United States, et al. v. OhioHealth Corporation; Amended Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment

y of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In considering these statutory factors, the Court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one, as the government is entitled to ``broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 25- CV-00951-PCP, 2026 WL 2349970, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2026); United States v. U.S. Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that the ``court's inquiry is limited'' in Tunney Act settlements); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (noting that a court's review of a proposed final judgment is limited and only inquires ``into whether the government's determination that the proposed remedies will cure the antitrust violations alleged in the complaint [is] reasonable, and whether the mechanisms to enforce the final judgment are clear and manageable''); United States v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 2:16-3664, 2016 U.S.