 $9.49 $2.50 20.86% 10445905516 $3.00 $0.00 $3.00 100.00% 64. That Dr. Hay's two methodologies produce such different results—overall and at the level of an individual prescription—undermines the reliability of both methods for their offered purpose, as one cannot know which method (if either) will produce what Dr. Hay calls CVS's "true" U&C?65 65. Dr. Hay's Selection of the First Percentile. Finally, Dr. Hay cites no authority for his decision to select the First Percentile Price, as opposed to any other percentile price. In fact, in selecting the First Percentile Price, Dr. Hay's First Percentile Fee Screen approach ignores the simple fact that over 91% of Cash purchases occur at a price greater than the First Percentile Price. Said differently, on 91% of CVS's Cash purchases, Cash customers did not have access to Dr. Hay's recalculated U&C price. 66. To illustrate how the amount of damages Dr. Hay would calculate is impacted by the particular percentile price selected as the U&C, I have recalculated Dr. Hay's damages assuming one selects, rather than the 1st percentile prices, the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 99th percentile prices as the recalculated U&C price. The results are shown in Figure 19 below. There is significant variation. For example, if the 50th percentile price is used (i.e., the price which represents the lower bound for at least half of the Cash prescription purchases for a particular GCN, year and dispensed quantity), Dr. Hay would calculate damages of only around $12.2 million instead of the $1.308 billion figure premised on the 1st percentile price. 65 December 9, 2016 Report of Joel Hay, p.2 Opinion 2. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 31 7 January 27, 2017 Expert Report of Brett E. Barlag on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Figure 19 – Dr. Hay's Fee Screen-Based Damages Amounts at Various Percentile Prices66 67. As demonstrated by a review of the Prescription Purchase Data, Dr. Hay's HSP-Based U&C prices are rarely, and sometimes never, paid by Cash customers. Similarly, Dr. Hay's First Percentile Price model produces a recalculated U&C price that, too, was not accessible to the vast majority of CVS's Cash customers. In short, Dr. Hay's approaches to determining the U&C result in the selection of prices which were not routinely, if ever, paid by CVS's Cash customers and thus, according to Dr. Hay's own standard, are "contrary to the industry standard of a U&C price."67 66 Appendix C contains Dr. Hay's Fee Screen-Based Damages calculated for each state at various percentile prices. 67 October 3, 2016 Declaration of Joel Hay ¶ 39. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 32 7 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Depositions and Deposition Exhibits Deposition of Thomas J. Gibbons dated September 30, 2014 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Thomas E. Morrison dated February 2, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Sevak Y. Melkonian dated February 4, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Elizabeth Wingate dated February 23, 2016 Deposition of Thomas E. Morrison dated July 20, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Sevak Y. Melkonian dated July 21, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of William Boyd dated September 9, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Scott Tierney dated September 13, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Hilary Dudley dated September 20, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Susan F. Colbert dated October 6, 2016 Deposition of Joel Hay dated November 9, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of William John Barre dated November 17, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Deposition of Thomas J. Gibbons dated December 13, 2016 and Corresponding Exhibits Electronic Data DCVS - 00000000001 through DCVS - 00936214895: - 26 state specific data files and two supplemental Coordination of Benefits data files containing 936,214,895 records associated with HSP-eligible drugs only. Supplemental Information 2016.10.16 - Watts to Barlag enclosing NDC lists Geymeran Letter Attaching List of Inadvertently Added NDCs dated October 10, 2016 G. Geyerman to R. Gilmore re Production dated February 5, 2016 G. Geyerman to R. Gilmore enclosing supplement to data prods of 2.5 and 2.26.2016 dated April 15, 2016 Geyerman Ltr. to Gilmore re Supp. Data Production dated February 26, 2016 Named Plaintiff RXC Patient IDs Plaintiffs At Issue Transactions.xlsx NDC lists and At-Issue Transactions Letter to Brett Barlag, dated November 7, 2016 PLFS QLFYING TRX.xlsx, Ex. 288 to Dr. Joel Hay's November 9, 2016 Deposition Letter to Brett Barlarg enclosing thumb drives dated October 17, 2016 2016.12.21 - Cooley to Watts enclosing thumb drive for Hay's Dec. 9 report CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGRJANUARY Document 436-4 Filed 05/05/20 Page 36 of 67 