Jones Day wins bid opposing all-virtual trial in Sutter antitrust case

The law firm of Jones Day in Washington, D.C. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

(Reuters) – A California federal judge said she will not order a fully remote antitrust jury trial following the objection of California-based Sutter Health, whose lawyers at Jones Day argued that a virtual proceeding would be “fundamentally unfair.”

In an order on Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco said jury selection would begin on Feb. 9 in the plaintiffs’ $400 million case against Sacramento-based Sutter, accused of anticompetitive conduct in the medical services market. The health system has denied the claims.

Beeler’s new order and one last week did not say whether she will permit a hybrid trial, where jurors and some lawyers might appear in person at certain times, and witnesses and others testify remotely. Sutter last week objected to a hybrid model and fully virtual trial. Beeler is expected to meet with the lawyers on Thursday to discuss trial logistics.

In-person trials are on hold through at least Jan. 27 in California’s Northern District federal court, a move designed to minimize the threat posed by the rapid spread of the COVID-19 Omicron variant. Some federal appellate courts that initially canceled in-person hearings in January are now extending virtual hearings into February and March.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Matthew Cantor of Constantine Cannon, a lead attorney in the class action against Sutter, on Tuesday declined to comment. Jones Day partner David Kiernan, representing Sutter, did not return a message seeking comment.

On Jan. 14, Cantor sent a letter to Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco asking him to “confer” with Beeler about whether a trial should proceed in February on a fully remote or hybrid basis.

“Numerous courts have recognized the need to adapt during the COVID era, permitting fully remote jury trials. They have held that such jury trials are consistent with constitutional and procedural maxims,” Cantor wrote.

Sutter’s lawyers in a filing on Monday called the plaintiffs’ letter “improper” and argued “no intervention is required.”

Both sides agreed Beeler would preside over all parts of the case, and so “plaintiffs cannot now ask another district court judge to overrule, second guess, or influence Judge Beeler’s rulings,” Kiernan wrote.

The case is Sidibe v. Sutter Health, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:12-cv-04854.

For plaintiffs: Matthew Cantor of Constantine Cannon

For defendant: David Kiernan of Jones Day

Read more:

California hospital system opposes virtual trial in $400 million antitrust lawsuit

Federal, state courts increasingly cancel January trials citing Omicron

Federal appeals courts restrict public operations amid COVID surge

Judge defends excluding unvaccinated juror in law firm associate’s trial

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.