Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02868/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02868-0/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 DENYING MOTION TO 

ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE 

SUBPOENA

[ECF NO. 1]

Before the Court is the petition of the United States 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). 

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

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

 

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

throughout.

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 9 Filed 03/05/19 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

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. This petition ensued.

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

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

There is no dispute regarding the authority of DEA to investigate 

diversion of controlled substances. DEA is both a law enforcement agency 

and a regulator. (ECF No. 4 at 6 n.2). Nor is there a dispute regarding 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 9 Filed 03/05/19 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

whether the procedural requirements have been followed. In Golden Valley 

Elec. Ass’n the procedural requirements were explained as follows:

Section 876(a) requires that “the Attorney General find[ ] [the 

records] relevant or material to the investigation” prior to issuing 

a subpoena. 21 U.S.C. § 876(a). Golden Valley contends that the 

“Attorney General has not even verified that there is a current 

drug investigation involving these residences.” The record belies 

Golden Valley’s contention. A DEA supervisor signed and issued 

the administrative subpoena directed to Golden Valley, and a 

DEA agent served the subpoena. The Attorney General has 

delegated his authority under § 876 to DEA agents. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 871(a) (“The Attorney General may delegate any of his functions 

under this subchapter to any officer or employee of the 

Department of Justice.”); 28 C.F.R. § 0.104 app.

689 F.3d at 1114. The Court finds that the administrative subpoena here 

served upon Respondents met the procedural requirements.

The dispute here regards the third prong, whether the Petitioner has 

demonstrated that the evidence sought is relevant and material to the 

investigation. Petitioner asserts that because a DEA supervisor signed and 

issued the subpoena which was served by a DEA agent, the relevance and 

materiality standard is met. While this appears sufficient to satisfy the 

second prong, Respondent asserts that the certification on the subpoena is 

insufficient to satisfy the third prong – that a declaration of someone with 

knowledge is required. The Court agrees.

Petitioner admits that it could have filed a declaration but asserts that 

it is not required. Petitioner has not identified any case holding that a 

declaration or affidavit is not required in support of the third prong. Even in 

Golden Valley Elec. Ass’n, relied upon by Petitioner, a declaration was filed in 

support of the third prong. See Golden Valley Elec. Ass’n, 689 F.3d at 1114; 

Federal Housing Finance Agency v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, Case No. 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 9 Filed 03/05/19 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

17-cv-0914-GMN-PAL, 2018 WL 1524440 *2 (D. Nev. March 27, 2018). 

Petitioner has conflated the showing needed to support of a finding that the 

procedural requirements were met with the showing needed to find relevance 

and materiality. The Court finds that in order to enforce an administrative 

subpoena in the district court, the United States must 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). 

This is not to say that a declaration is required to be served with the 

administrative subpoena as suggested by Petitioner. Only in seeking 

enforcement in the district court is a declaration in support of the third prong 

required. And, had a declaration been filed in this case, the Court would not 

impose any of the restrictions sought by Respondents. 

CONCLUSION

The Petition of the United States to enforce the administrative

subpoena served by DEA upon the State of California CURES program is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 9 Filed 03/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4