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Plaintiff's Expert Declarations and Supporting Data Declaration of Joel W Hay, PhD and supporting data - October 3, 2016 Supplemental Declaration of Joel W Hay, PhD and supporting data - November 7, 2016 Expert Report of Joel W Hay, PhD and supporting data - December 9, 2016 Rebuttal Declaration of Joel W Hay, PhD - January 9, 2017 Legal Filings Opposition to Class Certification and Full Motion Support dated November 21, 2016 Third Amended Complaint dated April 4, 2016 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and associated Exhibits dated October 3, 2016 Order on Motions to Dismiss dated March 14, 2016 PLAINTIFF CAROLYN CAINE'S AMENDED RESPONSESAND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - July 22, 2016 PLAINTIFF ROBERT JENKS'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - July 22, 2016 PLAINTIFF ZULEMA AVIS'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 1, 2016 PLAINTIFF DR ROBERT GARBER'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 1, 2016 PLAINTIFF TONI ODORISIO'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 1, 2016 PLAINTIFF WALTER WULFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 1, 2016 PLAlNTIFF ZACHARY HAGERT'S AMENDED RESPONSESAND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 5, 2016 PLAINTIFF ONNOLEE SAMUELSON'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 17, 2016 PLAINTIFF CARL WASHINGTON'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 23, 2016 PLAINTIFF AMANDA GILBERT'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 25, 2016 PLAINTIFF VINCENT GARGIULO'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - August 27, 2016 PLAINTIFF DEBBIE BARRET'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - September 13, 2016 PLAINTIFF GILBERT BROWN'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - October 5, 2016 PLAINTIFF TYLER CLARK'S SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - October 6, 2016 PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN'S SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES - November 2, 2016 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint dated November 3, 2015 Plaintiffs Opp to CVS Health MTD [unredacted] dated January 15, 2016 Plaintiffs Opposition to CVS Pharm Motion to Dismiss dated March 2, 2016 CVS HC Notice of Motion & MTD Memo of Points & Authorites December 4, 2015 CVS Pharm Reply re Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint dated February 12, 2016 Motion to Dismiss TAC dated April 18, 2016 Motion to Dismiss Briefing Reply ISO Motion to Dismiss TAC dated May 9, 2016 Public Sources https://www cms gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/HealthCareFinancingReview/downloads/04springpg25 pdf http://www fda gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/ucm305896 htm http://www fda gov/Drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/UCM070829 http://corporate walmart com/_news_/news-archive/2009/02/19/walmarts-4-generic-prescription-drug-list-added-to-epocrates-drug-reference-application Yett, D, Der, W, Ernst, R and Hay JW "Fee Screen Reimbursement and Physician Fee Inflation," Journal of Human Resources 20(2), (Spring 1985) CVS Annual Reports CVS Health, 2015 Annual Report CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 9, 2016 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 10, 2015 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 11 2014 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 15, 2013 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 17, 2012 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 18, 2011 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 26, 2010 CVS Health Corp - CVS, Form 10-K February 27, 2009 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0001800 CVSC-0223163 CVSC-0351799 CVSC-0323374 CVSC-0223164 CVSC-0351802 CVSC-0229413 CVSC-0223165 CVSC-0351805 CVSC-0224002 CVSC-0223166 CVSC-0351807 CVSC-0226628 CVSC-0223167 CVSC-0351810 CVSC-0225151 CVSC-0223168 CVSC-0351813 CVSC-0226673 CVSC-0223169 CVSC-0351816 CVSC-0224842 CVSC-0223170 CVSC-0351819 CVSC-0223974 CVSC-0223171 CVSC-0351822 CVSC-0236969 CVSC-0223172 CVSC-0351825 CVSC-0239216 CVSC-0223173 CVSC-0351828 CVSC-0342374 CVSC-0223174 CVSC-0351831 CVSC-0342376 CVSC-0223175 CVSC-0333490 CVSC-0342380 CVSC-0223176 CVSC-0348968 CVSC-0342384 CVSC-0223177 CVSC-0348968 CVSC-0342386 CVSC-0223295 CVSC-0345541 CVSC-0351524 CVSC-0223385 CVSC-0345566 CVSC-0342389 CVSC-0223457 CVSC-0345569 CVSC-0342395 CVSC-0223506 CVSC-0349026 CVSC-0327633 CVSC-0223624 CVSC-0345588 CVSC-0329255 CVSC-0223680 CVSC-0345608 CVSC-0352101 CVSC-0223782 CVSC-0333533 CVSC-0356390 CVSC-0223785 CVSC-0345621 CVSC-0342395 CVSC-0223786 CVSC-0345625 CVSC-0342406 CVSC-0223787 CVSC-0345630 CVSC-0356399 CVSC-0223789 CVSC-0345633 CVSC-0324071 CVSC-0223792 CVSC-0345653 CVSC-0336547 CVSC-0223794 CVSC-0345682 CVSC-0336549 CVSC-0223809 CVSC-0349026 CVSC-0336554 CVSC-0223810 CVSC-0349048 CVSC-0336663 