IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOHN DOE ONE, JOHN DOE TWO; 

JOHN DOE THREE; and JOHN DOE FOUR, 

on behalf of themselves and all similarly 

situated individuals 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CAREMARK, LLC,; 

FISERV, INC., 

FISERV SOLUTIONS, LLC; and 

DEFENDANTS DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CIVIL ACTION 

No. 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV 

No. 2:18-cv-00488-EAS-CMV 

(Consolidated for all purposes) 

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

DEFENDANT CAREMARK, L.L.C.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Defendant Caremark, L.L.C. (“Caremark”) files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses in 

response to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 74 in Case No. 

18-cv-238 and ECF No. 53 in Case No. 18-cv-488 (“Complaint”). 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT’S INDIVIDUALLY NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS 

In response to the allegations in the enumerated Paragraphs in the Complaint, Caremark 

responds as follows: 

RESPONSE TO NO. 1. 

Because the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint are vague, general, and 

amorphous, Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. In addition, 

Caremark denies the allegations in the final two sentences of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint on the 

grounds that they are legal conclusions for which no response is required. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 639
- 2 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 2. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint that Plaintiffs are “living with 

HIV” and that they “participat[] in the OhDAP Program” and, on that basis, denies those 

allegations. Caremark denies the remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 2 of the 

Complaint. In addition, Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion 

as to the truth of the allegations footnote 1 and, on that basis, denies them. Caremark denies the 

allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. Caremark admits that 

Plaintiffs purport to bring this lawsuit as a “putative class action” and that Plaintiffs seek “damages, 

injunctive, and declaratory relief,” but Caremark denies that Plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements 

for class certification (including without limitation the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23) and further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages or other relief. 

Caremark denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 3. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and, on that basis, 

denies them. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the 

truth of the allegation in the third sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint that Plaintiff John Doe 

One “received the mailing at issue” and, on that basis, denies it. Caremark denies all remaining 

allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 4. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 2 of 23 PAGEID #: 640
- 3 - 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and, on that basis, 

denies them. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the 

truth of the allegation in the third sentence of Paragraph 4 that Plaintiff John Doe Two “received 

the mailing at issue” and, on that basis, denies it. Caremark denies all remaining allegations in the 

third sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 5. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and, on that basis, 

denies them. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the 

truth of the allegation in the third sentence of Paragraph 5 that Plaintiff John Doe Three “received 

the mailing at issue” and, on that basis, denies it. Caremark denies all remaining allegations in the 

third sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 6. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and, on that basis, 

denies them. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the 

truth of the allegation in the third sentence of Paragraph 6 that Plaintiff John Doe Four “received 

the mailing at issue” and, on that basis, denies it. Caremark denies all remaining allegations in the 

third sentence of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 3 of 23 PAGEID #: 641
- 4 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 7. 

Caremark admits that it is not an Ohio limited liability company and that its principal place 

of business is in Illinois but denies the remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 7 

of the Complaint. Caremark admits that it entered into a contract, effective July 1, 2017, with the 

State of Ohio in response to a Request for Proposals for “Pharmacy Benefits Manager for the Ryan 

White Program.” Caremark admits that it sent a notice to certain OHDAP participants in August 

2017 (the “Notice”). Caremark admits that CVS Health Corporation and Caremark Rx, L.L.C. 

were named as defendants in the original complaint but have since been dismissed without 

prejudice. Except as expressly admitted herein, Caremark denies the allegations of Paragraph 7 of 

the Complaint, including the allegations in footnote 2. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 8. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, with the 

sole exception that Caremark admits that it contracted with Fiserv Solutions, LLC (“Fiserv 

Solutions”) and that the contract sets outs the terms of the contractual relationship between Fiserv 

Solutions and Caremark with respect to, inter alia, the Notice at issue in the Complaint. Because 

the allegations in the third and final sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint merely purport 

describe Caremark’s contract, Caremark states that the contract is the best source of its full content 

and context and, to the extent that the allegations in the third and final in Paragraph 8 of the 

Complaint do not accurately represent the full content and context of the contract, Caremark denies 

the allegations in the third and final sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Caremark denies 

any remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 4 of 23 PAGEID #: 642
- 5 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 9. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and, on that basis, 

denies them. Caremark denies the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 9 of the 

Complaint, with the sole exception that Caremark admits that it contracted with Fiserv Solutions 

and that the contract sets outs the terms of the contractual relationship between Fiserv Solutions 

and Caremark with respect to, inter alia, the Notice at issue in the Complaint. Caremark admits 

that Plaintiffs purport to refer to Fiserv, Inc. and Fiserv Solutions, LLC in the Complaint 

collectively as “Fiserv.” Caremark denies the allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 9 of 

the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted herein, Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 

9 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 10. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 11. 

