Minnesota Supreme Court Bearder Genetic Privacy Act

8/13/2019 Minnesota Supreme Court Bearder Genetic Privacy Act

1/21

CASE N A

d Keri Berde, idividuy d s prets dtul gudis of Josih d lex Beder, miors; et ,

ppellts,

vs.

Stte o Miesot, Miesot Depmet o Heth, d D

Se Mg, Commissioer of the Miesot Deptmetof Heth,

Respodets

APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF

FARRISH JHNSN LAW

FFICE, CHTD

Rd G. Ktso (0229891)Diel J. Bellig (0389075)907 xce DrveMkto, M 5600Teephoe: 507 625 .2525

ND

BRIGGS AND MRGAN, PA.

Sm Hso (405)2200 IDS Cete80 Soth ighth StreetMiepolis, 55402(62) 977-800

Attorneys for Appeants

ATTRNEY GENERAL F THE

STATE F MNNESTA

Jocy F. Olso (008206)ssistt ttorey Geerl445 Miesot Street, Suite 200St. ul, M 55101-230elephoe 651.296.942

Atorneys for Respondents


2/21

TABLE F CNTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

RGUMNT l

. Blood smples ll w te protectos of teGeec rvcy c ................................................

Respodes ed to preseve te ssue r ppel 2

2 Te cour of ppels correcy determed bood smples

re subjec to e G's prvcy proteos

B. Respodes voled te G 8

I. espodes' storge, use d dssemo of tes resusd blood smpes s o oerwse expressly provded by lw'' ................... 8

. Te pl meg ofexpressly" . .... ....... 8

b. Te word expressly" s o mbguous 9

C ts sted vld clms r reef 1

. T 6 mor s ve vld cms 1

2. Te ssue ofdssemto"

3 ls seek uctve relef ....................................................................... 13

ts re etted to declrtory judgmet....... 1

CONCUSION ... : ...... 5


3/21

TABLE OF AUTHRITIES

CASES

Arndt v. Am Family Mut Ins Co,

394 N.W.2d 79 (M. 986 .......... .......... ........... ................ ............ ........... .............. 2

Basich v. Board ofPensions of the Evangelical LutheranChurch in America493 N.W.2d 293 (M. Ct. pp. 1992..................................................................... 14

Bearder v State,788 N.W.2d 144 (M. Ct. pp. 200 .. 2

Day Masonry v. Independent School District 7

781 N.W.2d 32 (M. 2010 ............ ........... ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ..... 3

Hoyt Inn Co. v. Bloomington Commerce & Trade Assocs48 N. W.2d 73 (M. 1988 ................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ...... 2

Larson v. State,790 N.W.2d 700 (M. 2010 .......... ........... ............ ........... ........... ............ ........... ....... 2

TATUTES, RULES AND REGULATINS

M. S. 13. 08 .. .passim

M. Stt. 3.386 sbd. 1 Geec rvcy ct.... ..passim

M. St. 144.12 128 Newbor Screeg Stute .. passim

M. Stt. 64.7 ........................................................................................................... 7

M. St. 64.26 ........... ............ ........... ........... ............ ........... ........... ........... ............ ..... 7

OHE UTHITIES

Merrm-Webster Oe Dcory. 2009 Merrm Webser Oe. 21September 2009

M. R. Cv. pp. . 117 subd. 4 ............ ........... ........... ............ ........... ........... ........... ..... 2

