Sidibe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco Division DJENEBA SIDIBE, et al., Case No. 12-cv-04854-LB

Plaintiffs,

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

v. REGARDING JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SUTTER HEALTH, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 1491, 1492, 1500, 1503, Defendants. 1508, and 1509. 16 INTRODUCTION Sutter has asked the court to instruct the jury to consider a “business justification” defense to the plaintiffs’ per se tying claim.1 The plaintiffs contend that procompetitive effects or “business justifications” do not apply to their per se tying claim and cite several cases supporting that position.2 The court previously held that “procompetitive justifications are relevant only to the rule-of-reason claim, not the tying claim.”3 The weight of existing California law and the purpose of the per se tying rule favor the plaintiffs’ position that procompetitive effects are not relevant to 24 25 1 Def.’s Br. re Jury Instrs. –…