As to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 11, Caremark admits that subject 

matter jurisdiction exists, but denies that it violated Plaintiffs’ rights and denies that Plaintiffs (or 

any putative class members) are entitled to any relief. Caremark denies the allegations in the 

second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Caremark lacks sufficient information or 

knowledge to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations in the third and fourth sentences of 

Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. Caremark also denies the 

allegations in the third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint to the extent 

Plaintiffs allege the Notice disclosed their HIV status and to the extent Plaintiffs allege they are 

entitled to any relief. Caremark denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 5 of 23 PAGEID #: 643
- 6 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 12. 

Because the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint assert legal conclusions, 

Caremark is not required to respond and, on that basis, denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of 

the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 13. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the heading immediately preceding Paragraph 13 of the 

Complaint. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 14. 

Because the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint merely purport to describe or 

quote the OhDAP website, Caremark states that the OhDAP website is the best source of its full 

content and context and, to the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint do not 

accurately represent the full content and context of the OhDAP’s website, Caremark denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 15. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 16. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and, on that 

basis, denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 6 of 23 PAGEID #: 644
- 7 - 

Caremark denies the allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and all 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 17. 

Caremark admits that on February 15, 2017, the State of Ohio, through the Department of 

Administrative Services, Office of Procurement Services, for the Ohio Department of Health, 

issued a Request for Proposals for: Pharmacy Benefits Manager for the Ryan White Program 

(“Request for Proposals”), but denies any remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 

17. Caremark denies the allegations in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 17 of the 

Complaint. Because the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint merely purport 

to describe or quote Caremark’s response to the Request for Proposals, Caremark states that its 

response to the Request for Proposals is the best source of its full content and context and, to the 

extent that the allegations in Paragraph 17 do not accurately represent the full content and context 

of Caremark’s response to the Request for Proposals, Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 

17 of the Complaint. Caremark also denies the allegations in footnote 3 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 18. 

Because the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint merely purport to describe or 

quote Caremark’s response to the Requests for Proposal, Caremark states that its response to the 

Requests for Proposals is the best source of its full content and context and, to the extent that the 

allegations in Paragraph 18 do not accurately represent the full content and context of Caremark’s 

response to the Requests for Proposals, Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the 

Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 7 of 23 PAGEID #: 645
- 8 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 19. 

Caremark admits that it entered into a contract, effective July 1, 2017, with the State of 

Ohio in response to a Request for Proposals for “Pharmacy Benefits Manager for the Ryan White 

Program.” Because the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 19 merely purport to describe 

the contract, Caremark states that the contract is the best source of its full content and context and, 

to the extent that the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 19 do not accurately represent 

the full content and context of the contract, Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence 

of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. Caremark denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of 

the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 20. 

Caremark admits that it caused the Notice to be sent to certain OHDAP participants in 

August 2017 but denies the remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 20. Caremark 

denies the allegations in second and third sentences of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Because 

the allegations in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 20 merely purport to describe or quote the 

Notice, Caremark states that the Notice itself is the best source of its full content and context and, 

to the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 20 do not accurately represent the full content and 

context of the Notice, Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. As to 

the allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Caremark admits that, to 

the extent it shares protected information with other “CVS entities” (or other entities), it does so 

in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and other obligations and requirements. Because 

the remaining allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 20 assert legal conclusions, no 

response is required and, on that basis, Caremark denies the remaining allegations in the final 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 8 of 23 PAGEID #: 646
- 9 - 

sentence of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 21. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, and ninth sentences of 

Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Because the allegations in the second and third sentences of 

Paragraph 21 of the Complaint merely purport to describe the appearance of the Notice, Caremark 

states that the Notice itself is the best source of its appearance and, to the extent that the allegations 

in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 21 do not accurately describe the appearance of the 

