Sutter Health federal antitrust trial kicks off later this week

A federal antitrust lawsuit against Sutter Health is scheduled to begin later this week.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler met with the parties on Monday to iron out the remaining details for the trial, including COVID-19 protocols.

Beeler reminded the parties jurors would need to follow local rules regarding COVID-19 mitigation. In addition, jurors for this case will need to be fully vaccinated and boosted.

"I'm going to let more people in the courtroom for jury selection," Beeler said. "I personally am so much more comfortable with the health landscape than I was in January."

The class action claims Sutter Health violated antitrust and unfair competition laws, causing individuals and employers in 38 counties in Northern California to overpay for health insurance premiums for policies from Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, Health Net or United HealthCare. Federal employees and people whose in-patient hospital services were paid for by Medicare or Medi-Cal are not included in the class, according to the website created to inform class members. Class certification was granted July 30.

The judge said if case counts continue to fall, she hopes to lift more restrictions, including allowing the attorneys to conduct questioning without masks. Beeler said she would not impose anything people are uncomfortable with, especially if an individual has health issues.

The judge warned lawyers to stick to the evidence during opening statements.

"If a slide is tethered to a piece of evidence, I am very inclined to let it in," she said. "Defense lawyers don't like it. I think it's fair. I think it's good advocacy. I'm letting you know what my philosophy is. If the evidence will show, then you're allowed to essentially argue it. We'll call it asserted, because it's not argumentative, even though we all know it is."

Jill H. Manning is one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. She told the judge the parties have agreed to meet daily to hash out objections to trial exhibits and deposition designations the parties want to move into evidence the following day.

"We wanted to ask your honor your preference on when we could meet with you to the extent that any objections haven't been resolved during the meet and confer process," Manning said.

In response, Beeler expressed her willingness to accommodate the parties' counsel to listen to arguments regarding deposition designations outside of trial time.

On objections to evidence Beeler said, "Advance preparation ought to address all of the issues that you have with your objections to each other's evidence," otherwise the evidence should not be submitted.

The named plaintiffs in this case are Djeneba Sidibe, Jerry Jankowski, Susan Herman, David Hansen, Johnson Pool & Spa and Optimum Graphics Inc., and they are represented by Matthew L. Cantor of Constantine Cannon LLP, Azra Z. Mehdi of The Medhi Firm PC, Jean Kim of Constantine Cannon LLP, Allen Steyer of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, David M. Goldstein of Farmer Brownstein Jaeger Goldstein Klein & Siegel LLP, David Brownstein of Farmer Brownstein Jaeger Goldstein Klein & Siegel LLP and Manning of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP.

Defendants are represented by Jeffrey A. LeVee and David C. Kiernan of Jones Day and Robert H. Bunzel and Oliver Q. Dunlap of Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller. Sidibe v. Sutter Health, 3:12-cv-04854, (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2012).