EAST ST. LOUIS – Plaintiff lawyers hurled a personal attack on Blackstone Investment Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman in a proposed class action proceeding in federal court.
Local counsel Gregory Shevlin pleaded that Schwarzman “has a notorious reputation for doing more harm to everyday consumers than good.”
He cited as his sole source an article in Housing is a Human Right under headlines of “sins of Blackstone” and “modern day robber baron.”
He and four colleagues claim Blackstone violated rights of Ancestry DNA customers in Illinois when it bought Ancestry DNA last year.
They sued Blackstone for Carolyn Bridges of St. Clair County at circuit court in July.
They propose a class action seeking statutory damages of $15,000 per person for reckless violation of the state’s Genetic Information Privacy Act.
They claim Bridges wouldn’t have provided genetic information to Ancestry DNA if she had known Blackstone would compel disclosure without consent.
Blackstone removed the complaint to district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction as a New York business.
Blackstone counsel Martin Roth of Chicago moved to dismiss the complaint in October, claiming Bridges dressed up a claim with baseless allegations.
Roth argues that assignment of liability to a recipient of lawfully obtained information stretched the statute beyond its written or intended scope.
He claims the statute prohibits disclosure but not acquisition or possession.
He claims Bridges didn’t plead that Blackstone disclosed information or released it to third parties in violation of the statute.
He claims legislators aimed the statute at encouraging people to receive tests without fear that employers or insurers would discriminate against them.
He claims application of the statute to an investor would contravene the legislature’s clear intent.
He challenges the allegation that Blackstone compelled disclosure.
“To compel, in the legal context, means to cause or bring about by force, threats, or overwhelming pressure,” he wrote.
“In other words, compulsion necessarily requires something more than mere containment.”
He claims Bridges didn’t even suggest that Blackstone pressured or threatened Ancestry for her data in any way.
Shevlin responded that reliance on a legal definition of “compel” was misguided.
“The popularly understood meaning of ‘to compel’ another is to influence or obligate that person to do something,” he wrote.
He claims the court should apply that meaning.
He claims Bridges believed information would be confidential and secure.
He claims Blackstone engaged in conduct the statute was passed to prohibit.
He claims Blackstone’s interpretation of the statute would gut it by allowing multi billion dollar hedge funds to circumvent its protections.
“Defendant’s self serving position would create a backward and perverse incentive whereby predatory companies could purchase genetic information from any financially distressed genetic testing company without regard to the Genetic Information Privacy Act,” he wrote.
“Rather than bolster public health and trust in genetic testing, this result would erode individuals’ trust and make them more apprehensive to undergo such testing out of fear such test results would be disclosed without consent.”
Shevlin practices at Bruce Cook’s firm in Belleville.
Gary Klinger and Katrina Carroll of Chicago, Brian Hogan of Bannockburn, and Jonathan Jagher of Conshohocken, Penn., also represent Bridges.
District Judge David Dugan has set trial in November 2013.
He plans a scheduling conference on Dec. 28.