Summary of article from Proskauer Rose LLP, by David Munkittrick, Evelyn Blanco:
The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Sidibe v. Sutter Health may significantly alter the approach to rule of reason antitrust cases by emphasizing the importance of historical evidence and the intent behind challenged conduct. The court reversed the District Court’s ruling due to the exclusion of pre-2006 evidence and errors in jury instructions, which failed to consider Sutter Health’s purpose. The majority opinion argued that understanding the intent is crucial for a comprehensive assessment of antitrust claims, while the dissent warned against overcomplicating trials with extensive historical context. This ruling suggests a potential shift towards incorporating intent more prominently in antitrust analyses, raising questions about trial complexity and jury management. Legal professionals will need to adapt to these changes to effectively advocate in antitrust cases.