11


4/21

Soi M Ster Disentangling Priacy om Proper:Toward a Deeper Understanding of Genetic Priacy72 Geo Ws. . Rev. 737 (pil 2004) 4

l


5/21

INTRDUCTIN

Respondents cannot denti a snge aw expess authozing them to

ndente stoe, use, and dissemnate lants newo sceenng test esults nd

ood sampes. In the esponsive ef, Respondents el to no avai on logcal

inences to daw the expess authot." The conduct is suect to the pvac

otectons of the Genetic vac Act (the GA) Respondents volated and continue to

violate the G A stong, usng, and dssemnating test eslts and lood sampes

without nmed, witten consent. Each plaint has a viae claim an inuntion and

to compe compliance wth the GA so that Respondents ae kept om mposng an opt

out sstem n plac of the GAs statutol mandated opt-in sstem. Because the ino

ants' test esuts and samples have een stoed, used, and n potental two cases

disseminated, wthout thei paents inmed wtten consent as equied the GA,

laints aso stated caims damages. ndeling each of these cams is the

necessa declaaton that antis lood sampes ae potected the GA and that the

GA pohts the collection, stoage, use, and dssemination of test esuts and ood

samples owing nitia newon sceening.

ARGUMENT

A Bood samples within te protections of te Genetic rivacy Acthe cout of appeas concuded that lood samples ll wthin the scope of the

GA Beade v. State 788 N.W.2d 144, 150, n6 (Mnn. Ct. App. 2010) The cout

easoned that the ood samples constituteoogica nmation" which ts wthin the

1


6/21

acs deniion ofgeneic inrmaion." Id Respondens did no seek crossreiew of

his issue . Thus, his hoding should no e eiewed his cour. Aernaiel, if his

issue is reiewed, he cour of appeas hoding is correc and shoud e afmed.

Respondents iled o preseve he issue r appeal.

An opposing pa ma le, wih is response o a peiion r reiew a eques r

cosseiew of addiiona issues no aised he peiion. Minn R. Ci. App . 7,

sud. 4. If an issue poides an aleaie ground o afrm he decision, and i was no

adesel decided he lowe cou, he pa is no equied o e cossreiew and

ma argue he issue in he Respondens' rief as addiional gounds o afrm. Hoyt Inn

Co. v. Bloomington Commece & Tade Assocs, 48 NW.2d 73 75 (Minn. 1988).

Bu if he issue was aderse decided eow, he Responden mus le a cossappeal o

pesere he igh o argue he issue Andt v. Am. Family Mut Ins Co, 394 N.W2d 79

(Minn. 986)

Respondens did no eques crosseiew of he cour of appeals decision on he

deniion ofgeneic inmaion" as i reaes o ood samples. Because he cou of

appeals decided ha issue adesel o Respondens, Respondens were equired o cross

appea and he ied o pesere he issue r reiew no doing so

Respondens cie Lason v. State 790 NW.2d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010) r he

proposiion ha he sandard of reiew r inepreaion of a saue is de nov.

(Respondens Bief p. 16, n.14) Bu Lason meel egs he quesion here is no

dispue ha he sandad is de nov if he issue has een presered; Lason does no

address wha is necessa o presee an issue.

2


7/21

Respondents aso cte Day Masonry v Inepenent Scool District 7 78

N.W2d 321 (Minn. 200), the poposton that the ma ague an pont ased beow

wthout bngng a cossappea. (Respondents Bef, p. 7, n.5.) he eliance on Day

Masonry s misplaced. Thee, contactos agued, as an alteate theo, that a schoo

dstct's constuction dect caims wee baed b the statute of epose. I at 329330.

This cou emphaszed that he distict cout esolved the case on othe gounds and did

not expcit decide the ssue agued b contactos

B its tems, Rule 106 would app f thee wee an advese judgment o

ode on the statuteofepose question. In ths case, thee s no suchadvese ode. In ct, the dstict cou neve eached the issue of thestatute of epose, deciding the case nstead on the alteatve gounds of thestatute of limtations.

Id at 330. In ct, this cou ecognized in Day Masonry that the decison in rnt

appes to peclude eview whee the lowe cout decded the issue advesel to the

Respondent and Respondent did not coss appea. Id at 332

nlke Day Masonry both the distct cout and cou of appeals explict

addessed he bood sampe issue. he cou of appeas uled advese to Respondents

on ths ssue, holdng that bood samples meet the GPAs denton ofgenetic

inmaton." Respondent had the oppotunt to aise ths issue b cossappeal but

chose not to. As a esut, Appellants did not bef the issue in the initial bef. he issue

is not popel bee the court.

