Commercial Litigation Update

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: Early decisions in high-stakes litigation can shape both the courtroom and public narratives, yet critical first-move strategies are underutilized.

Why It Matters

• Setting the Tone Early: Find out how pre-litigation discovery builds compelling, evidence-backed cases.

• Controlling the Narrative: Learn how preemptive filings can influence not only legal outcomes but also public opinion.

• Detailed Insights on Strategy: Gain valuable advice on making critical first moves that can define the trajectory of your case.

Don’t miss Epstein Becker Green attorneys Sierra Hennessy, David Clark, and Alex Barnard as they explore the benefits, risks, and nuances of these advanced legal strategies.

This episode of Speaking of Litigation is packed with actionable insights for general counsel and legal professionals navigating complex litigation and provides real-time examples from high-profile disputes, including Blake Lively’s and Justin Baldoni’s cases.

On June 25, 2025, the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released a short video containing the highlights of the Medicaid Fraud Control Units (“MFCUs”) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (“2024 Annual Report”). While the 2024 Annual Report was released in March 2025, HHS OIG just released the two-minute video summarizing the key aspects of the report.

MFCUs—which investigate and prosecute statewide Medicaid provider fraud, and beneficiary abuse and neglect—recovered $1.4 billion in FY 2024, which equates to $3.46 for every $1 spent. Criminal recoveries were the highest amount in the past 10 years, $961 million, and more than double the rolling 5-year average. HHS OIG attributes this massive increase to the California MFCU, which recovered $513 million on its own.

In February 2025, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a bill into law strengthening immigration enforcement in the state. We previously wrote about this law here.

The law created a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division at the state level that coordinates directly with the Trump administration on federal immigration policies, establishes a new driver’s license distinguishing U.S. citizens from lawful permanent residents, and through provision of grants, encourages local governments to participate in enforcing federal immigration authorities.

The law also made it a felony for elected officials to vote for so-called sanctuary city policies, punishable by up to six years in jail, a $3,000 fine, and the law requires removal of any official who violates the law “as soon as practicable.”

If the wide-ranging decisions that ended the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 term on Friday have anything in common, it is their length, with some of their syllabi running to five small-print pages and more, and with a plethora of concurring and dissenting opinions.

As one might expect, these concluding decisions are the most controversial and perhaps far-reaching of the term, and hence were the most difficult for the Justices to resolve until the end. The easier ones brought unanimity, or near to it. These final decisions don’t come close.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision yesterday that likely will get the most attention is Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in which a 6–3 Court that lined up according to the conservative vs. liberal stereotype, held that “Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.”

The question before the Court was whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials under §1983, the venerable civil rights statute, for failing to comply with the “any qualified provider” provision of the Medicaid law. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates two clinics in South Carolina, serving both Medicaid and other patients alike. Among the services it provides is performing abortions. In 2018, South Carolina, citing state law prohibiting public funds for abortion, expelled Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program. At the same time, the state took steps that it claimed would ensure that other providers would continue offering necessary medical care and family planning services. Planned Parenthood and a patient named Julie Edwards brought a class action suit, claiming that the exclusion of Planned Parenthood violated the any-qualified-provider provision of the statute by depriving her and others of their preferred providers of gynecological care.

Justice Gorsuch, writing for himself and the other five jurisprudential conservatives, noted that §1983 allows private parties to sue state actors that violate their “rights” under the federal “Constitution and laws.” “But federal statutes do not automatically confer §1983-enforceable ‘rights.’ This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where ‘the typical remedy’ for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits.”

Effective April 1, 2015, the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court promulgated a series of reforms to the Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division, including the addition of new Rule 11-e, which provides specific requirements for responding and objecting to document requests. In particular, Rule 11-e(a)-(b) requires parties to provide particularized responses and specify in detail whether documents are being withheld in response to all or part of the requests, and Rule 11-e(c) requires a date for the completion of document production prior to depositions. These are markedly different than those required by the Uniform Civil Rules that govern non-Commercial New York State Supreme Courts and County Courts, and have been the subject of much discussion by courts and practitioners in the ensuing years. However, one significant requirement of Rule 11-e that is often overlooked concerns Rule 11-e(d).

In particular, Rule 11-e(d) provides as follows:

(d) [b]y agreement of the parties to a date no later than one (1) month prior to the close of fact discovery, or at such time set by the Court, the responding party shall state, for each individual request: (i) whether the production of documents in its possession, custody or control and that are responsive to the individual request, as propounded or modified, is complete; or (ii) that there are no documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to the individual request as propounded or modified.

With six more decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court decided no fewer than 11 cases in two business days last week, following 12 others over the previous two weeks.

In other words, summer vacation is upon us, as the Court’s term is likely to end soon.

The most recent decisions are, as predicted, more controversial than the spate of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions of earlier weeks. None of the newest decisions, nor indeed any of the cases yet to be decided, are likely to provoke the level of public attention given to the Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a state’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors.

However, the latest batch of decisions offers considerable guidance to litigators with respect to the level of review that federal courts may exercise under several very active statutory regimes and as to important procedural issues such as standing and venue.

In June, Maine and Oregon joined a growing list of states that now prohibit the reporting of medical debt to a consumer reporting agency.

On June 9, 2025, the governor of Maine signed into law LD558, which amends the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit medical creditors, debt collectors and debt buyers from reporting a consumer’s medical debt to a consumer reporting agency. Under the Maine law, a “medical creditor” is defined as “an entity that provides health care services and to whom a consumer incurs medical debt or an entity that provided health care services to a consumer and to whom the consumer previously owed medical debt if the medical debt has been purchased by one or more debt buyers.” Additionally, the Maine law forbids consumer reporting agencies from reporting medical debt on consumer reports. Consumers whose medical debt is reported in violation of the new amendments can seek civil remedies against the medical creditor, debt collector, debt buyer, or consumer reporting agency that reported the medical debt pursuant to the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act for actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and either treble damages or statutory damages depending on whether the violation was willful or negligent.

To anyone who has followed the case of United States v. Skrmetti, especially those who attended or listened to the oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 holding that a Tennessee law prohibiting certain medical procedures for transgender minors was not subject to heightened or strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should have come as no surprise.

Although there was an array of concurring and dissenting opinions, the majority opinion, written by the Chief Justice, was joined by the Court’s other five jurisprudentially conservative Justices, while the three “liberals,” Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented.

As the end of the term seems to be rushing towards us, the U.S. Supreme Court issued six more opinions yesterday, mostly unanimous or near unanimous. In other words, the Court is clearing the shelves of the “easy ones.” More profound disagreements are likely on the horizon, but not this time. Notably, in one case that was not unanimous, we find Justice Jackson and Justice Thomas together in a concurring opinion. While not landmarks, yesterday’s “Pick Six” are all interesting cases, several of which will affect the practices of many readers of this blog, and one of them hearkens back nostalgically to a case this writer argued and won years ago. So, let’s get going.