Notice, Caremark denies the allegations in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 21 of the 

Complaint. Caremark admits the program identification code was not required by ODH and was 

created by Caremark but denies any remaining allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 21 of 

the Complaint. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the 

truth of the allegations in the eighth sentence of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and, on that basis, 

denies them.1 Caremark denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 22. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 23. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 24. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 

The allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 24 are vague and ambiguous, in particular the 

1

 The purported image of the Notice is not an allegation and therefore no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required, Caremark denies this allegation. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 9 of 23 PAGEID #: 647
- 10 - 

references to unidentified “privacy practices” and uncited quoted language. As a result, Caremark 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations in 

the second sentence of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. Caremark 

admits that it requires its vendors to protect customers’ privacy and protected information in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations and in accordance with certain policies. However, 

because the allegations in the third2, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of Paragraph 24 of the 

Complaint merely purport to describe or quote Caremark policies, Caremark states that those 

documents are the best source of their full content and context and, to the extent that the allegations 

in Paragraph 24 do not accurately represent the full content and context of Caremark’s policies 

(and other documents referenced), Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the 

Complaint. As to the allegations in the seventh sentence of Paragraph 24, Caremark admits that 

Mr. Baker responded to a communication from Mr. Terry Kilgore but denies the remaining 

allegations seventh sentence of Paragraph 24. Caremark denies that it has “disclos[ed] for public 

viewing the HIV status” of Plaintiffs or of the putative class members and therefore denies 

allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 25. 

Caremark denies there has been any “disclosure” as alleged in the first sentence of 

Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Because the remaining allegations in the first sentence of 

Paragraph 25 and the allegations in the second, third, and fifth of sentences of Paragraph 25 merely 

purport to describe Caremark’s Notice of Privacy Practices and/or Caremark’s response to the 

2

 For clarity, the third sentence refers to the sentence beginning with “For example” and ending 

with “Business Associate Agreements.” 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 10 of 23 PAGEID #: 648
- 11 - 

Request for Proposals, Caremark states that those documents are the best source of their full 

content and context and, to the extent those allegations do not accurately represent the full content 

and context of the Notice of Privacy Practices and Caremark’s response to the Request for 

Proposals, Caremark denies the remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 25 and the 

allegations in the second, third, and fifth of sentences of Paragraph 25. Caremark denies the 

allegations in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Caremark denies that it “sen[t] 

Plaintiffs and Class members a notice publicly disclosing their PHI as part of a haphazard 

identification code” and denies the allegations in the sixth sentence of Paragraph 25. Caremark 

denies the allegations in the seventh sentence of Paragraph 25. Caremark denies any remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 25. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 26. 

Because the allegations in the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of Paragraph 26 

of the Complaint merely purport to describe the FTC consent decree “from In the Matter of CVS 

Caremark Corporation, FTC Case No. C-4259,” “order[s] implementing that consent decree,” and 

Caremark’s response to a Request for Proposals for “Pharmacy Benefits Manager for the Ryan 

White Program,” Caremark states that those documents are the best source of their full content and 

context and, to the extent that the allegations in the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of 

Paragraph 26 do not accurately represent the full content and context of those documents, 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of Paragraph 

26. In addition, to the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 26 purport to describe the operation 

or obligations of the FTC consent decree “from In the Matter of CVS Caremark Corporation, FTC 

Case No. C-4259,” those allegations amount to legal conclusions for which no response is required 

and, on that additional basis, Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 11 of 23 PAGEID #: 649
- 12 - 

Caremark denies the allegations in the second, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh sentences 

of Paragraph 26, as well as any and all remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 27. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

Caremark denies that it “disclose[d] patients’ HIV status to the public,” and denies the allegations 

in the second sentence of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. The allegations in the third sentence of 

Paragraph 27 of the Complaint that “[i]n addition to CVS’s representations about its compliance 

with state and federal laws as described above” is vague and ambiguous. As a result, Caremark 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of these allegations in 

the third sentence of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. Because the 

remaining allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 27, and the allegations in the fourth and 

final sentences of Paragraph 27, merely purport to quote or describe Caremark’s Notice of Privacy 

Practices and “Vendor Code of Conduct,” Caremark states the Notice of Privacy Practices and 

“Vendor Code of Conduct” are the best sources of their full content and context and, to the extent 

that the remaining allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 27, and the allegations in the 

fourth and final sentences of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, do not accurately represent the full 

content and context of the Notice of Privacy Practices and/or “Vendor Code of Conduct,” 

Caremark denies those allegations. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form 

an opinion as to the truth of the allegations concerning Fiserv in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint 

and, on that basis, denies them. Caremark denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the 

Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 12 of 23 PAGEID #: 650
- 13 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 28. 