Of couse, this cout has discetion to povde eview in the inteest of ustice evenwhee an issue has not been popel peseved, but Respondents have not establishedthat eview is n the inteest of justice o povded an eason to excuse thei ilue tocossappea.

3


8/21

2 he cor of apeals correcly deermined bood sampes are subjec othe GP's privacy proecions

f ths court decdes to review te issue, te cour of appeas' interpretaton s

correct and shoud be afrmed The GPA provides two denitions r genetic

inrmaton"

(a) Genetic nrmaton" means inrmaton about an dentableindivdua derved om the presence, absence, ateration or mutaton of agene, or te presence or absence of a specic DNA or RNA marker whichas been obtained om an analyss of:

(1) te ndivduals bologcal inrmation or specimen; or(2) the biologcal inrmation or specimen of a person to whom the

ndividua is reated.(b) Genetc nraton" also means medca or biological inrmationcoected om an ndividual about a partcuar condition that is or migt beused to proide medical care to that indvdua or te individuals mymembers.

Mnn. Stat. 13.386, subd. 1.

Respondents argue tat because genetc inrmaton is obtained om an anaysis

o' tat ndividua's biologcal inrmation or specimen" only the test resuts and not

the specmen or source of the nrmation, is subject to the prvacy protection.

(Respondents Bref, p. 17.) But Respondents are impropery mergng two distinct

denitions. Te court need ony cus on denition (b ). Dntion (b) is uch broader

n scope than denition (a) because t encompasses medical or bological inrmation"

about an ndvidua. Unlike denton (a) denton (b) does not mt tself to

nrmaton about dentabe ndivduals" or inrmation obtaned" om a bioogcal

specimen" Respondent's characteration of te denition ofgenetc inrmation"

4


9/21

cy gos do (b) ad gas lmaos o h do oly d

do (a).

Th pla mag o do (b) s a h bood sampls a sbc o h

PAs procos bcas hy coa DNA, whch s gc rmao." Bcas

h h GPA o ha daa paccs ac as a whol prod a spcc do r

bologca rmao," or smpy rmao," h commo dos o

rmao" apply. Th Mram-Wbs ol dcoary dsrmao" as

ows:

2 a( ): kowldg obad om sgao, sdy, o sco . .

b: h ab hr ad commcad by o o wo or morara sqcs o aagms o somhg (asnucleotides in DNA o bay dgs a comp program) haprodc spcc cs . . .

mao" Mrram-Wbs Ol Dcoay. 2009 Mam-Wbsr O. 2

Spmb 2009. (mphass

addd). Ud hs commo do, h DNA wh h bood sampl s rmao

bcas coas arragms/sqcs o cods. Th rmao s ad

hogh sg ad aayss. I oh words, h sampls a lk a phoogaphc

ga hy coa h props ha ca asy b dlopd o h pcr, ad

boh h g ad th pcr qal asmao. Smlary, boh h blood

sampls ha coa h DNA ad h s ss ha dscb h DNA a

mao" c, h blood samp, bg h soc," s mor lab ha h

s rsls, whch a oly a rprao o h pops o h blood sampl.

