Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02868/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02868-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18cv2868-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner, 

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondent. 

Case No.: 18cv2868-L-MDD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

RECONSIDER AND GRANTING 

PETITION TO ENFORCE 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA

[ECF NO. 12]

Before the Court is the motion of the United States for the Court to 

reconsider its denial of its Petition to enforce an administrative subpoena 

served by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration upon the 

CURES 2.0 program of the State of California. The Petition was filed on 

December 21, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Respondents filed their opposition on 

February 11, 2019. (ECF No. 4). Petitioner replied, with leave of Court, on 

February 22, 2019. (ECF No. 8). The Court denied the Petition on March 5, 

2019. (ECF No. 9). On March 7, 2019, Petitioner requested permission to file 

supplemental evidence. (ECF No. 10). The Court granted permission 

requiring Petitioner to bring its supplemental evidence forward in a motion 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 14 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv2868-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

for reconsideration. (ECF No. 11). The motion is now before the Court. 

Respondent opposed on March 22, 2019. (ECF No. 13). 

“CURES” is an acronym for California’s Controlled Substance 

Utilization Review and Evaluation System. (ECF No. 4 at 2).1 According to 

the Respondents, the CURES database contains sensitive patient information 

including the records of all prescriptions for controlled substances dispensed 

in California. (Id.). The purpose of CURES is to assist healthcare 

practitioners to ensure appropriate prescribing and to help law enforcement 

and regulatory agencies in their efforts to control diversion and abuse of 

controlled substances. (Id.).

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) is empowered by 

federal law to investigate violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act 

and empowered to issue administrative subpoenas in support of its 

investigations. (ECF No. 1-2 at 4). 

The administrative subpoena served upon Respondents called for the 

production of the records of five individuals for the period January 1, 2014, to 

June 26, 2018. Respondents refused to comply unless DEA satisfied certain 

preconditions. 

LEGAL STANDARD

In a proceeding to enforce an administrative subpoena, the court’s 

inquiry is “quite narrow.” United States v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass’n, 689 

F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). There are three key questions to consider:

1. Whether Congress granted the authority to investigate;

2. Whether procedural requirements have been followed; and

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original pagination 

throughout.

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 14 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv2868-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3. Whether the evidence is relevant and material to the investigation.

Id. If these requirements are met, the subpoena should be enforced unless it 

is too indefinite or broad. Id.

DISCUSSION

The Court previously ruled that Petitioner met the first two prongs of 

the inquiry required by Golden Valley Elec. Ass’n. The dispute before the 

Court was in connection with the third prong, whether the Petitioner 

demonstrated that the evidence sought is relevant and material to the 

investigation. In denying the Petition, the Court found that in order to 

enforce an administrative subpoena in the district court, the United States is 

required to submit a declaration sufficient to demonstrate that the requested 

records are relevant and material to an ongoing investigation. See FDIC v. 

Garner, 126 F.3d 1138, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 1997) citing United States v. Stuart, 

489 U.S. 353, 360 (1989). Having not supplied such a declaration, the 

Petition was denied. (ECF No. 9). 

With its Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner has submitted the 

Declaration of Special Agent Patrick Wolfe of the U. S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration. (ECF No. 12-2). The Declaration provides that the 

administrative subpoena at issue was served in connection with on ongoing 

investigation into the possible diversion of fentanyl which may be related to a 

death. The Declaration is sufficient to establish the relevance and 

materiality required in the third prong of the Golden Valley analysis.

Respondent opposes on the grounds that this is not new evidence and 

not appropriate for reconsideration. Respondent technically is correct, but 

the Court invited the motion and will exercise its discretion to consider it. 

Respondent also re-asserts its position that the Court should impose 

protective order-type restrictions upon DEA’s use of the information. The 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 14 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv2868-L-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Court finds no reason to believe that DEA will not follow its own regulations 

regarding the confidentiality of its investigations and declines to impose the 

conditions suggested by Respondent. 

CONCLUSION

Upon reconsideration, the Petition of the United States to enforce the 

administrative subpoena served by DEA upon the State of California CURES 

program is GRANTED. Respondent must comply within 30 days of this 

Order, absent a contrary agreement of the parties or further Order of the 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 14 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4