Case Summary for April 12, 2006 -- 1:30 p.m. docket

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for April 12, 2006 -- 1:30 p.m. docket

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, DIVISION I
TEITELMAN, P.J., WHITE, J., AND HOLLIGER, SP.J.

1:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 12, 2006

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC87245
State ex rel. City of St. Louis, et al. v. The Honorable John J. Riley
St. Louis City
Discovery challenge

In November 1998, the city of St. Louis and approximately 50 hospitals located throughout Missouri that provide substantial uncompensated health care to tobacco users (collectively, the hospitals) sued a number of cigarette manufacturers, three tobacco institutes or councils, and a public relations firm (collectively, the tobacco industry) for compensation and restitution for their uncompensated costs in treating indigent tobacco users, including costs incurred in treating their tobacco-related illnesses. Seven causes of action survived a motion to dismiss. During the course of the substantial discovery that ensued, the tobacco industry deposed hundreds of hospital representatives, propounded hundreds of interrogatories, and requested innumerable records and documents, including individual patient records. The circuit court ordered the hospitals to produce certain patient records. At one point, the hospitals indicated the number of patient records to be produced would span more than a decade and would exceed 13 million. The hospitals, believing the task of complying with the court order was practically impossible, asked the court several times to limit the number of patient records ordered to be produced. Several production orders issued. In September 2005, the court issued an order including a detailed definition of the phrase "caused or worsened by tobacco use" as it related to the patient records to be produced and defined the records to be produced according to those with certain codes the Center for Disease Control medically recognizes as those directly caused by or closely related to smoking and containing some history of smoking. The hospitals view this order as too cumbersome as well and seek relief from this Court.

The hospitals argue they should not have to produce any more medical or financial records of individual patients. They contend the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering "crippling" discovery when there was no need to do so. They assert that the discovery orders should balance the needs of the tobacco industry in seeking the information with the burden on the hospitals in providing the information. The hospitals argue the burden on them in complying with the patient record order far outweighs any need the tobacco industry has for the records. They contend the tobacco industry will gain little or nothing but "eternal delay" by reviewing medical and financial records of individual patients because the hospitals do not intend to prove that any particular patient smoked or suffered illness as a result of tobacco use. The hospitals assert that they instead will rely on medical science and statistics to prove damages. They argue the information covered in the current discovery order is cumulative. They contend the tobacco industry already has received more than sufficient information with which to defend the hospitals' claims and to protect the tobacco industry from any potential risk of double recovery. The hospitals argue, in the alternative, that they should not have to produce anything more than a statistically significant random sample of patient medical and financial records. They assert that the circuit court abused its discretion in the discovery it has ordered. They argue a reasonable, well-accepted alternative exists that would satisfy the legitimate needs of the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry responds that the hospitals have not established they have a clear right to relief through a writ of mandamus or prohibition. It argues the hospitals did not seek review of the circuit court's July 2004 discovery order, which ordered them to produce only records of patients with medical conditions caused or worsened by tobacco use. It contends the court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the September 2005 order. The tobacco industry responds that the court properly ordered production of the names and records of patients with conditions allegedly caused or worsened by smoking. It asserts the court correctly concluded that production was necessary under the rules of civil procedure to give the tobacco industry a fair chance to defend the case and to have protection against the risk of double recovery. It argues the court correctly concluded that production was necessary as a matter of constitutional due process. The tobacco industry contends the hospitals' argument that it does not need individual patient records is unpersuasive. It asserts that the hospitals' use of statistical damages models does not reduce the relevance of individual patient records. It responds that the records of patients who are smokers with smoking-related diseases are probative of issues in this case. The tobacco industry argues the hospitals' supposed concessions do not mean that it will gain little or nothing of relevance by reviewing patient files. It contends the hospitals have not shown that their compliance with the circuit court's order would be unduly burdensome or that they already have produced sufficient records to permit it to mount a defense. It asserts that the hospitals have not shown they sustain irreparable harm as a result of the discovery orders. The tobacco industry responds that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to permit the hospitals to produce only a statistical sample of patient names and records. It argues the hospitals have not shown that producing only a statistical sample is an adequate substitute for producing all patient names and records. It contends there are many relevant questions that sampling cannot answer.