Healy v. Milliman Inc

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JAMES HEALY, on behalf of himself and all CASE NO. C20-1473-JCC others similarly situated, 10 MINUTE ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, 13 Defendant. 14 15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 On December 5, 2023, the Court heard oral argument on a variety of pending motions in 18 this case. (See Dkt. No. 197.) To assist it in ruling on these motions, and in light of the argument 19 presented at that hearing, the Court seeks supplemental briefing regarding class-wide standing 20 for both the inaccuracy and reinvestigation classes, as previously certified in this matter. (See 21 Dkt. No. 140 at 4.) 22 Based on the evidence Plaintiff presents to date, namely Jonathan Jaffe’s expert reports, 23 (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 166 at 8–71), and Jodi Nuss’s declaration, (see Dkt. No. 187 at 1–4), the 24 Court is concerned that Plaintiff cannot, in fact, establish class-wide standing at trial, even if 25 reputational harm were sufficient to support the requisite injury, see TransUnion LLC v. 26 1 Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2208 (2021). This is because Mr. Jaffe’s reports identify only 2 mismatched personal identifiers, e.g., social security numbers and dates of birth. (See, e.g., Dkt. 3 No. 166 at 8–71.) While this is indicative of a misattributed or erroneous health record, it is not 4 direct evidence of injury. And Ms. Nuss’ analysis, which purports to be such evidence, pertains 5 to only a small subsection of prospective class members. Whether this, alone, supports the type 6 of concrete and particularized injury necessary for class-wide standing is debatable. See 7 TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2203. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide the Court a supplemental brief on this 9 issue. It should be supported by evidence sufficient to reasonably assure the Court that Plaintiff 10 can demonstrate class-wide standing for both classes should this matter proceed to trial. 11 Plaintiff’s brief shall not exceed 14 pages (excluding attachments) and is due January 5, 2024. 12 Defendant’s response shall similarly not exceed 14 pages (excluding attachments) and is due 13 January 19, 2024. Plaintiff’s reply shall not to exceed 7 pages (excluding attachments) and is due 14 January 26, 2024. 15 The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Docket Numbers 166, 167, 183, 184, 185 to January 16 26, 2024. 17 DATED this 6th day of December 2023. 18 Ravi Subramanian Clerk of Court 19 s/Samantha Spraker 20 Deputy Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26