Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-mc-00063/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-mc-00063-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

28

-1-

McGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney

ANNE PINGS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2785

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

)

IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS )

)

2007A-11-5, 2007A-11-06 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

______________________________)

 MISC. NO. S-07-0063-EJG

 ORDER

On July 13, 2007, this Court heard oral argument on the

motion to quash grand jury subpoenas filed by Dr. Kerwin and

Riverbank Primary Care Medical Center (movants). The Court

denied the motion for the reasons set forth below.

Movants argued in their motion that the subpoenas are

overbroad because they do not specify a period of time. There

was no factual assertion by the defendant that a specific time

frame would reduce the breadth of the subpoenas. Moreover, the

Court is satisfied from the government's ex parte proffer that

the 158 patient files are directly related to the grand jury's

investigation.

Case 2:07-mc-00063-EJG Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

28

-2-

The movants also argued that the subpoena should be quashed

because it costs too much money for them to produce the

documents. There is no cost involved in producing original

documents to the grand jury. If the movants make their own

choice to make copies, they should bear those costs. To the

extent the movants have requested that the government be ordered

to pay costs of copying, that request is also denied.

The movants also argued that the subpoena should be quashed

because it infringes upon patient's privacy interest. The Court

notes that there is no federal doctor-patient privilege and the

case upon which the movants rely, Pagano v. Oroville Hospital,

145 F.R.D. 683 (E.D.Ca. 1993), is overruled. Although the

Supreme Court and some out of circuit cases have recognized some

degree of privacy in patient records, even those cases and the

regulation at 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(f)(1)(ii) recognize that any

privacy interest patients have in their medical records is

outweighed by a grand jury subpoena that is relevant and

material to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. The

government's ex parte submission to the Court has shown that the

file are directly relevant and material to the grand jury's

inquiry and that any privacy interests of the patients are

outweighed.

Lastly, the movants claim that Dr. Kerwin has a personal

privacy interest in documents produced by other entities which

contain allegations of misconduct by the doctor. The Court

noted that any such interest was outweighed by the grand jury's

interests as described in the ex parte proffer. Moreover, the

Court noted that the doctor cannot have a right against selfCase 2:07-mc-00063-EJG Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

28

-3-

incrimination in documents created by other entities. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the motion to quash the

subpoenas is DENIED. 

July 24, 2007 /s/ Edward J. Garcia 

Edward J. Garcia

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-mc-00063-EJG Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3