CVSC-0223812 CVSC-0349068 CVSC-0336672 CVSC-0223813 CVSC-0349088 CVSC-0336674 CVSC-0224662 CVSC-0349107 CVSC-0336752 CVSC-0226329 CVSC-0349127 CVSC-0336805 CVSC-0226476 CVSC-0349147 CVSC-0336847 CVSC-0226628 CVSC-0345713 CVSC-0336851 CVSC-0226673 CVSC-0331871 CVSC-0336900 CVSC-0229413 CVSC-0345733 CVSC-0336911 CVSC-0236969 CVSC-0345725 CVSC-0336943 CVSC-0312974 CVSC-0328801 CVSC-0336982 CVSC-0312974 CVSC-0328842 CVSC-0336987 CVSC-0341298 CVSC-0327877 CVSC-0337066 CVSC-0341298 CVSC-0333564 CVSC-0337084 CVSC-0341311 CVSC-0333580 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0337086 CVSC-0341311 CVSC-0349780 CVSC-0337134 CVSC-0341329 CVSC-0349814 CVSC-0337153 CVSC-0341329 CVSC-0349850 CVSC-0337185 CVSC-0341349 CVSC-0345969 CVSC-0337197 CVSC-0341349 CVSC-0345976 CVSC-0337201 CVSC-0341389 CVSC-0345986 CVSC-0337262 CVSC-0341389 CVSC-0346000 CVSC-0336482 CVSC-0341420 CVSC-0346024 CVSC-0336655 CVSC-0341420 CVSC-0346054 CVSC-0336824 CVSC-0341433 CVSC-0346058 CVSC-0336915 CVSC-0341433 CVSC-0346062 CVSC-0337034 CVSC-0341436 CVSC-0346066 CVSC-0337090 CVSC-0341436 CVSC-0351834 CVSC-0337162 CVSC-0341474 CVSC-0349274 CVSC-0337216 CVSC-0341474 CVSC-0349395 CVSC-0337287 CVSC-0341515 CVSC-0349471 CVSC-0337331 CVSC-0341515 CVSC-0349520 CVSC-0337377 CVSC-0341531 CVSC-0328069 CVSC-0337415 CVSC-0341531 CVSC-0328379 CVSC-0337481 CVSC-0341556 CVSC-0345740 CVSC-0337531 CVSC-0341556 CVSC-0345750 CVSC-0337562 CVSC-0342759 CVSC-0345765 CVSC-0337618 CVSC-0350502 CVSC-0345768 CVSC-0337631 CVSC-0350502 CVSC-0345776 CVSC-0337682 CVSC-0350514 CVSC-0345779 CVSC-0337757 CVSC-0350514 CVSC-0345784 CVSC-0337798 CVSC-0350522 CVSC-0345788 CVSC-0337832 CVSC-0350522 CVSC-0345798 CVSC-0337869 CVSC-0350529 CVSC-0345803 CVSC-0337886 CVSC-0350529 CVSC-0348596 CVSC-0337936 CVSC-0350530 CVSC-0349167 CVSC-0337972 CVSC-0350530 CVSC-0349230 CVSC-0338009 CVSC-0391314 CVSC-0351838 CVSC-0338046 CVSC-0391316 CVSC-0350230 CVSC-0338090 CVSC-0391317 CVSC-0327637 CVSC-0338131 CVSC-0391318 CVSC-0327517 CVSC-0338176 CVSC-0391319 CVSC-0327565 CVSC-0338216 CVSC-0391320 CVSC-0327652 CVSC-0338253 CVSC-0391321 CVSC-0327812 CVSC-0338275 CVSC-0391322 CVSC-0327977 CVSC-0338311 CVSC-0391323 CVSC-0328485 CVSC-0323277 CVSC-0391324 CVSC-0329206 CVSC-0336482 CVSC-0391325 CVSC-0345814 CVSC-0336655 CVSC-0391326 CVSC-0345819 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0336824 CVSC-0391327 CVSC-0345822 CVSC-0336915 CVSC-0391328 CVSC-0345835 CVSC-0337034 CVSC-0391329 CVSC-0345864 CVSC-0337090 CVSC-0391330 CVSC-0345880 CVSC-0337162 CVSC-0391331 CVSC-0345885 CVSC-0337216 CVSC-0391332 CVSC-0345890 CVSC-0337287 CVSC-0391333 CVSC-0345903 CVSC-0337331 CVSC-0391334 CVSC-0345905 CVSC-0337377 CVSC-0391335 CVSC-0345907 CVSC-0337415 CVSC-0391336 CVSC-0345920 CVSC-0337481 CVSC-0391337 CVSC-0345926 CVSC-0337531 CVSC-0391338 CVSC-0345930 CVSC-0337562 CVSC-0391339 CVSC-0345933 CVSC-0337618 CVSC-0391340 CVSC-0345936 CVSC-0337631 CVSC-0391341 CVSC-0345938 CVSC-0337682 CVSC-0391342 CVSC-0345940 CVSC-0337757 CVSC-0391343 CVSC-0345948 CVSC-0337798 CVSC-0391344 CVSC-0345950 CVSC-0337832 CVSC-0391345 CVSC-0345952 CVSC-0337869 CVSC-0391346 CVSC-0345955 CVSC-0337886 CVSC-0391347 CVSC-0345957 CVSC-0337936 CVSC-0391348 CVSC-0345959 CVSC-0337972 CVSC-0391349 CVSC-0345961 CVSC-0338009 CVSC-0391350 CVSC-0345963 CVSC-0338046 CVSC-0391351 CVSC-0345965 CVSC-0338090 CVSC-0391352 CVSC-0341493 CVSC-0338131 CVSC-0391353 CVSC-0341515 CVSC-0338176 CVSC-0391354 CVSC-0349814 CVSC-0338216 CVSC-0391355 CVSC-0349667 CVSC-0338253 CVSC-0391356 CVSC-0349705 CVSC-0338275 CVSC-0391357 CVSC-0349743 CVSC-0338311 CVSC-0391358 CVSC-0350503 CVSC-0323251 CVSC-0391359 CVSC-0350514 CVSC-0328301 CVSC-0391360 CVSC-0336832 CVSC-0342555 CVSC-0391361 CVSC-0346070 CVSC-0322963 CVSC-0391362 CVSC-0336502 CVSC-0342408 CVSC-0391363 CVSC-0336653 CVSC-0342412 CVSC-0391364 CVSC-0336778 CVSC-0342432 CVSC-0391365 CVSC-0336853 CVSC-0342457 CVSC-0391366 CVSC-0336945 CVSC-0342511 CVSC-0391367 CVSC-0337074 CVSC-0342527 CVSC-0391368 CVSC-0337144 CVSC-0328806 CVSC-0391369 CVSC-0337194 CVSC-0328806 CVSC-0391370 CVSC-0337243 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0328846 CVSC-0391371 CVSC-0336562 CVSC-0346288 CVSC-0391372 CVSC-0336582 CVSC-0346299 CVSC-0391373 CVSC-0336758 CVSC-0346305 CVSC-0391374 CVSC-0336861 CVSC-0346347 CVSC-0391375 CVSC-0336966 CVSC-0346357 CVSC-0391376 CVSC-0337068 CVSC-0346364 CVSC-0391377 CVSC-0337136 CVSC-0346370 CVSC-0391378 CVSC-0337189 CVSC-0346376 CVSC-0391379 CVSC-0337207 CVSC-0346381 CVSC-0391380 CVSC-0337267 CVSC-0346392 CVSC-0391381 CVSC-0337315 CVSC-0351345 CVSC-0391382 CVSC-0329161 CVSC-0356429 CVSC-0391383 CVSC-0337278 CVSC-0342558 CVSC-0391384 CVSC-0337362 CVSC-0348506 CVSC-0391385 CVSC-0337404 CVSC-0342597 CVSC-0391386 CVSC-0330765 CVSC-0342600 CVSC-0391387 CVSC-0331280 CVSC-0342613 CVSC-0391388 CVSC-0331553 CVSC-0342628 CVSC-0391389 CVSC-0331770 CVSC-0342647 CVSC-0391390 CVSC-0332540 CVSC-0342650 CVSC-0391391 CVSC-0332574 CVSC-0348664 CVSC-0391392 CVSC-0332806 CVSC-0350531 CVSC-0391393 CVSC-0333169 