5


10/21

Respondens' agumen a ee s meanngl dierene beween e G's us

of e erm spemen" in denion (a) versus meda or bioogial inmain" in

deniion (b) misses e mark. s e DN win e bood samples w s e

nrmaon a bngs e bood sample win e proeion of e G. n s ase

e bood sampes onan e DN of e donor and e nueoides in DN e

ommon deniion ofnmaon."

e Gs deniion (b) furer povdes a gene inrmaon is nrmaon

a s or mg be used o provde medal ae o a indvdua or e ndividual's

mly members." Of ourse e bood sampes ave aeady been used newbo

esing w was e povsion ofmedal ae" (sreening dseases) o e

newbo. Fuer e denon onains no equremen a e inrmaion auay be

o s inended o be used o ea e indivdual only a i mig" be us beause

Respondens an ink any sudes o esing done wi e blood sample bak o e

origna newborn donor a nmaion mg be used o ea a indvdual or s or

e mily

Respondens aso nsis a beause e G is und n Caper 13 (e

Mnnesoa Governmen Dt raies ) i soud be mied o e use ofdaa"

even oug a wod never appears wiin e G. Tey ague a bood samples ae

nodaa" beause ey anno beopied" (Respondens' Brief pp 1819.) Bu is

agumen woud aow e genera (e broad erms of e MGD as eaes o e use

of daa") o onol e spei (e proeions afded by e G wi espe o

genei nmaion") s is oune o e geneal pnipe a e spei ono

6


11/21

t gn. See Minn. St. 64526. T lin mning ofinmtion not dt

gons t sco of GPA

En if t m gntic inmtion ws dtmind to b mbiguous

considtionsodd by uls of suoy constuction susin olding t

blood sms subct o GPAs icy ocions Fis gisi isoy

cs t lgisltu lwys contmtd t blood sms ll und GPA's

octions. (AA 63 (Rsni Emm xlind MDH ws o dstoy t

blood smls und cunt w); AA . 163-164 (Rsnti Tissn xssing

t bill s oiginly dd quid dstuction of bood sms); A,. 73-74

(Sno Hnn ing bodly to GPAs contos on gnic mi).) Scond in t

dministti intttion gin to t GPA by t ALJ icbiiy of GPA

o blood smls ws cognid nd commndtions comlinc wit t GPA

includd cuiing inmd consn sog nd us of t bood smls (See AA

. 38-39

Tid i would bsud to od tt inmtion ( DNA) insid scimn

not otctd by t GPA but ony t s sus intting t inmion so

otcd See Minn. S 6457 (is cou my sum t gislu dos no

intnd sult is bsud imossibl of xcution o unsonbl . . .) . Rsondns

g t tst suls wiin dniion of t GPA Tus wn

Rsondnts us t bood sms tsting ty dmittdy cting gntic

inmtion nd must obtin inmd consn und GPA. Dos MDH ly wis

o coninu sog of 1500000 bood sms but not us tm tsing? Only on

7


12/21

purpose exists r the Deparments warehousing o blood samples the ture anaysis

and extration o geneti inrmation. Adopting Respondents' reasoning would mean

MD oud store blood spots and DA indenitey but ould not use them beause the

rther anaysis testing and storage o a speimen woud result in a vioation o the

GPA This ould not have been the egisatures intent.

inally Respondents ontradit their own argument against treating bood samples

as geneti inrmation. In suggesting that the GPA does not apply to the 6 minor

Paintis whose blood samples were oleted prior to August 2006 Respondents

point out that the GPA only applies to geneti inrmation olleted on or aer that

date." Respondents Brie p 30.) Respondents then argue that the GPA does not apply

to the 16 beause their blood sampes were olleted bere that date thus propery

euating blood samples with geeti inrmation."

B. espondentsVoaed he GPA. Respondens' sorage se and dsseminaon of es resus ad bood

sampes s no "oherwise expressly provded by aw

a. he plan meanng o expressy

Respondents argue that the NBS program o retention o geneti inrmation lls

within the otherwise expressly provided by law" exeption to the GPA Respondents

Brie p. 20 et seq) But Respondents are not abe to point to any provision in the NBS

that expressly" authorizes storage use or dissemination o blood samples or test results

aer the ompletion o the initial newborn sreening The two setions Respondents rey

on l r short o any express authoriation.

