United States District Court, D. Hawaii
PACIFIC RADIATION ONCOLOGY, LLC, a Hawai`i Limited Liability Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs,
THE QUEEN'S MEDICAL CENTER, a Hawai`i Non-Profit Corporation, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RULING ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN
E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge
September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed eight motions in limine.
[Dkt. nos. 630-34, 636, 638, 640.] On November 1, 2016,
Defendants filed a motion in limine. [Dkt. nos. 667
(redacted), 687 (unredacted).] The Counterclaim Defendants
filed joinders in Plaintiffs' Motions Limine Nos. 1, 2,
5, and 7 (collectively “Joinders”). [Dkt. nos.
660-62, 664.] This Court has construed the Joinders as
joinders of simple agreement, rather than substantive
joinders. [EO: Court Order Denying Motions to Strike, filed
12/7/16 (dkt. no. 701), at 2.]
December 6, 2016, the motions in limine - with the exception
of Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine Nos. 4 and 8, [dkt. nos.
636, 640, ] which are scheduled for hearing on February 7,
2017 - came on for hearing before this Court. After careful
consideration of the motions in limine, supporting and
opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, this
Court HEREBY RULES as follows.
following issues each affect multiple motions in limine:
Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants as to Defendants/Counter
Claimants' unfair methods of competition claim based on
free-riding. See Order Granting in Part &
Denying in Part Plfts.' Motion for Summary Judgment on
the Counterclaim Filed Feb. 25, 2015 [Dkt. 175-1], 2014 WL
6749117, at *9 (D. Hawai`i Nov. 30, 2014). However, this
Court's ruling does not preclude Defendants from
asserting that: 1) they had a legitimate business interest in
preventing free-riding; and 2) the prevention of free-riding
is a defense to Plaintiffs' claims asserting that
Defendants engaged in anti-competitive conduct. Cf.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S.
451, 485 n.33 (1992) (noting that Continental T.V., Inc.
v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 55 (1977), and
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S.
752, 762-63 (1984), “accepted free-riding as a
justification because without restrictions a manufacturer
would not be able to induce competent and aggressive
retailers to make the kind of investment of capital and labor
necessary to distribute the product”); Chicago
Prof'l Sports Ltd. P'ship v. Nat'l Basketball
Ass'n, 961 F.2d 667, 674 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“Control of free-riding is accordingly an accepted
justification for cooperation.”). To the extent that
any of Plaintiffs' motions in limine ask this Court to
exclude categorically evidence and argument regarding
free-riding as a defense, Plaintiffs' motions in limine
Court CONCLUDES that the amount of additional compensation
that any Plaintiff received from the treatment of patients at
The Cancer Centers of Hawaii (“TCCH”) - after
Defendant The Queen's Medical Center
(“Queen's” or “QMC”) adopted the
closed-department model for its radiation oncology
department, compared to the compensation that Plaintiff would
have received from the treatment of the same patients at
Queen's - is relevant to the issue of Plaintiffs'
damages. The additional compensation that Plaintiffs received
by treating patients at TCCH off sets the physician fees that
they lost once they were not able to treat their patients at
Queen's. Similarly, the compensation that Plaintiffs
received from the treatment of patients at TCCH prior to
Queen's adoption of the closed-department model is
relevant to show whether, and if so, how much,
Plaintiffs' compensation from the treatment of patients
at TCCH changed after Queen's adopted the
closed-department model. To the extent that any of
Plaintiffs' motions in limine ask this Court to exclude
evidence and argument regarding Plaintiffs' TCCH
compensation for purposes of off-set, Plaintiffs' motions
in limine are DENIED.
The List Patients' Medical Information
November 23, 2016, this Court issued its Order Ruling on
Remaining Issues in Pending Appeals from the Magistrate
Judge's Orders (“11/23/16 Order”). 2016 WL
6996982. On December 7, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the 11/23/16 Order, and this Court
recently denied that motion. [Dkt. nos. 702, 724.] Thus, even
if de-identified, all of the List Patients' medical
records, as well as any other document containing any List
Patient's medical information, are inadmissible, unless
the proponents of the document establish that they obtained
the patient's consent to use his or her medical
information in this litigation. To the extent that any of
Plaintiffs' motions in limine seek to exclude any of the
List Patients' medical information, Plaintiffs'
motions in limine are GRANTED, unless the proponent of the
evidence establishes consent.
extent that any party intends to introduce any other
patient's medical information, this Court will address
the issues of consent and de-identification on a case-by-case
Court now turns to its rulings on the individual motions in
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude the Expert
Testimony of Ron DiGiamo [ dkt. no. ...