CVSC-0342672 CVSC-0391394 CVSC-0329267 CVSC-0342703 CVSC-0391395 CVSC-0327473 CVSC-0342709 CVSC-0391396 CVSC-0327927 CVSC-0342711 CVSC-0391397 CVSC-0328801 CVSC-0342714 CVSC-0391398 CVSC-0328842 CVSC-0342718 CVSC-0391399 CVSC-0329161 CVSC-0342731 CVSC-0391400 CVSC-0329267 CVSC-0342751 CVSC-0391401 CVSC-0330453 CVSC-0342759 CVSC-0391402 CVSC-0331017 CVSC-0342790 CVSC-0348660 CVSC-0332164 CVSC-0342798 CVSC-0348660 CVSC-0332528 CVSC-0342801 CVSC-0356433 CVSC-0336562 CVSC-0342804 CVSC-0333761 CVSC-0336582 CVSC-0342807 CVSC-0344146 CVSC-0336758 CVSC-0342811 CVSC-0351515 CVSC-0336861 CVSC-0342814 CVSC-0351521 CVSC-0336966 CVSC-0342818 CVSC-0356436 CVSC-0337068 CVSC-0342825 CVSC-0356442 CVSC-0337136 CVSC-0342829 CVSC-0329548 CVSC-0337189 CVSC-0342833 CVSC-0344155 CVSC-0337207 CVSC-0342836 CVSC-0325147 CVSC-0337267 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0342854 CVSC-0344180 CVSC-0337315 CVSC-0342856 CVSC-0344185 CVSC-0337404 CVSC-0342858 CVSC-0344193 CVSC-0333627 CVSC-0351334 CVSC-0344202 CVSC-0351539 CVSC-0351361 CVSC-0344206 CVSC-0351609 CVSC-0351369 CVSC-0344208 CVSC-0328027 CVSC-0351371 CVSC-0348684 CVSC-0345321 CVSC-0351494 CVSC-0336490 CVSC-0345323 CVSC-0351667 CVSC-0336670 CVSC-0345326 CVSC-0351841 CVSC-0336832 CVSC-0345331 CVSC-0329483 CVSC-0336941 CVSC-0345333 CVSC-0342661 CVSC-0337062 CVSC-0345335 CVSC-0342861 CVSC-0337113 CVSC-0345337 CVSC-0342868 CVSC-0337187 CVSC-0345340 CVSC-0341329 CVSC-0337261 CVSC-0345343 CVSC-0341312 CVSC-0337280 CVSC-0345353 CVSC-0350490 CVSC-0337328 CVSC-0345429 CVSC-0350502 CVSC-0337375 CVSC-0345504 CVSC-0342870 CVSC-0337413 CVSC-0345506 CVSC-0342879 CVSC-0337466 CVSC-0345508 CVSC-0342882 CVSC-0337537 CVSC-0345511 CVSC-0342885 CVSC-0337593 CVSC-0345519 CVSC-0342902 CVSC-0337616 CVSC-0345527 CVSC-0342971 CVSC-0337639 CVSC-0356451 CVSC-0342979 CVSC-0337709 CVSC-0346080 CVSC-0324048 CVSC-0337784 CVSC-0346090 CVSC-0342907 CVSC-0325563 CVSC-0346102 CVSC-0342913 CVSC-0326136 CVSC-0346110 CVSC-0342935 CVSC-0326851 CVSC-0346126 CVSC-0342942 CVSC-0326915 CVSC-0346136 CVSC-0342946 CVSC-0327002 CVSC-0346148 CVSC-0342949 CVSC-0327209 CVSC-0326909 CVSC-0342953 CVSC-0327481 CVSC-0333656 CVSC-0337445 CVSC-0327711 CVSC-0346168 CVSC-0351432 CVSC-0327759 CVSC-0346172 CVSC-0322966 CVSC-0327831 CVSC-0346176 CVSC-0323098 CVSC-0327881 CVSC-0346194 CVSC-0322909 CVSC-0327983 CVSC-0346211 CVSC-0323156 CVSC-0328270 CVSC-0346228 CVSC-0323212 CVSC-0328429 CVSC-0346234 CVSC-0336558 CVSC-0328486 CVSC-0349940 CVSC-0336678 CVSC-0329219 CVSC-0346242 CVSC-0336814 CVSC-0325563 CVSC-0346258 CVSC-0336902 CVSC-0324061 CVSC-0346260 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0336989 CVSC-0324782 CVSC-0346262 CVSC-0351455 CVSC-0324949 CVSC-0346264 CVSC-0342961 CVSC-0325147 CVSC-0346275 CVSC-0351466 CVSC-0325437 CVSC-0349948 CVSC-0351471 CVSC-0325563 CVSC-0349970 CVSC-0322957 CVSC-0325741 CVSC-0328480 CVSC-0323062 CVSC-0326124 CVSC-0329135 CVSC-0323201 CVSC-0326136 CVSC-0329265 CVSC-0342988 CVSC-0326170 CVSC-0329285 CVSC-0342992 CVSC-0326182 CVSC-0346386 CVSC-0342996 CVSC-0326472 CVSC-0346389 CVSC-0343020 CVSC-0326915 CVSC-0346394 CVSC-0343034 CVSC-0327002 CVSC-0346399 CVSC-0343059 CVSC-0327209 CVSC-0346402 CVSC-0348545 CVSC-0327481 CVSC-0346405 CVSC-0343071 CVSC-0327711 CVSC-0346418 CVSC-0343081 CVSC-0327759 CVSC-0346421 CVSC-0343083 CVSC-0327875 CVSC-0356431 CVSC-0343087 CVSC-0327881 CVSC-0346164 CVSC-0343093 CVSC-0327919 CVSC-0346166 CVSC-0343095 CVSC-0327983 CVSC-0349004 CVSC-0343097 CVSC-0328270 CVSC-0349015 CVSC-0343099 CVSC-0328429 CVSC-0346425 CVSC-0343114 CVSC-0328825 CVSC-0346430 CVSC-0348676 CVSC-0329137 CVSC-0350020 CVSC-0323688 CVSC-0329163 CVSC-0333677 CVSC-0323948 CVSC-0329219 CVSC-0346433 CVSC-0324304 CVSC-0336490 CVSC-0346444 CVSC-0332122 CVSC-0336670 CVSC-0346475 CVSC-0332206 CVSC-0336941 CVSC-0351846 CVSC-0333637 CVSC-0337062 CVSC-0333339 CVSC-0343132 CVSC-0337113 CVSC-0329790 CVSC-0343153 CVSC-0337187 CVSC-0329288 CVSC-0343166 CVSC-0337261 CVSC-0329372 CVSC-0343172 CVSC-0337280 CVSC-0336502 CVSC-0343180 CVSC-0337328 CVSC-0336653 CVSC-0343199 CVSC-0337375 CVSC-0336778 CVSC-0343207 CVSC-0337413 CVSC-0336853 CVSC-0346664 CVSC-0337466 CVSC-0336945 CVSC-0346683 CVSC-0337537 CVSC-0337074 CVSC-0323374 CVSC-0337593 CVSC-0337144 CVSC-0323398 CVSC-0337616 CVSC-0337194 CVSC-0351379 CVSC-0337639 CVSC-0337243 CVSC-0351386 CVSC-0337709 CVSC-0337278 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0351389 CVSC-0337784 CVSC-0338495 CVSC-0351392 CVSC-0326136 CVSC-0342343 CVSC-0351395 CVSC-0336498 CVSC-0329790 CVSC-0351418 CVSC-0336665 CVSC-0333339 CVSC-0351429 CVSC-0336842 CVSC-0327979 CVSC-0341330 CVSC-0336937 CVSC-0329399 CVSC-0341342 CVSC-0337057 CVSC-0329881 CVSC-0341343 CVSC-0337130 CVSC-0330903 CVSC-0341349 CVSC-0337157 CVSC-0331662 CVSC-0341280 CVSC-0337211 CVSC-0331883 CVSC-0341298 CVSC-0337271 CVSC-0332123 CVSC-0343696 CVSC-0337323 CVSC-0332175 CVSC-0343211 CVSC-0337371 CVSC-0332541 CVSC-0336554 CVSC-0337437 CVSC-0332877 CVSC-0336674 CVSC-0337509 CVSC-0333337 CVSC-0336847 CVSC-0337542 