8


13/21

Respodets rer to Seo 44.28(5) o the NS provd that the MH

must omply wh a destruo reuest wh 45 days o reev t." ut ths seto

mposes a lmtao raher tha provd auhory. The Respodes are uabe o d

express" auhorty ths seto ad a most mus suest tha authory s mpled

The logical intepetation o hs statute s tha MH may reta he rmao . . ."

(Respodes re p. 22.) I a loal terpretao o a statue s reured to dse ts

mea the statute learly s shor o expressy provd" that erpretato.

Smlarly the sautory dretve he NS that resposble partes ot parets

hat tes results may be retaed by MH (Seto 144.125 subd. 3 ) mht suppo he

mpato hat the MH has authorty to rea but leary does ot expressy ra

ay authorty o MH. Nowhere he NS s there a express rat o auhory to

MH o reta he tes results aer ta sree exep the lmted restry o

posve tes results reerred o above. Moreover ths seto does ot eve mpy"

authorty to use or dssemae the est resus beyod he tal ewbor sree. Ad

hs seto does o address the reteo o the bood sampes ad hus does ot eve

mpy auhorty r ther reeto muh less r ther use ad dssemato

b he wod "xpessy is o mbiguous

al to po o ay part o he NS hat expressly auhores MH to reta

use or dssemae tes results or blood sampes Respodes streth ve rher to

mpy suh authorty om eslatve hsory y deo tha attempt ao supply

urther ths satue makes per sese whe read outo wth thCommssoers duy to reta a lmed restry o postve test results. See M. Sta. 14428(3).

9


14/21

expess" auoity. And as ou initial bef demonstated legislaive inepeaon

actually suggests tat e newbon blood samples and tes esuts would not be eempted

om te GPA. (Appelans Bef p. 25 et seq)

e dscussion in e 2006 Repo and satemens of te GPAs auto o e

eect at e GPA would no pob collection ta s otewise aowed by cuent

law does not suppo Respondents agumen wo easons st as noed above te

NBS ony aowed e use of bood sampes ina sceening o specc llow up

testng t dd not alow eention use o dsseminaion of test esults o blood samples

ae ta sceening was completed. Second wen e GPA was wien te exception

was made even moe naow tan ese geneal satemens iming excptions o tose

tat wee oewse expessy povided by law Legsative stoy canno be used o

oveide te wods acually used in e GPA o to suppy wa te NBS omittd.

e c tat te legslatue did no simutaneous to enactment of e GP A

elimnate te opout atue of e NBS lkewise cannot bidge te expessy povided

gap. Te NBS does expessly autoize e collecion of blood samples newbon

sceening and povides ony an optou option om ta sceening. Tus e etenon of

te opout system newbo sceenng is pefecy ogical but i does not impy any

inent o expand ta opout sysem o te etenton use o dissemination of test

esuts o bood samples ae initia sceening s complete

JO


15/21

C. Plaintis staed aid caims eief

he 16 mino Paiis hae alid caims.

Resondens ae corec ha blood sames were coleced om 16 of he mno

Plans bee he eecve dae of he GPA (Resondens Bref, 30 et seq.) B

ha does no dea he lams asseed by hose Pans, r wo reasons.

Fs, he GPA ales whenever genec nraon s colleced ae Ags

2006. Resondens adm ha es esls ae genec nmaon. Ths alhogh

blood samles hese 6 were colleced ror any fher esng of her samles

wod colec new genec nmaon n he m of es resls These 6 Plans

have cams nder he GPA o enon any re se of her bood sames, and o oban

a declaraory dgmen ha sch se conics wh he GPA

Seond hese 16 have vald cams nde he NBS o enon any se of her bood

samles no ahorzed by he NBS and o oban a decaaoy dgmen ha he NBS

does no ahoze se beyond nal newbo screenng.

2 he issue of "disseminaio.