Caremark admits that Mr. Terry Kilgore sent Caremark a fax on or about September 4, 

2017, and Mr. Neal Baker responded on or about September 7, 2017. Except as expressly admitted 

herein, Caremark denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 29. 

Caremark denies that the Notice disclosed Plaintiffs’ HIV status (or other protected 

information) and denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

Because the allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint merely purport 

summarize an unidentified purported Caremark website, Caremark lacks sufficient knowledge or 

information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 

29 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies the allegations in the final sentence of Paragraph 29 

of the Complaint. Caremark lacks sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the 

truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, including without limitation 

the allegations in footnotes 4 and 5, and on that basis denies them. Caremark denies any remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 30. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 31. 

Caremark lacks sufficient information or knowledge to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint (including any allegations in footnote 6) and, on 

that basis, denies them. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 13 of 23 PAGEID #: 651
- 14 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 32. 

Caremark denies that the Notice disclosed Plaintiffs’ or putative members’ HIV or AIDS 

status (or any other protected information). Caremark denies the allegations in the final sentence 

of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form 

an opinion as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, including 

footnotes 7 and 8, and, on that basis, denies them. Caremark denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 33. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

Because the remaining allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint merely assert legal 

conclusions, no response is required and, on that basis, Caremark denies the remaining allegations 

in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 34. 

Because the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint assert only 

legal conclusions, no response is required and, on that basis, Caremark denies the allegations in 

the first sentence of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. Caremark denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 35. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies them.

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 14 of 23 PAGEID #: 652
- 15 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 36. 

Caremark denies that Plaintiffs or putative class members are entitled to any relief, whether 

legal or equitable, and denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 37. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations that “each of the Plaintiffs received the letter in question,” “John Doe Two lives in 

a small town and fears the stigma that would result from the disclosure of his HIV status,” “John 

Doe Three lives in a small town where ‘everyone knows everyone,’” John Doe Four “has taken 

great pains to keep his HIV status private for many years” and, on that basis, denies these 

allegations. Caremark denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, 

including all subparts thereto. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 38. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the heading immediately preceding Paragraph 38 of the 

Complaint. Caremark admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of the putative 

class described in Paragraph 38 but denies that Plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements for class 

certification, including the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Caremark denies 

any remaining allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 39. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the 

allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

them. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 15 of 23 PAGEID #: 653
- 16 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 40. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, including all subparts 

thereto. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 41. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 42. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 43. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 44. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 45. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 46. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 47. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the headings immediately above Paragraph 47 of the 

Complaint. Caremark incorporates and restates its responses to all allegations of the Complaint as 

if fully set forth herein. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 48. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 

The allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, however, assert legal 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 16 of 23 PAGEID #: 654
- 17 - 

conclusions. As a result, Caremark is not required to respond and, on that basis, Caremark denies 

the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 49. 

Caremark lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of 

the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

them. Caremark denies the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 

The allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint assert legal conclusions. 

As a result, Caremark is not required to respond and, on that basis, denies the allegations in the 

third sentence of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 50. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 51. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 52. 

Caremark denies that it (or Fiserv) has “disclose[d] the Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ HIV 

status to the public” and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 if the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 53. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 54. 

Caremark admits that Plaintiffs purport to identify the relief they seek in Paragraph 54 of 

the Complaint. Caremark denies that Plaintiffs (or “Class members”) are entitled to any relief, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 17 of 23 PAGEID #: 655
- 18 - 

including the relief requested in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 55. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the heading immediately above Paragraph 55 of the 

Complaint. Caremark incorporates and restates its responses to all preceding Paragraphs of the 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

RESPONSE TO NO. 56. 

