[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-296528-105":59,"doc-detail-296528-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","pretrial-brief-of-respondent-evanston-northwestern-healthcare-corporation","PRETRIAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE CORPORATION","","Pretrial brief of respondent Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation submitted to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Administrative Law Judges in Docket No. 9315. The brief argues that complaint counsel cannot satisfy the required burdens under Section 7 by failing to prove a relevant market, competitive harm, and the legal nexus between the merger and alleged price increases. It further contends the divestiture remedy would harm consumers and would not be required even if Section 7 were assumed violated.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/pretrial-brief-of-respondent-evanston-northwestern-healthcare-corporation/296528/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/pretrial-brief-of-respondent-evanston-northwestern-healthcare-corporation/296528.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Oliver Hayes","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What legal standard does the brief say Section 7 imposes on complaint counsel?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The brief states that Section 7 places a heavy burden on complaint counsel and requires proof of a relevant market and competitive harm, as governed by the legal standards discussed in the analysis section.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why does the brief argue complaint counsel cannot prove the relevant market?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It argues that complaint counsel cannot satisfy its burden by offering no proof of a relevant market for the alleged “direct effects” theory, and that product and geographic market definitions are allegedly insufficient and tailored to the theory.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What position does the brief take on the divestiture remedy?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The brief contends that the divestiture remedy sought by complaint counsel would harm consumers and would fail to cure the alleged anti-competitive effects, and it also argues that the law does not require divesting HPH from ENH even if a Section 7 violation were assumed.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},296528,1790021964,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":52,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687207020761,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","In the matter of  \nEvanston Northwestern HealthcareCorporation,a corporation,and  \nENH Medical Group,Inc.,a corporation.  \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICABEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES  \nDocket No.9315  \nPublic Record  \nPRETRIAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT EVANSTONNORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE CORPORATION  \nWINSTON&STRAWN LLP  \n35 West Wacker Dr.Chicago,IL60601-9703(312)558-5764  \n1400L Street,N.W.Washington,DC 20005-3502(202)371-5700  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii  \nINTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1  \nSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………2  \nI.  \nComplaint Counsel Cannot Satisfy Its Burden Of Proving The Relevant Marke…………………3  \nA. Complaint Counsel Offers No Proof Of A Relevant Market In Count II, Which  \nAlleges An Unprecedented “Direct Effects” Theory………………………………………………………3  \nB. Complaint Counsel And Its Expert Cannot Agree On The Relevant Product  \nMarket Alleged In Count I…………………………………………………………………………………………………………3  \nC. The Geographic Market Alleged In Count I Is Gerrymandered To Suit  \nComplaint Counsel's Theory……………………………………………………………………………………………………4  \nI. Complaint Counsel Cannot Satisfy Its Burden Of Proving Competitive Harm In The  \nRelevant Marke………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4  \nI. Complaint Counsel's Proposed Remedy Would Harm, Not Benefit, The Public………………6  \nANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7  \nI. THE GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 7 PLACE A HEAVY  \nBURDEN ON COMPLAINT COUNSEL……………………………………………………………………………7  \nII. COMPLAINT COUNSEL CANNOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THE  \nREQUISITE RELEVANT MARKET……………………………………………………………………………………9  \nComplaint Counsel Is Required To Prove The Existence Of A Relevant Market  \nA.  \nWithin Which The Alleged Anti-Competitive Effects WillOccur……………………………9  \n1.  \nSection 7 Requires Complaint Counsel To Define And Prove The  \nRelevant Market…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9  \n2.  \nEven When Market Power Can Be Proven \"Directly,\"A Relevant  \nMarket Must Still Be Defined………………………………………………………………………………………………13  \nB. Complaint Counsel Cannot Meet Its Burden Of Proving The Alleged Relevant  \nMarket………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14  \n1. The Evidence Will Show That Complaint Counsel Cannot Meet Its  \nBurden Of Proving The Alleged Product Marke…………………………………………………14  \n1  \n2. The Evidence WillShow That Complaint Counsel Cannot Meet Its  \nBurden Of Proving The Alleged Geographic Market………………………………………17  \nII. COMPLAINT COUNSEL CANNOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING  \nTHAT THE MERGER CAUSED COMPETITIVE HARM……………………………………………20  \nComplaint Counsel Cannot Prove That The Merger Will Cause Competitive  \nA.  \nHarm Through Unilateral Effects………………………………………………………………………………………………21  \nB.  \nComplaint Counsel Cannot Meet Its Burden Of Proving The Requisite Nexus  \nBetween The Negotiated Price Increases And An Increase In Market Power  \nCaused By The Merger………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24  \nAs A Matter Of Law,Mere Evidence Of Price Increases Is Insufficient  \n1.  \nTo Show Competitive Harm…………………………………………………………………………………………24  \n2.  \nThe Evidence Will Show Alternative Explanations For ENH's Post-  \nMerger Negotiated Price Increases Other Than An Increase In Market  \nPower Caused By The Merger……………………………………………………………………………………25  \n3. The Evidence Will Confirm That ENH's Post-Merger Negotiated Price  \nIncreases Were Competitive………………………………………………………………………………………30  \nComplaint Counsel's Competitive Harm Analysis Does Not Take Into Account  \nC.  \nPro-Competitive Quality Improvements Resulting From The Merger……………………31  \nD.  \nComplaint Counsel Cannot Meet Its Burden Of Showing Competitive Harm  \nBecause HPH's Market Presence Was Declining Before The Merger……………………37  \nIV. AS SISTER CORPORATIONS, THE MERGER OF ENH AND HPH COULD NOT  \nVIOLATE SECTION 7 AS A MATTER OF LAW…………………………………………………………38  ","cbCaijJHs08dwXyx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijJHs08dwXyx","pdf",21458411,303,"English","# Table of Contents\n## Introduction\n## Summary of Argument\n## Complaint Counsel Cannot Satisfy Its Burden\n## Analysis\n## Governing Legal Standards Under Section 7\n## Complaint Counsel Cannot Meet Its Burden of Proving the Requisite Relevant Market\n## Competitive Harm From the Merger\n## Sister Corporations and Section 7\n## Divestiture Remedy Sought by Complaint Counsel\n## Law Does Not Require Divesting HPH From ENH\n## Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What legal standard does the brief say Section 7 imposes on complaint counsel?\",\"answer\":\"The brief states that Section 7 places a heavy burden on complaint counsel and requires proof of a relevant market and competitive harm, as governed by the legal standards discussed in the analysis section.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the brief argue complaint counsel cannot prove the relevant market?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that complaint counsel cannot satisfy its burden by offering no proof of a relevant market for the alleged “direct effects” theory, and that product and geographic market definitions are allegedly insufficient and tailored to the theory.\"},{\"question\":\"What position does the brief take on the divestiture remedy?\",\"answer\":\"The brief contends that the divestiture remedy sought by complaint counsel would harm consumers and would fail to cure the alleged anti-competitive effects, and it also argues that the law does not require divesting HPH from ENH even if a Section 7 violation were assumed.\"}]","PRETRIAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE CORPORATION | PDF",1789733325,764]