Resondens arge ha no Pans have roven dssemnaon of her blood

samles o es resls, b hs mae s bere he co on smmary dgmen The

only evdence n he recod s he naeal and nesed asseron of MDH ha has

no dssemnaed he blood samles om 23 Pans and has no record of dong so wh

wo ohers. Pans eqesed ha he smmay dgmen moon be derred o allow

A oral agmen, he cor of aeals nqed as o whee hese ndvdals were sllares o he aws owng a vonary dsmssa of he VanDemark mly. (See

1


16/21

diovey. That euet hould have been ganted beaue the eod" wa not pe a

detemination that thee ae no genune iue of mateia t on diemnation Ony

MDH ha ae to the inmation elevant to thi ue and Plainti hould b

aowed dovey to detemine f thee ae t dipute

Of oue, Plaint laim ae not baed oley on pat demination bue

Painti alo eek an injunton agant tue demination and delaatoy judgment

on the intepay between the GPA and he NBS.

Repondent admit to diemnating ove 50000 blood ampe pupoe

beyond nita newbon eenng AA, pp. 4344 212) Panti laim inude

euet injuntive elief and damage onening Repondent diemnation of

geneti nmation (A p. 9) Fuhe dovey i neeay to aetain whethe thee

hilden blood ampe wee ued in pvate teting lowing the GPA enatment

date why Repondent annot aount the ue o demnation of blood ampe n

A pp. 267-268.) In ubeuent oepondene Repondent onmed that the theetwo hiden wee Johua Gaetano and ey Gaetano III whom ae tl patie to thiation.Painti laim go beyond the mee alegaton of impope diemination. Paintaim Repondent ommitted the owing epaate \nd ditint violation

) toage of the blood ample(2) ue .e. additional intea o extenal teting) of the blood ample(3) dieminaton of the blood ampe4) oeton of tet eut othe than oiginal newbon eening though additiona

ntena o extenal teting)(5) toage of the tet eult(6) ue e in additona inteal o extena eeah) of the tet eult(7 deminaton of the tet eult peumably exteal eeah).

Thu even if thi out nd that Plaint dd not tate aim diemination of bloodpot and tet eut thee ae till viable aim oetion toage and ue that mutbe tied.

2


17/21

their ontrol and whether there are issues of spoliaton enttlng Paints to an adverse

nrene aganst Respondents.

3 Pais seek icive rele.

Respondents' arguments that Plaints' bood sampes have not been used or

disseminated as disussed above may have some sgniane to the am r damages

but as noted onsideration of that issue s premature beause t is not ripe r summary

judgment. And n ay event that argument does not support dismissal of the ompant

beause Pants aso seek nuntve relef against any future use or dsseminaton

Respondents argue that Pants' laims r njuntve relief must be dsmissed

apparenty beause Pantis' opt-out remedies under the NBS should be seen as

adequate remedies at law as a matter of law. Respondents Brief pp. 45) That

agument is invad r several reasons.

First the queston of remedy is premature. As Respondents note a request r an

injunton is addressed to the distrit ourts equtable powers whh invove

onsiderable disretion. The dstrit ourt has not exerised that disretion.

Seond and most imporantly a deson that Pantis are preluded om

seekng an njunton beause they have opt-out rghts under the NBS woud have the

eet of repaing the optin requrements of the GPA f Plaints are orret that the

GPA's optin provisons prevail over the optout provisons o the NBS then the denal

of an injunton beause a party an opt-out under the NBS would eetvely vioate the

GPA At the very least the distrit ourt shoud address that question under ts equty

powers aer the appiabity of the GPA has been judially determined

1


18/21

hd seon 13 08 whih povides Plains heir emedies under he GPA does

no make aims r damages o r inunive reef muualy exlusive. Raher he

remedies provded in seion 3.08 may be exeised n ombinaon For exampe

subdv. 4 povides ha a plain may mainan an aion o ompe ompane wih he

GPA in adon o laims r damages nunive eef and any remedy povded by

ohe aw. By pemiing muple remedies he egislaure eognied ha hee is no

adequae remedy a law r he unlawl use or dsseminaion of pvae nrmaon in

his ase neborn blood and DNA. Money damages pas abuse simply do no seure

he pvay neres hidren pepeualy have in heir genei makeup. See Sonia M.

