# Reply Briefmm — United Hospital Center v. Guida > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_0508%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Briefmm - **Published:** January 1, 2002 - **Citation:** 537 U.S. 1047 ## Text + = Siipreme Court, U.S. A ¥LiLED | NOV 12 2062 No. 02-512 IN THE Sc Supreme Court of the Cited States UNITED HOSPITAL CENTER et al., Petitioners, V. DANIEL GUIDA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of West Virginia REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONERS CARTER G. PHILLIPS* JOSEPH R. GUERRA MICHAEL D. HATCHER SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Petitioners November 12, 2002 * Counsel of Record a TTT ATLL TER TERTE TOES OT AN OTE SOBRE IED SAE NRO I CE SN OREN TN WILSON-EPES PRINTING Co., INC. — (202) 789-0096 -— WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page py) PB i@s Blige. tty > Sr onnnereren il REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONERS. ................0.0......26. ] SURI 656 5550 soc Fastener daseicivenvetisaeestuscovereasens 10 APPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 29.6 STATE- ict creip ul abl vistsiwiercnicincpmcuisienaucacdaesee la (i) li TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (19839)...... 6 Amchen Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 CHODT) .....0inissasciésvnrventtonnedentene naa 4 Angel Music, Inc. v. ABC Sports, Inc., 112 F.R.D. MO GDN.Y. 19GB ...1.00nidmamuaiaeneres 8 Board of Educ. v. Superior Court, 448 U.S. 1343 {. nenecre 3 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US. 95 (19BD) .........::: These cases involved well-recognized non-Article III types of state court adjudications (see Pet. at 14-15), all of which have_ historical antecedents that predate the federal constitution itself. See R. Berger, Standing to Sue in Public Actions: Is it a Constitutional Requirement, 78 Yale L.J. 816 (1969). 7 able to maintain suit against an entity whose practices are unlike those of the hospital with whom he actually dealt. Indeed, by allowing him to maintain suit against literally dozens of entities with whom he has never dealt, the state courts have afforded respondent enormous, and entirely ‘improper, leverage that he can use to extract a settlement without ever alleging, let alone proving, injury at the hands of petitioners. Respondent’s contention that this unfairness does not implicate the due process concerns that led to this sgn adoption of the “minimum contacts” test, Br. at 14-15, simply wrong. In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., this con stressed that what is “critical to the due process analysis . . . is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” 444 U.S. at 297.4 The Court noted, moreover, that predictable legal rules governing amenability to suit “allow[] potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.” /d. Here, permitting plaintiff to sue Webster Memorial and all of the other petitioners with whom he has never dealt is unfair precisely because these petitioners could not reasonably have anticipated being sued by him, and they had no reason to structure their primary conduct in order to protect themselves against such a suit. 3. Respondent’s reliance on the “juridical links” doctrine serves only to underscore the impropriety of the decision * In light of the Court’s emphasis on due process and the requirements of “‘fair play and substantial justice,” 444 U.S. at 292, respondeni’s suggestion that the “minimum contacts” test involves “issues of federalism,” not due process, Br. at 14, is baseless. Indeed, in /nsurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982), the Court explained that jurisdictional restrictions based on state sovereign power “must be seen as ultimately a function of the individual liberty interest preserved by the Due Process Clause.” /d. at 702 n.10. 8 below. Respondent quotes at length from the lower court, which found that petitioners are juridically linked because of their “‘unique duty,” as “‘licensed, certified, or registered health care providers in West Virginia,’” to “‘furnish medical records,’” and because the statutory scheme “‘gives rise to a cohesiveness, connective link, or interrelationship between” the defendants and the claims asserted.’” Br. at 28. But these “findings” in no way demonstrate that it is fair or proper to dispense with the fundamental requirement that a private plaintiff allege harm at the hands of the private defendants he has sued. West Virginia’s medical records statute gave petitioners no reason to anticipate being sued by persons with whom they have never dealt, nor any reason to structure their primary conduct in order to protect themselves against such suits. Indeed, the circumstances of petitioner Webster Memorial Hospital more than refute any suggestion that common regulation obviates the due process problems that arise when a private plaintiff is permitted to sue a private defendant with whom the plaintiff has never dealt. The lower courts’ contrary conclusion conflicts with decisions of state and federal courts that have rejected just this argument. Streich v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 399 N.W.2d 210, 216 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987); Angel Music, Inc. v. ABC Sports, Inc., 112 F.R.D. 70, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Nor does respondent’s bald — and economically non- sensical — allegation of a conspiracy obviate the due process violation that maintenance of this suit entails. In fact, respondent admits that, after roughly a year of discovery, he has adduced no evidence of any conspiracy to fix prices, and instead relies on testimony concerning a “‘general consensus” to charge 75 cents per page. Br. at 25-26. A * Respondent’s statement that the financial services director for one petitioner “made it clear that the hospitals throughout the state have agreed to charge this maximum allowable rate,” Br. at 25, is plainly false. This person stated that “[t]hat’s sort of a common practice,” but acknowledged that “I have not seen other hospitals’ policies and 9 consensus is simply not a conspiracy, particularly where, as here, the alleged “conspirators” do not compete with one another in the provision of patient medical records, and thus have absolutely no reason to fix the prices they charge for those records. Indeed, it is because there is no competition that prices are regulated by the state statute. 4. Finally, there is no reason to defer plenary consideration of the important issue that this case raises. The West Virginia Supreme Court has become the second state supreme court to dispense with the “private injury” requirement and to permit a plaintiff to sue a private defendant with whom the plaintiff has never dealt. See Weld v. Glaxo Wellcome Inc., 746 N.E.2d 522, 530-31 (Mass. 2001) (permitting plaintiff to sue, under “juridical links” doctrine, companies with whom he had never dealt). As petitioners have explained, class counsel have aggressively pursued similar actions against entire industries based on the same flawed theory of common regulation that the lower courts accepted in this case. Pet. at 22. The decision in this case and the reasoning in Weld provide a green light for future actions against private defendants unfairly haled into court by plaintiffs who can allege no injury at the hands of the defendants. procedures here in West Virginia.” (McFadden Dep. at 93, in App. to Resp’t, Danial J. Guida’s Resp. to Hospital’s Pet. for Writ of Prohibition.) 10 CONCLUSION This Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, CARTER G. PHILLIPS* JOSEPH R. GUERRA MICHAEL D. HATCHER SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Petitioners November 12, 2002 * Counsel of Record --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_0508%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.