In Weaver v. Meyers, a Florida trial court must rule on whether a 2013 state statute that authorized presuit ex parte interviews of a putative medical-malpractice plaintiff’s treating physicians, going back as far as two years before the alleged malpractice. CCL has challenged the law as preempted by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as well as on state constitutional grounds.  On June 12, defendants filed a proposed brief responding to CCL’s latest brief in the case, along with a motion for leave to file a sur-reply, asserting that CCL had raised new issues in its response to the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and raising questions about the accuracy of CCL’s rendition of caselaw in its brief.  On June 16, CCL filed a response to the request, pointing out that no new issues had been raised and that the issue identified as new by the defendants had been part of the defendants’ own cross-motion and thus the door to the issue had been opened by the defendants.  CCL also denied any inaccuracies in its description of caselaw, indicating that claim, even if true, was not a basis on which Florida courts permitted sur-replies.  It further pointed out that Defendants’ new proposed brief failed to advise the court that a quotation from a new decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was in a section of the opinion joined only by three justices, and thus had no precedential value.  The CCL response concluded that it had no objection to the court’s acceptance of the proposed brief, provided that the brief was read with extreme caution.