and retired duty families spouses women children because it was half a million people whose data was stolen from t and and these half a million people who have served our country with dedication who protect us and who deserve to be protected we deserve to be protected let me ask you a question that needs me scratch my head a promise to keep the information private question number one or do you see the private information as property of your plaintiff's which was given in bailment to try care and which they negligently handled flag on it if i might the there is a reason why i brought that up not not for flag waving but for something else and that is this it's about the risk we live in an era of terrorism we live in an era where the internet gets things around one to two seconds around the world we live in the information age we live in an era where people can use things against you with if they get a hold of your credit it can be once it's out there in cyberspace you so much exactly that's my whole point my whole point is that al qaeda terrorists could have gone after that hard drive the department of defense has been looking vigorously for who took these no clues they plan their attacks for a long period of a long periods of time i understand the how this case differentiates from other cases not only the military component it wasn't just banking information like social security and date of birth what was on that home about hard drive the hard drives that were taken including medical diagnostic  any of that and other words there is it if the rest of the people getting your medical information or charism or anything else has been increased by this and perhaps that has you're not even asking for damages for that and you're not is that much common ground well i have a different view i think that that's not what your complaint was asking for you're asking for credit much exactly because we think that could uncover a variety of things we think that i mean the fact that this was significant the president of the company of try west sent three letters within a year and in those letters they talked about what information was out there right in terms of whether the person basically don't ask yes i don't narrow level yes but i think i think there's a lot more at stake for society here there's a huge public policy argument here and that is and that is i try west doesn't have to do anything other than some letters and say do what you want monitored your credit get which you want to your expense we've told you that all this sense not that is the the suggestions that they made and i we didn't protect you it was the second time there was a break and now the data's been breached some of it's very sensitive about maybe even medical information and you're active in an active duty status do if you will do what you can or here's some suggestions and then they put you to work and say we made the goof up you do it what i'm afraid of is people say well what gee if you rule our favor it opens the floodgates to litigation the floodgates of data and incompetence are open this is not the first breach this was the country it is certainly this particular set of facts in this particular situation is is no one in the public policy venue what is to give a try carrots try west or a choice point or any of those companies or banks where is their incentive to to keep that data secret and not have somebody just have it on a laptop that's not guarded why aren't you talking about public policy and incentives to the arizona legislature the legislature has acted too i think and i three statutes involving the handling of this type of information none of them have given a private right of action for damages to any person because of the mishandling well not one of them now talking about public policy don't you think the arizona legally protected interest which can be made safe by damages for the dissemination of private information tell me i cannot give it to you because that was the reason why in arizona what i can say is ingestion of asbestos fibers into one's lungs right that's a cognizable if you will common law ever since the the us with case right well well yes sure i have but you know we did ask that the question be certified to the arizona nd that and then the court initially made an order that said that there was a cognizable injury and then and then judge bolton reversed herself and so we feel that the arizona supreme court should weigh in we have confidence that they would find whole credit monitoring industry isn't terribly reputable itself i'm not really certain it clear that a reasonable person would go on and do this but maybe that's a down the line issue in that case it is and of  course the amount of damages doesn't control the fact that there are damages even if they're insulting not really because in this instance it is somewhat dependent as to whether you have any color and i said because of action and all whether any reasonable person would do anything in these understanding is that if somebody uses your credit you now have to pay it anyway so what do you insuring against oh well if it can ruin your life in this where you apply for a mortgage you know credit if you tell a crime mortgage so you know some he stole my identity i have all these black marks on there it's not very easy to get a mortgage there's a lot of harm so i think insurance is going to get you to market people it can it can insure against your losses if somebody buys ten thousand dollars in jewelry you've got a whole how much of it of your life does it take up what is the risk once you yet there's this issue we brought forth testimony is the issue he had six difficulties within six weeks it started with his military address in dover maryland be short if you have a if you have a car accident you have a preexisting condition you have another accident the next day close to the weight of your