CVSC-0333407 CVSC-0336911 CVSC-0337597 CVSC-0336551 CVSC-0336982 CVSC-0337627 CVSC-0336749 CVSC-0336549 CVSC-0337679 CVSC-0336811 CVSC-0336672 CVSC-0337753 CVSC-0336897 CVSC-0337086 CVSC-0337791 CVSC-0336973 CVSC-0336805 CVSC-0337795 CVSC-0337080 CVSC-0336900 CVSC-0337829 CVSC-0337149 CVSC-0336987 CVSC-0337866 CVSC-0337203 CVSC-0337084 CVSC-0337919 CVSC-0337264 CVSC-0337153 CVSC-0337932 CVSC-0337320 CVSC-0337155 CVSC-0337964 CVSC-0337366 CVSC-0337197 CVSC-0338000 CVSC-0337408 CVSC-0337262 CVSC-0338037 CVSC-0337445 CVSC-0337201 CVSC-0338073 CVSC-0337527 CVSC-0325899 CVSC-0338078 CVSC-0337558 CVSC-0325899 CVSC-0338118 CVSC-0337613 CVSC-0326230 CVSC-0338164 CVSC-0337624 CVSC-0326541 CVSC-0338204 CVSC-0337675 CVSC-0326912 CVSC-0338243 CVSC-0337744 CVSC-0327001 CVSC-0338265 CVSC-0337786 CVSC-0327033 CVSC-0338303 CVSC-0337824 CVSC-0327241 CVSC-0338338 CVSC-0337860 CVSC-0327528 CVSC-0338348 CVSC-0337873 CVSC-0327581 CVSC-0338356 CVSC-0337914 CVSC-0337155 CVSC-0338362 CVSC-0337925 CVSC-0343216 CVSC-0338374 CVSC-0337968 CVSC-0343223 CVSC-0338382 CVSC-0338004 CVSC-0343231 CVSC-0338388 CVSC-0338041 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0343239 CVSC-0338393 CVSC-0338085 CVSC-0343243 CVSC-0338413 CVSC-0338127 CVSC-0343264 CVSC-0338422 CVSC-0338159 CVSC-0343268 CVSC-0338428 CVSC-0338210 CVSC-0343272 CVSC-0338445 CVSC-0338248 CVSC-0343288 CVSC-0338471 CVSC-0338268 CVSC-0343353 CVSC-0338475 CVSC-0338308 CVSC-0343405 CVSC-0336461 CVSC-0338342 CVSC-0343409 CVSC-0336633 CVSC-0338352 CVSC-0343414 CVSC-0336785 CVSC-0338360 CVSC-0343416 CVSC-0336880 CVSC-0338369 CVSC-0343421 CVSC-0325126 CVSC-0338379 CVSC-0343427 CVSC-0336461 CVSC-0338386 CVSC-0343434 CVSC-0336633 CVSC-0338392 CVSC-0343439 CVSC-0336785 CVSC-0338411 CVSC-0343444 CVSC-0336880 CVSC-0338417 CVSC-0343448 CVSC-0327927 CVSC-0338425 CVSC-0343460 CVSC-0348676 CVSC-0327867 CVSC-0343479 CVSC-0329168 CVSC-0328465 CVSC-0343498 CVSC-0329269 CVSC-0329147 CVSC-0343517 CVSC-0328074 CVSC-0329168 CVSC-0343521 CVSC-0328522 CVSC-0329269 CVSC-0343525 CVSC-0328851 CVSC-0329324 CVSC-0343529 CVSC-0329563 CVSC-0336551 CVSC-0343533 CVSC-0329942 CVSC-0336749 CVSC-0343537 CVSC-0330194 CVSC-0336811 CVSC-0343541 CVSC-0330466 CVSC-0336897 CVSC-0343545 CVSC-0331028 CVSC-0336973 CVSC-0324321 CVSC-0331344 CVSC-0337080 CVSC-0324549 CVSC-0331913 CVSC-0337149 CVSC-0324617 CVSC-0332207 CVSC-0337203 CVSC-0324792 CVSC-0332683 CVSC-0337264 CVSC-0324617 CVSC-0323707 CVSC-0337320 CVSC-0324792 CVSC-0323749 CVSC-0337366 CVSC-0324960 CVSC-0324327 CVSC-0337408 CVSC-0325152 CVSC-0324579 CVSC-0337527 CVSC-0325447 CVSC-0324749 CVSC-0337558 CVSC-0325605 CVSC-0324933 CVSC-0337613 CVSC-0325754 CVSC-0325112 CVSC-0337624 CVSC-0326135 CVSC-0325306 CVSC-0337675 CVSC-0326180 CVSC-0329271 CVSC-0337744 CVSC-0324547 CVSC-0329338 CVSC-0337786 CVSC-0324582 CVSC-0329385 CVSC-0337824 CVSC-0324752 CVSC-0329493 CVSC-0337860 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0324321 CVSC-0329526 CVSC-0337873 CVSC-0324547 CVSC-0336498 CVSC-0337914 CVSC-0324549 CVSC-0336665 CVSC-0337925 CVSC-0324582 CVSC-0336842 CVSC-0337968 CVSC-0324752 CVSC-0336937 CVSC-0338004 CVSC-0326182 CVSC-0337057 CVSC-0338041 CVSC-0326481 CVSC-0337130 CVSC-0338085 CVSC-0326861 CVSC-0337157 CVSC-0338127 CVSC-0326942 CVSC-0337211 CVSC-0338159 CVSC-0341350 CVSC-0337271 CVSC-0338210 CVSC-0341374 CVSC-0337323 CVSC-0338248 CVSC-0343723 CVSC-0337371 CVSC-0338268 CVSC-0343734 CVSC-0337437 CVSC-0338308 CVSC-0343737 CVSC-0337509 CVSC-0338342 CVSC-0343749 CVSC-0337542 CVSC-0338352 CVSC-0343761 CVSC-0337597 CVSC-0338360 CVSC-0343770 CVSC-0337627 CVSC-0338369 CVSC-0343814 CVSC-0337679 CVSC-0338379 CVSC-0343822 CVSC-0337753 CVSC-0338386 CVSC-0343828 CVSC-0337791 CVSC-0338392 CVSC-0343830 CVSC-0337795 CVSC-0338411 CVSC-0343832 CVSC-0337829 CVSC-0338417 CVSC-0343834 CVSC-0337866 CVSC-0338425 CVSC-0343844 CVSC-0337919 CVSC-0351662 CVSC-0343846 CVSC-0337932 CVSC-0356453 CVSC-0343849 CVSC-0337964 CVSC-0351302 CVSC-0343866 CVSC-0338000 CVSC-0351324 CVSC-0343868 CVSC-0338037 CVSC-0346500 CVSC-0343874 CVSC-0338073 CVSC-0346503 CVSC-0343880 CVSC-0338078 CVSC-0346505 CVSC-0343884 CVSC-0338118 CVSC-0346507 CVSC-0343897 CVSC-0338164 CVSC-0346510 CVSC-0343910 CVSC-0338204 CVSC-0346518 CVSC-0343931 CVSC-0338243 CVSC-0346522 CVSC-0343933 CVSC-0338265 CVSC-0346524 CVSC-0343954 CVSC-0338303 CVSC-0346543 CVSC-0343966 CVSC-0338338 CVSC-0346561 CVSC-0343978 CVSC-0338348 CVSC-0346583 CVSC-0343987 CVSC-0338356 CVSC-0346622 CVSC-0343998 CVSC-0338362 CVSC-0346641 CVSC-0344042 CVSC-0338374 CVSC-0351863 CVSC-0344050 CVSC-0338382 CVSC-0351889 CVSC-0344056 CVSC-0338388 CVSC-0351915 CVSC-0344062 CVSC-0338393 CVSC-0351941 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0344068 CVSC-0338413 CVSC-0351993 CVSC-0344071 CVSC-0338422 CVSC-0346702 CVSC-0344075 CVSC-0338428 CVSC-0346720 CVSC-0344088 CVSC-0338445 CVSC-0346723 CVSC-0344101 CVSC-0338471 CVSC-0346746 CVSC-0344111 CVSC-0338475 CVSC-0346765 CVSC-0344113 CVSC-0342986 CVSC-0346801 CVSC-0344130 CVSC-0346407 CVSC-0346805 CVSC-0344132 