Saint Alphonsus Medical Center - Nampa et al v St Luke's Health System Ltd

Filing 231

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to bar thetestimony of Directors Armstrong and Deal 157 is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SAINT ALPHONSUS MEDICAL CENTER NAMPA, INC., TREASURE VALLEY
HOSPITAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Case No. 1:12-CV-00560-BLW (Lead
SAINT ALPHONSUS HEALTH SYSTEM,
Case)
INC., AND SAINT ALPHONSUS
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD.
Defendant.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; STATE
OF IDAHO

Case No. 1:13-CV-00116-BLW

Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD.;
SALTZER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff State of Idaho seeks to bar defendants from calling as trial witnesses
Richard Armstrong, Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and
William Deal, Director of the Idaho Department of Insurance. The State argues that these
two individuals have been subject to deposition and cannot offer testimony that will help
the Court decide the legal matters at issue.
Memorandum Decision & Order -- 1

Whether a state official can be called to testify at trial depends on whether the
official has “direct personal factual information pertaining to material issues in an action,
and the information to be gained is not available through any other sources.” Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 4300437 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2008) (quotations and citations
omitted). Both individuals have factual information pertaining to material issues, and
their testimony cannot be fully presented in any manner other than by calling them to the
witness stand.
In pursuing this case, the State argues that the Saltzer deal will raise prices and
exclude competitors. The defendants respond that the benefits of the deal include a move
away from the old fee-for-service model and toward a new integrated care approach.
Director Armstrong testified in his deposition about moving in the same direction.
Director Deal is implementing the insurance exchange and has information regarding his
efforts to promote competition, a key issue in this case.
Thus both officials have direct and personal factual information. Because they
were directed not to answer certain questions in their depositions, their testimony cannot
be fully presented by playing their deposition testimony. The State argues that they are
protected by the deliberative process privilege, but the Court need not resolve that issue
here. The only issue before the Court is whether the defense may subpoena these two
witnesses – the parties agree to reserve the question of the deliberative process privilege
for later argument.
For all the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny the motion to bar the
testimony of these two officials.
Memorandum Decision & Order -- 2

ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to bar the
testimony of Directors Armstrong and Deal (docket no. 157) is DENIED.

DATED: September 25, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision & Order -- 3