damages not the existence of that and here the court dismissed brown's claim and i think it's certainly a question whether to buy this world and this this is something we have to put a stop to and tell these companies they where are they right going to get in the record on what the data is worth in the black market and you're talking about a lot of horribles but we're pretty much limited to the record of the record is before says that identity theft is the largest fastest growing crime in america and in the world it is a huge problem that we need to address and have the courage to do something about we live in a future world that's very different than what we've had in the past and where we're asking the court to do the right thing for our military families thank you very much thank you  our zone law which your negligence would have invaded the that's an interesting question it certainly isn't common law negligence and what i was about to say is you still have to connect the docs for a common law and actually you've got to negligence action there's certainly no causal connection in the abstract even in judge burrs on hypothetical we've got to link up the dots so that even if there were a hacker and the hacker got access to information until something happens  contract analysis try west provides health care services to five hundred thousand plus military personnel dependents of retirees the contract is with the government and the government has room of these were there a y exposure are very very precise you must be a specific beneficiary designated typically in writing it's certainly not the case here so and again not to be disrespectful but there were identity was never stolen before he took the strain care industry and destroying all paper trails he used a shredder as i remember that you know that it's it never been so long before it was stolen in december two thousand and due respect your honor where is the even theoretical basis for assuming any connection at all well he never had a song before he gave it a try care it was stolen tri care and shows up the trooper relationship has been found sufficient to allow the case to go forward it is much more direct than any conceivable super relationship here mr grant was a military person for quite some time he testified in his deposition and disclosed in the course of government that he released that information from banks hospitals doctors myriad sources under arizona law for there to be the necessary causal connection to move forward to just survive summary judgment he claims that at some point he has people made inquiries suggestive of identity theft but they're not connected in any way to try wes that's a different issue but a perk and the fact that he was actually i don't know if you've ever been to something i can't damn annoying judge i have been the victim of many things including this to try west so i'm very sensitive to that but when to use of the one of the six incidents occurred before three let me find that for you so i think the salient points are the he had an event before he claims events afterwards his counsel and he elected to do no discovery to link up any of those events if possible to do afterwards there fortunately that with due respect to the court there is absolutely no the legal basis for making that connection and not a single one of the cases cited by plates and in every case cited by  issue here under the local rules is what your statements of undisputed facts are and what this statement of undisputed facts on the other side are and everything else is out the door but that's assuming that that is not so it's not the local rules i really don't have an opinion about this and i'm not as it's not a rhetorical question ice really that one can't make more sense for the arizona supreme court to decide for itself rather than for us to decide an your honor absolutely not first the plaintiffs did not ask for certification until i understand that's not what my impression certification is really that it's really not the parties that we're going for it's really far in order to get the case  diagnosis that can't be measured in money damages here if there is a claim that is causally connected to the events try west money damages would suffice and if they were ever judges for example are very sensitive about their personal information getting out and that's not because i guess it's after it's because we would prefer that people don't know where we live although they do so there are other reasons why you might not want your information out there other than that are not economic cases relate to very finite discrete issues of arizona law and each of the cases in which certification has been allowed there was something particularly unusual and unique that is not the case these are fundamental causal relationship and the importance of early detection and what the significance of an insult such as asbestos might be they're very different from a garden variety negligence case in which economic damages are at issue there is nothing unusual there's no you i would say that even reading yesterday's new york times again there's a very fascinating article about data and concerns information is today's gold if gold is allowed to be out of the barrel you certainly is a worthwhile thing to do to protect your gold you would buy life insurance even if you're healthy you would buy credit monitoring it's a reasonable person would buy credit mo identity theft insurance just like you would via life insurance because the consequences can be so life altering if it happens these folks had no the these service people had no choice but to give their data to try west representative for himself and all others we haven't had a chance to do discovery on those other issues as far as latin is concerned we believe the term used here today is a non sequitur or that basically once once we've put forth evidence which