Caremark admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring a claim pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code §§ 

3701.243. Except as expressly admitted herein, Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 

of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 57. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 58. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 59. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 60. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, including all subparts 

thereto.

RESPONSE TO NO. 61. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 62. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 18 of 23 PAGEID #: 656
- 19 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 63. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.

RESPONSE TO NO. 64. 

Caremark admits that Plaintiffs purport to identify the relief they seek in Paragraph 64 of 

the Complaint. Caremark denies that Plaintiffs (or “Class members”) are entitled to any relief, 

including the relief requested in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 65. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the headings immediately preceding Paragraph 65 of 

the Complaint. Caremark incorporates and restates its responses to all Paragraphs of the Complaint 

as if fully set forth herein. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 66. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 67. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 68. 

Caremark admits that Plaintiffs and purported “Class Members” purport to identify the 

relief they seek in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. Caremark denies that Plaintiffs (or “Class 

Members”) are entitled to any relief, including the relief requested in Paragraph 68 of the 

Complaint. Caremark denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 19 of 23 PAGEID #: 657
- 20 - 

RESPONSE TO NO. 69. 

Caremark denies the allegations in the heading immediately preceding Paragraph 69 of 

the Complaint. Caremark incorporates and restates its responses to all Paragraphs as if fully set 

forth herein. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 70. 

Caremark admits that it complied with applicable laws, regulations, and obligations. 

Caremark denies that it “fail[ed] to protect Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ PHI in accordance with 

applicable state and federal regulations” or any alleged agreement. Caremark also denies that it 

“failed to maintain adequate and reasonable privacy practices to protect . . . [Plaintiffs’ and putative 

class members’] PHI.” Caremark denies that Plaintiffs or putative class members are entitled to 

any relief, including declaratory relief. As to the allegations in footnote 9, Caremark admits that 

the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, breach of 

confidentiality, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, 

invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but Caremark denies all 

remaining allegations in footnote 9. Except as expressly admitted herein, Caremark denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 71. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO NO. 72. 

Caremark denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. Caremark denies the 

claims that Plaintiffs cite in footnote 9 and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 20 of 23 PAGEID #: 658
- 21 - 

Wherefore, Caremark denies that there is any legal or factual basis for any of the relief 

Plaintiffs or the putative class members seek to recover in the Complaint’s “Prayer for Relief,” 

including without limitation in subparts (A) through (I) thereto. 

To the extent not expressly admitted above, Caremark denies each and every allegation in 

the Complaint and denies that Plaintiffs and the putative class is entitled to any judgement or any 

other relief whether or not expressly requested. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Caremark asserts the following affirmative defenses without admitting or acknowledging 

that Caremark bears the burden of proof as to any of them: 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

 (No Disclosure) 

Plaintiffs’ claims fail because there has been no unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiffs’ or 

the putative class members’ HIV status and/or personal health information. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Injury or Harm) 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails because neither the Plaintiffs nor the putative class members 

have been injured or harmed as alleged in the Complaint. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Failure to State a Claim) 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Failure to Mitigate Damages) 

Plaintiffs’ are barred to the extent that they failed to mitigate their damages. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 21 of 23 PAGEID #: 659
- 22 - 

 (Reservation) 

Caremark reserves the right to assert additional defenses, denials, and avoidances that 

discovery and/or investigation may disclose as appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, this 5th day of April, 2019. 

 /s Robert G. Cohen 

 Robert G. Cohen (0041707) 

KEGLER BROWN HILL + RITTER CO., LPA 

65 East State Street, Suite 1800 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Phone: 615-462-5492 

Fax: 614-462-2634 

rcohen@keglerbrown.com 

Kristine M. Brown (admitted pro hac) 

Donald M. Houser (admitted pro hac) 

Matthew L.J.D. Dowell (admitted pro hac) 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1201 West Peachtree Street 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Phone: 404-881-7434 

Fax: 404-881-7777 

kristy.brown@alston.com 

donald.houser@alston.com 

matt.dowell@alston.com 

Attorneys for Caremark, LLC 

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 22 of 23 PAGEID #: 660
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 5th, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing 

to all attorneys of record. 

/s Robert G. Cohen 

Robert G. Cohen (0041707)

Case: 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV Doc #: 80 Filed: 04/05/19 Page: 23 of 23 PAGEID #: 661