Sue Dientangling Priay om Proper Toward a Deeper Undertanding of

Geneti Priay, 72 Geo. Wash. L Rev. 737 737 773 (Aprl 2004 (explaining ha

genei inrmaon s unique o eah of us i s our blue pn and ha unwaned

dislosure of our genei inmaion like a gea dea of ohe persona inmaion

makes us vulneable o unwaned exposure sigmaiaion and dsminaon

Respondens mus onrm he ondu o ensue all newbons hiden genei

privay s proeed by he GPA somehng ony an nunion wil aompish.

4. Plais ar id o a dcaraory dgm

Respondens would elevae rm ove subsane arguing ha he eques r a

delaraoy udgmen was no preserved. See Baih Board ofPenion of the

Eangelial Ltheran Chrh in Ameria 493 .W.2d 293 295 (Mnn. C. App 992

(ours should onsrue pleading iberaly in vor of he pleader and udge hem by her

subsane and no her rm Bu Painis omplan aleged ha Respondens

14


19/21

reenion use an dissemnaon o bood sampes and es esus was a ioaion o e

aw aeed a Respondens connued o rese o compy wi e GPA, and asked

a Respondens be enjoned om urer ioaion o e GPA and be compee o

compy w e GPA oee wi re appopiae and necessay reie (A pp 4-

9 Aou e wordsdearaory judmen were no used cams made an

eie euesed necessaed decaaions o e meann and inepay o e NB and

e GPA uc decaaons oud inude deemnin a e NB imied e

auory oH o newborn screenin a e GPA apped o H aer newborn

sceenin was compeed and a e GPA required nrmed consen r e reenion

us or disseminaon o bod sampes es esus aer newbon screenin was

compeed. Weer amed as a decaraory judmen o no ese deermnaons ae

ineen in e caims a are bein made.

imiay Pains arumens o e dsric cour and cour o appeas sou

deerminaions o e appcabiy o e GPA and e inerpay w e NB eac o

wic woud necessiae e decaraon o e aw reae o ese wo saues. s no

a reac o concude a a a mnimum e cour soud ener a judmen ecarn e

corec appicaion o ese wo saues

Painis respecy reques a e disric cour and cour o apeas be

eersed and s case by remanded o e disic cour ra and a pemanen

injuncion.

15


20/21

Ded Jan ary24,2011

Rd G Kuso (0 1)

107 Exce DriveMko MN 5001Poe 5725.2525Fx 507.25.434

e J. Belg (038075)07 Exce DrveMko MN 5001

Poe 507.25.2525Fx 507.25434

N

BRIGGS AND MRGAN PASm so (405)2200 IDS eer80 Sou 8 SreeMepos MN 55402

Poe 12.77.8400Fx 2.77.850

Attorneys for Appeants


21/21

CASE NO. Al0-101

Alan and Ke eade ndvidual and as paents andnatua guadans of osiah and Aexa Beade minos et al.

Appelants

vs.

tate of Mnnesota, Minnesota Depatent of Health, and Danne Magnan, Commissone of the Mnnesota Depatment

of Health

Respondents.

CERTIFCATION OF BREF LENGTH

heeb cetif that this bef conms to the equiements of Mnn. R Civ. App.

P. 320 ubds. and 3, a bef poduced with a popotiona nt The length of

this bief is 4060 wods. Ths bief was pepaed usng Mcoso Ofce Wod 2003.

Dated: anua 24 201FARRIH OHNRandall G. Knutson (022989

Daniel Belig (03890590 Excel DiveMankato, Minnesota 5600 Teephone: 50 .6252525

Attoes Appelants

E, HTD

Documents

Minnesota Supreme Court Bearder Genetic Privacy Act