CVSC-0347463 CVSC-0346838 CVSC-0344134 CVSC-0329271 CVSC-0346872 CVSC-0351476 CVSC-0329338 CVSC-0346876 CVSC-0343552 CVSC-0329385 CVSC-0350243 CVSC-0341375 CVSC-0329493 CVSC-0333688 CVSC-0341389 CVSC-0329526 CVSC-0346909 CVSC-0344136 CVSC-0356449 CVSC-0346911 CVSC-0344141 CVSC-0344212 CVSC-0346914 CVSC-0350093 CVSC-0344215 CVSC-0346926 CVSC-0341390 CVSC-0344217 CVSC-0346928 CVSC-0341420 CVSC-0344237 CVSC-0346940 CVSC-0322963 CVSC-0341421 CVSC-0346943 CVSC-0323419 CVSC-0341433 CVSC-0346954 CVSC-0323965 CVSC-0341434 CVSC-0346956 CVSC-0336509 CVSC-0341436 CVSC-0346959 CVSC-0336739 CVSC-0350523 CVSC-0346971 CVSC-0328792 CVSC-0350529 CVSC-0346977 CVSC-0323398 CVSC-0323623 CVSC-0346992 CVSC-0327633 CVSC-0323710 CVSC-0346995 CVSC-0327757 CVSC-0344257 CVSC-0347007 CVSC-0323137 CVSC-0344309 CVSC-0347018 CVSC-0323251 CVSC-0344318 CVSC-0347020 CVSC-0327473 CVSC-0344323 CVSC-0347032 CVSC-0327877 CVSC-0344362 CVSC-0347035 CVSC-0000008 CVSC-0344366 CVSC-0347046 CVSC-0000026 CVSC-0344375 CVSC-0347048 CVSC-0000029 CVSC-0344384 CVSC-0347060 CVSC-0000030 CVSC-0341437 CVSC-0347063 CVSC-0000048 CVSC-0341444 CVSC-0347065 CVSC-0000057 CVSC-0350530 CVSC-0347076 CVSC-0000098 CVSC-0344176 CVSC-0347089 CVSC-0001242 CVSC-0341445 CVSC-0347091 CVSC-0001256 CVSC-0341457 CVSC-0347102 CVSC-0001269 CVSC-0341458 CVSC-0347104 CVSC-0001286 CVSC-0341474 CVSC-0347115 CVSC-0001295 CVSC-0344393 CVSC-0347117 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0001295 CVSC-0344414 CVSC-0347127 CVSC-0001448 CVSC-0351526 CVSC-0347129 CVSC-0001486 CVSC-0351539 CVSC-0347141 CVSC-0002169 CVSC-0351595 CVSC-0347144 CVSC-0003207 CVSC-0351609 CVSC-0347146 CVSC-0003354 CVSC-0344482 CVSC-0347157 CVSC-0003894 CVSC-0344486 CVSC-0347159 CVSC-0004892 CVSC-0344491 CVSC-0347162 CVSC-0008309 CVSC-0344493 CVSC-0347164 CVSC-0008915 CVSC-0344505 CVSC-0347175 CVSC-0012044 CVSC-0344512 CVSC-0347177 CVSC-0014111 CVSC-0344523 CVSC-0347180 CVSC-0014164 CVSC-0344537 CVSC-0347187 CVSC-0014183 CVSC-0344652 CVSC-0347189 CVSC-0014211 CVSC-0344445 CVSC-0347192 CVSC-0014225 CVSC-0328026 CVSC-0347195 CVSC-0014229 CVSC-0344428 CVSC-0347231 CVSC-0014294 CVSC-0344430 CVSC-0347233 CVSC-0014298 CVSC-0344441 CVSC-0347235 CVSC-0014323 CVSC-0344443 CVSC-0347237 CVSC-0014340 CVSC-0344449 CVSC-0347239 CVSC-0014349 CVSC-0344464 CVSC-0347258 CVSC-0014367 CVSC-0344478 CVSC-0347279 CVSC-0014385 CVSC-0344480 CVSC-0347282 CVSC-0014424 CVSC-0344547 CVSC-0347297 CVSC-0014519 CVSC-0344552 CVSC-0347300 CVSC-0014580 CVSC-0344556 CVSC-0347302 CVSC-0014691 CVSC-0344589 CVSC-0347305 CVSC-0014726 CVSC-0344592 CVSC-0347307 CVSC-0014729 CVSC-0344615 CVSC-0347310 CVSC-0015635 CVSC-0344643 CVSC-0347312 CVSC-0015645 CVSC-0344647 CVSC-0347314 CVSC-0016195 CVSC-0324350 CVSC-0347316 CVSC-0019063 CVSC-0324584 CVSC-0352031 CVSC-0020441 CVSC-0323632 CVSC-0356454 CVSC-0020511 CVSC-0323980 CVSC-0348670 CVSC-0021943 CVSC-0324350 CVSC-0348680 CVSC-0022004 CVSC-0324584 CVSC-0350262 CVSC-0022011 CVSC-0328301 CVSC-0350515 CVSC-0022022 CVSC-0328792 CVSC-0350522 CVSC-0022029 CVSC-0329513 CVSC-0333711 CVSC-0022954 CVSC-0342576 CVSC-0347318 CVSC-0023151 CVSC-0348524 CVSC-0347320 CVSC-0023690 CVSC-0336504 CVSC-0347323 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0024467 CVSC-0336601 CVSC-0343209 CVSC-0024509 CVSC-0327529 CVSC-0333723 CVSC-0024515 CVSC-0327680 CVSC-0347325 CVSC-0024519 CVSC-0327803 CVSC-0347331 CVSC-0024587 CVSC-0344661 CVSC-0347336 CVSC-0024720 CVSC-0327529 CVSC-0347361 CVSC-0024734 CVSC-0327680 CVSC-0328805 CVSC-0025028 CVSC-0327803 CVSC-0328835 CVSC-0025049 CVSC-0327813 CVSC-0329099 CVSC-0025064 CVSC-0336504 CVSC-0347364 CVSC-0025077 CVSC-0336601 CVSC-0347371 CVSC-0025093 CVSC-0336601 CVSC-0347377 CVSC-0025135 CVSC-0344822 CVSC-0347385 CVSC-0025163 CVSC-0344696 CVSC-0347396 CVSC-0025223 CVSC-0344702 CVSC-0347401 CVSC-0025468 CVSC-0344705 CVSC-0347406 CVSC-0025532 CVSC-0344718 CVSC-0347408 CVSC-0026650 CVSC-0344731 CVSC-0347410 CVSC-0026655 CVSC-0344742 CVSC-0347412 CVSC-0027254 CVSC-0344752 CVSC-0347420 CVSC-0028678 CVSC-0344756 CVSC-0350268 CVSC-0030785 CVSC-0344758 CVSC-0350277 CVSC-0032041 CVSC-0344761 CVSC-0333731 CVSC-0032565 CVSC-0344797 CVSC-0350286 CVSC-0032574 CVSC-0333460 CVSC-0350295 CVSC-0032673 CVSC-0328460 CVSC-0328035 CVSC-0032756 CVSC-0328460 CVSC-0350304 CVSC-0032837 CVSC-0341299 CVSC-0333744 CVSC-0032840 CVSC-0341311 CVSC-0347423 CVSC-0032848 CVSC-0344824 CVSC-0347439 CVSC-0032854 CVSC-0344855 CVSC-0347457 CVSC-0032881 CVSC-0344886 CVSC-0347455 CVSC-0033636 CVSC-0344989 CVSC-0347471 CVSC-0034639 CVSC-0344995 CVSC-0350340 CVSC-0034823 CVSC-0345001 CVSC-0350397 CVSC-0039473 CVSC-0341475 CVSC-0333447 CVSC-0041434 CVSC-0341492 CVSC-0350336 CVSC-0049949 CVSC-0333307 CVSC-0343130 CVSC-0052361 CVSC-0345019 CVSC-0343170 CVSC-0061336 CVSC-0345024 CVSC-0343178 CVSC-0061339 CVSC-0345038 CVSC-0345812 CVSC-0061342 CVSC-0348713 CVSC-0347483 CVSC-0061668 CVSC-0348713 CVSC-0328482 CVSC-0061970 CVSC-0350097 CVSC-0333571 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0062799 CVSC-0328017 