Insights & News

Karl Myers Quoted in Law360 and The Legal Intelligencer Following Two Consecutive Pa. Supreme Court Arguments

May 27, 2015
Press Clippings
Stradley Ronon Counsel Karl Myers recently argued two separate cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on two consecutive days, making him one of a handful of attorneys to have done so. In the first case, Karl advocated on behalf of two of the firm’s health care clients for their confidential information to be protected from disclosure under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. During the second case, Karl argued on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to protect a legislative enactment from a belated procedural challenge under the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Myers was quoted in Law360 while arguing the first case, asserting to the Supreme Court that a ruling in favor of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, which was seeking to win access to the providers’ confidential rate information, would result in a slew of new litigation over where the line between public and private money would be drawn.

“If we can trace this public money through the MCOs [managed care organizations] down to the dentists, why stop there? Maybe we should also get information from the dentists' suppliers,” he said. “This court and the Commonwealth Court would face numerous cases trying to draw nebulous lines about where public money stops.”

The Legal Intelligencer also quoted Myers during this argument on the topic of whether the clients’ trade secrets are exempt from disclosure. Myers disagreed with the Law Center’s claim that the exemption does not apply to the clients’ information because they are found in financial records. This also includes older information, Myers explained, saying that “there is no 'too old' or 'too stale' provision in the Right-to-Know Law" with regard to trade secrets.

In the second case, in which Myers argued on behalf of the General Assembly, the argument centered on whether a challenge to the constitutionality of Act 47 of 1988 was barred under the laches doctrine. Myers’ argument was quoted in The Legal Intelligencer, where he explained to the Justices that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the law came too late and that the lower court’s decision that the Act was unconstitutional prejudiced the General Assembly and Pennsylvania’s citizens.

Related Services

back to top