Case Name: Sidibe v. Sutter Health
Type of Case: Antitrust
Court: Northern District
Judge(s): Magistrate Judge Laurel D. Beeler
Defense Lawyers: Jones Day, David C. Kiernan, Jeffrey A. LeVee, Craig E. Stewart, Catherine T. Zeng, Caroline N Mitchell, Christopher H. Domingo, Brian Selden, Matthew Silveira, Elizabeth M. Burnside, Caroline O'Van Wagoner, Danielle R. Leneck; Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller APC: Robert H. Bunzel, Patrick M. Ryan, Oliver Q. Dunlap, John "Jack" McLean, Kerry L. Duffy, Tyler M. Cunningham, W. Paul Schuck
Plaintiff Lawyers: Constantine Cannon LLP, Matthew L. Cantor, Jean Kim, Rosa Morales, Matthew Koenig, Justin Wyatt Fore; Farmer Brownstein Jaeger Goldstein & Klein LLP, William S. Farmer, David M. Goldstein, David C. Brownstein; Keller Grover LLP, Eric A. Grover; Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Todd Michael Schneider; Steyer Lowenthas Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Allan Steyer, Jill Michelle Manning, Suneel Jain, Donald Scott Macrae
With jurors masked for the pandemic and complex claims that a hospital chain's anticompetitive behavior inflated insurance premiums, the task for the defense wasn't easy. But teams from Jones Day and Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller APC obtained a 9-0 defense verdict in a class action potentially worth as much as $1.26 billion.
The jurors found that Sutter Health did not wrongly tie its hospital services together, did not force insurance companies to contract with Sutter on anticompetitive terms and did not violate antitrust laws.
"Health care is complicated," said Jones Day's David C. Kiernan, who, with colleague Jeffrey A. LeVee and Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller APC's Robert H. Bunzel led the defense. "The economics are tricky. There were experts talking about sophisticated regression models and econometrics. The jury had to determine whether the hospital's conduct caused higher prices and higher insurance premiums -- in a situation where we knew there were negative public attitudes toward high health care costs."
The defense team simplified concepts and battled through obstacles. "We lost one juror to Covid on the first day of trial," LeVee said. "Part of the art of trying cases is to read faces, but here you had only eyes and eyebrows to look at. One woman who nodded her head affirmatively appeared favorable to us, but she later said she was just signaling that she understood the testimony." Sidibe v. Sutter Health, 3:12-cv-04854 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2012).
Bunzel examined witnesses and led jury selection. He examined more than 100 potential jurors, using juror answers from a lengthy, specially created questionnaire to elicit bias. Bunzel successfully moved the trial court to excuse more than a dozen jurors for cause over plaintiffs' objections.
The win was especially significant for the client, Kiernan said, because it was confident in its business practices. "Sutter was determined to show the public that its conduct was appropriate."
Lead plaintiff lawyer Matthew L. Cantor of Constantine Cannon LLP said the judge made errors that he expects will lead to reversal on appeal.
--John Roemer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com