CVSC-0347505 CVSC-0062800 CVSC-0330753 CVSC-0347507 CVSC-0067921 CVSC-0345042 CVSC-0347509 CVSC-0068402 CVSC-0345061 CVSC-0347512 CVSC-0129199 CVSC-0345076 CVSC-0347514 CVSC-0129312 CVSC-0345089 CVSC-0337362 CVSC-0129312 CVSC-0345092 CVSC-0327563 CVSC-0129313 CVSC-0348807 CVSC-0327747 CVSC-0129946 CVSC-0348808 CVSC-0333772 CVSC-0145836 CVSC-0348888 CVSC-0347516 CVSC-0163647 CVSC-0351663 CVSC-0347545 CVSC-0163656 CVSC-0333592 CVSC-0352044 CVSC-0163657 CVSC-0329324 CVSC-0324071 CVSC-0163662 CVSC-0345105 CVSC-0323277 CVSC-0163699 CVSC-0345124 CVSC-0327565 CVSC-0163700 CVSC-0345143 CVSC-0329372 CVSC-0163715 CVSC-0351669 CVSC-0329288 CVSC-0163716 CVSC-0327537 CVSC-0325126 CVSC-0163728 CVSC-0327661 CVSC-0327813 CVSC-0163729 CVSC-0327795 CVSC-0327919 CVSC-0163764 CVSC-0327807 CVSC-0327875 CVSC-0163765 CVSC-0345159 CVSC-0347575 CVSC-0163779 CVSC-0345162 CVSC-0347577 CVSC-0163780 CVSC-0345164 CVSC-0347636 CVSC-0163915 CVSC-0345166 CVSC-0332913 CVSC-0163916 CVSC-0345168 CVSC-0352048 CVSC-0163926 CVSC-0345170 CVSC-0347580 CVSC-0163927 CVSC-0345172 CVSC-0347597 CVSC-0163939 CVSC-0345174 CVSC-0347612 CVSC-0163968 CVSC-0345176 CVSC-0347614 CVSC-0163969 CVSC-0345178 CVSC-0347617 CVSC-0163980 CVSC-0345180 CVSC-0347619 CVSC-0163981 CVSC-0345182 CVSC-0347621 CVSC-0164034 CVSC-0345184 CVSC-0347623 CVSC-0164064 CVSC-0345186 CVSC-0347625 CVSC-0164065 CVSC-0345188 CVSC-0347628 CVSC-0164069 CVSC-0345190 CVSC-0347630 CVSC-0164070 CVSC-0345192 CVSC-0347632 CVSC-0164079 CVSC-0345194 CVSC-0347634 CVSC-0164080 CVSC-0345196 CVSC-0347643 CVSC-0164096 CVSC-0345198 CVSC-0347655 CVSC-0164107 CVSC-0345200 CVSC-0329913 CVSC-0164162 CVSC-0345202 CVSC-0329444 CVSC-0164163 CVSC-0345204 CVSC-0330938 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0164172 CVSC-0345206 CVSC-0331698 CVSC-0164210 CVSC-0345208 CVSC-0328823 CVSC-0164211 CVSC-0345210 CVSC-0329163 CVSC-0198667 CVSC-0345212 CVSC-0329170 CVSC-0199412 CVSC-0345214 CVSC-0329444 CVSC-0200926 CVSC-0345216 CVSC-0333589 CVSC-0201555 CVSC-0345218 CVSC-0346278 CVSC-0222034 CVSC-0345220 CVSC-0347666 CVSC-0222429 CVSC-0345229 CVSC-0347673 CVSC-0222487 CVSC-0345231 CVSC-0347675 CVSC-0222490 CVSC-0345233 CVSC-0347703 CVSC-0222492 CVSC-0345242 CVSC-0347718 CVSC-0222495 CVSC-0345244 CVSC-0347731 CVSC-0222498 CVSC-0345246 CVSC-0347784 CVSC-0222500 CVSC-0345248 CVSC-0347798 CVSC-0222502 CVSC-0345251 CVSC-0347860 CVSC-0222507 CVSC-0345254 CVSC-0347866 CVSC-0222511 CVSC-0345256 CVSC-0347870 CVSC-0222512 CVSC-0345258 CVSC-0347901 CVSC-0222516 CVSC-0345260 CVSC-0347928 CVSC-0222517 CVSC-0345262 CVSC-0347941 CVSC-0222519 CVSC-0345265 CVSC-0347972 CVSC-0222529 CVSC-0351675 CVSC-0347974 CVSC-0222531 CVSC-0348946 CVSC-0347997 CVSC-0222532 CVSC-0349998 CVSC-0348001 CVSC-0222534 CVSC-0333461 CVSC-0348027 CVSC-0222535 CVSC-0333486 CVSC-0348055 CVSC-0222551 CVSC-0345267 CVSC-0348085 CVSC-0222554 CVSC-0345294 CVSC-0348091 CVSC-0222555 CVSC-0345296 CVSC-0348097 CVSC-0222557 CVSC-0350676 CVSC-0348102 CVSC-0222560 CVSC-0350851 CVSC-0348107 CVSC-0222561 CVSC-0351027 CVSC-0348110 CVSC-0222564 CVSC-0323422 CVSC-0348114 CVSC-0222566 CVSC-0323753 CVSC-0348118 CVSC-0222572 CVSC-0324109 CVSC-0348122 CVSC-0222574 CVSC-0324389 CVSC-0348152 CVSC-0222576 CVSC-0342359 CVSC-0348122 CVSC-0222579 CVSC-0342360 CVSC-0348152 CVSC-0222581 CVSC-0342362 CVSC-0329511 CVSC-0222586 CVSC-0342367 CVSC-0327757 CVSC-0222587 CVSC-0345300 CVSC-0329511 CVSC-0222590 CVSC-0345302 CVSC-0350454 CVSC-0222600 CVSC-0345306 CVSC-0329106 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0222602 CVSC-0345309 CVSC-0333775 CVSC-0222606 CVSC-0345313 CVSC-0348181 CVSC-0222608 CVSC-0345316 CVSC-0348211 CVSC-0222610 CVSC-0345319 CVSC-0348215 CVSC-0222611 CVSC-0345346 CVSC-0348281 CVSC-0222615 CVSC-0345348 CVSC-0348219 CVSC-0222684 CVSC-0345351 CVSC-0348227 CVSC-0222727 CVSC-0345356 CVSC-0341521 CVSC-0222728 CVSC-0345359 CVSC-0341531 CVSC-0222729 CVSC-0345362 CVSC-0348291 CVSC-0222731 CVSC-0345367 CVSC-0344204 CVSC-0222732 CVSC-0345370 CVSC-0344210 CVSC-0222733 CVSC-0345373 CVSC-0329206 CVSC-0222735 CVSC-0345376 CVSC-0327801 CVSC-0222739 CVSC-0345379 CVSC-0327812 CVSC-0222743 CVSC-0345382 CVSC-0327977 CVSC-0222760 CVSC-0345387 CVSC-0328485 CVSC-0222765 CVSC-0345389 CVSC-0329206 CVSC-0222766 CVSC-0345392 CVSC-0348293 CVSC-0222768 CVSC-0345394 CVSC-0348315 CVSC-0222779 CVSC-0345396 CVSC-0348361 CVSC-0222781 CVSC-0345398 CVSC-0348363 CVSC-0222782 CVSC-0345401 CVSC-0348365 CVSC-0222784 CVSC-0345403 CVSC-0348368 CVSC-0222788 CVSC-0345405 CVSC-0348371 CVSC-0222790 CVSC-0345408 CVSC-0352094 CVSC-0222792 CVSC-0345411 CVSC-0352097 CVSC-0222794 CVSC-0345414 CVSC-0328385 CVSC-0222798 CVSC-0345418 CVSC-0329192 CVSC-0222800 CVSC-0345423 CVSC-0348374 CVSC-0222869 CVSC-0345426 CVSC-0348388 CVSC-0222870 CVSC-0345437 CVSC-0348392 CVSC-0222874 CVSC-0345440 CVSC-0348395 CVSC-0222877 CVSC-0345443 CVSC-0348397 CVSC-0222878 CVSC-0345446 CVSC-0348399 CVSC-0222883 CVSC-0345449 CVSC-0348401 CVSC-0222893 CVSC-0345451 CVSC-0348404 CVSC-0222895 CVSC-0345454 CVSC-0348407 CVSC-0222899 CVSC-0345456 CVSC-0348409 CVSC-0222901 CVSC-0345458 CVSC-0348423 CVSC-0222903 CVSC-0345462 CVSC-0348425 CVSC-0222904 CVSC-0345466 CVSC-0348427 CVSC-0222906 CVSC-0345473 CVSC-0348429 CVSC-0222909 CVSC-0345477 CVSC-0348431 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix A: List of Materials Considered Bates Bates Bates CVSC-0222948 CVSC-0345479 CVSC-0348433 CVSC-0222949 CVSC-0345482 CVSC-0348435 CVSC-0222950 CVSC-0345484 CVSC-0348437 CVSC-0222951 CVSC-0345486 CVSC-0348439 CVSC-0222952 CVSC-0345492 CVSC-0348441 CVSC-0222954 CVSC-0345498 CVSC-0348443 CVSC-0222959 CVSC-0345502 CVSC-0348445 CVSC-0222960 CVSC-0345535 CVSC-0348447 CVSC-0222961 CVSC-0345536 CVSC-0348449 CVSC-0222963 CVSC-0348684 CVSC-0348451 CVSC-0222966 CVSC-0348705 CVSC-0348453 CVSC-0222968 CVSC-0356445 CVSC-0348456 CVSC-0222983 CVSC-0351694 CVSC-0348458 CVSC-0222998 CVSC-0351708 CVSC-0348461 CVSC-0223000 CVSC-0351715 CVSC-0348464 CVSC-0223002 CVSC-0351721 CVSC-0348466 CVSC-0223005 CVSC-0351730 CVSC-0348468 CVSC-0223006 CVSC-0351738 CVSC-0348470 CVSC-0223009 CVSC-0351741 CVSC-0348472 CVSC-0223010 CVSC-0351744 CVSC-0348479 CVSC-0223012 CVSC-0351748 CVSC-0348481 CVSC-0223024 CVSC-0351750 CVSC-0348483 CVSC-0223027 CVSC-0351753 CVSC-0348485 CVSC-0223084 CVSC-0351756 CVSC-0348487 CVSC-0223086 CVSC-0351759 CVSC-0348489 CVSC-0223099 CVSC-0351762 CVSC-0348491 CVSC-0223120 CVSC-0351765 CVSC-0348493 CVSC-0223124 CVSC-0351768 CVSC-0348496 CVSC-0223130 CVSC-0351771 CVSC-0348498 CVSC-0223135 CVSC-0351774 CVSC-0348500 CVSC-0223140 CVSC-0351777 CVSC-0348502 CVSC-0223145 CVSC-0351780 CVSC-0327466 CVSC-0223150 CVSC-0351784 CVSC-0333577 CVSC-0223153 CVSC-0351787 CVSC-0341532 CVSC-0223160 CVSC-0351790 CVSC-0341556 CVSC-0223161 CVSC-0351793 CVSC-0012216 CVSC-0223162 CVSC-0351796 CVSC-0012217 CVSC-0022108 CVSC-0022109 CVSC-0022382 CVSC-0022478 CVSC-0022544 CVSC-0022587 CVSC-0030906 CVSC-0031007 CVSC-0031009 CVSC-0397707 CVSC-0230390 CVSC-0292535 CVSC-0030786 CVSC-0222083 CVSC-0401176 CVSC-0222093 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 1 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 2 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 3 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 4 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 5 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 6 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 7 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 8 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 9 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 10 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 11 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 12 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 13 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER Page 14 of 14 7 JANUARY 27, 2017 REPORT OF BRETT E. BARLAG ON BEHALF OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appendix C Bates Numbers With Duplicates State 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 99th Arizona $ 18,614,556 $ 9,216,806 $ 2,049,433 $ 229,385 $ 72,193 $ 32,114 California $ 140,474,243 $ 56,558,275 $ 12,247,331 $ 3,187,799 $ 906,013 $ 177,445 Florida $ 83,912,116 $ 41,165,222 $ 8,798,303 $ 878,394 $ 271,525 $ 150,668 Georgia $ 55,314,376 $ 26,868,030 $ 6,625,316 $ 1,320,320 $ 328,394 $ 69,460 Illinois $ 38,122,079 $ 19,354,595 $ 4,724,082 $ 638,463 $ 159,208 $ 53,433 Massachusetts $ 99,637,899 $ 40,836,506 $ 8,769,355 $ 2,026,562 $ 442,285 $ 90,479 New Jersey $ 43,069,288 $ 25,403,214 $ 7,549,277 $ 1,532,140 $ 383,117 $ 59,352 New York $ 63,118,370 $ 30,977,135 $ 8,085,378 $ 1,741,692 $ 443,714 $ 89,167 Ohio $ 47,969,060 $ 23,009,988 $ 5,416,316 $ 883,026 $ 219,957 $ 57,720 Pennsylvania $ 65,690,746 $ 30,697,496 $ 7,084,332 $ 1,388,201 $ 375,393 $ 101,040 Texas $ 84,051,818 $ 40,046,914 $ 8,084,660 $ 879,744 $ 237,489 $ 106,974 Total $ 739,974,552 $ 344,134,181 $ 79,433,783 $ 14,705,726 $ 3,839,290 $ 987,852 Distinct Bates Numbers State 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 99th Arizona $ 15,451,020 $ 7,647,977 $ 1,698,583 $ 189,843 $ 59,163 $ 26,290 California $ 116,557,322 $ 46,929,416 $ 10,172,579 $ 2,656,526 $ 765,092 $ 160,693 Florida $ 69,647,260 $ 34,139,500 $ 7,287,526 $ 710,140 $ 206,913 $ 106,592 Georgia $ 45,884,215 $ 22,279,207 $ 5,488,239 $ 1,091,833 $ 269,113 $ 53,713 Illinois $ 31,666,881 $ 16,067,027 $ 3,920,598 $ 532,816 $ 133,990 $ 46,160 Massachusetts $ 82,714,143 $ 33,899,368 $ 7,285,030 $ 1,687,718 $ 372,093 $ 80,246 New Jersey $ 35,757,688 $ 21,071,635 $ 6,259,563 $ 1,271,656 $ 317,838 $ 49,453 New York $ 52,389,040 $ 25,693,252 $ 6,707,448 $ 1,447,023 $ 370,708 $ 77,547 Ohio $ 39,820,686 $ 19,088,432 $ 4,495,447 $ 733,432 $ 183,919 $ 49,848 Pennsylvania $ 54,530,363 $ 25,471,819 $ 5,874,671 $ 1,151,256 $ 309,900 $ 81,458 Texas $ 69,748,932 $ 33,225,621 $ 6,705,971 $ 729,694 $ 195,058 $ 86,912 Total $ 614,167,550 $ 285,513,254 $ 65,895,656 $ 12,201,937 $ 3,183,787 $ 818,913 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDRER