Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02868/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02868-2/pdf.json

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

---

1 

3:18-cv-2868-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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND 

CURES 2.0 PROGRAM, 

Respondents.

 Case No.: 3:18-cv-2868-L-MDD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [Doc. 15] 

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ objection to the magistrate judge’s order 

[Doc. 14] granting of Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and petition to enforce an 

administrative subpoena. See Doc. No. 15. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

DENIES Respondents’ motion for reconsideration. 

BACKGROUND 

In June 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) served an 

administrative subpoena upon California’s Controlled Substance Utilization Review and 

Evaluation System (“CURES”). The subpoena sought patient and related prescription 

information concerning five individuals for the period from January 1, 2014 to June 26, 

2018. In July 2018, the California Attorney General’s Office (“California DOJ”) replied 

that it needed to evaluate its obligation to respond to the subpoena in light of the United 

States Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018) and 

its duty to protect privacy rights under the California and United States Constitution before 

it decided whether or not to comply with the subpoena. When California DOJ balked at 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 19 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
 2 

3:18-cv-2868-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

28

complying with the subpoena, the DEA referred the matter to the United States Attorney’s 

Office in the Southern District of California (“USAO”). On November 19, 2018, 

California DOJ expressed concern about the privacy of individuals’ CURES records 

disclosed to the DEA. On November 21, 2018, the USAO informed California DOJ that 

the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, general prevents a federal agency from disclosing records 

about a person [5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)] unless one of several exceptions applies [5 U.S.C. § 

552a(j)-(k)]. The USAO also informed California DOJ that the Controlled Substances Act, 

which governs the instant subpoena, expressly preempts state law when inconsistency 

arises. See Doc. No. 18-1 at 4-5 (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 876, 903). On that same date, the 

USAO requested the California DOJ communicate whether it intended to comply with the 

subpoena within a week. On December 3, 2018, the USAO again asked California DOJ 

for a response by December 5, 2018. Apparently, neither requests was addressed by 

California DOJ, the USAO received authorization to file a civil action to enforce the 

subpoena against the State of California in this Court. On December 14, 2018, California 

DOJ attempted to resolve this matter without litigation by offering to release the requested 

CURES records to the DEA upon the following conditions: 

1) The issuing DEA agent certify under penalty of perjury that the CURES data 

collected is collected for an active drug investigation and will be used only for 

purposes of that investigation; 

2) DEA provide advance notice to the person(s) whose data is sought by the 

subpoena if such notice would not compromise the drug investigation; 

3) DEA destroy the CURES data within one year after the conclusion of the 

investigation and prosecution, including any appeal; and 

4) DEA refrain from disclosing the CURES data to any other federal, state, or local 

agency unless it is for purposes directly related to the DEA investigation for 

which this data is sought. 

The DEA declined to comply with the proposed conditions, and Petitioner filed a 

petition to enforce the administrative subpoena on December 21, 2018. Doc. No. 1. On 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 19 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
 3 

3:18-cv-2868-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

28

February 11, 2019, Respondents opposed the petition claiming the DEA failed to establish 

the relevance and materiality of the information sought through the subpoena by failing to 

attach a declaration in support of petition. See Doc. No. 4. While Petitioner took the 

position that neither relevance nor a declaration needed to be provided, the magistrate judge 

found 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 ECF No. 9. Accordingly, the 

magistrate judge denied the petition on March 5, 2019. Id. On March 7, 2019, Petitioner 

filed an ex parte motion for leave to file supplemental evidence to file the necessary, 

corresponding declaration to the instant petition and underlying subpoena, eliminating the 

need to issue a new subpoena and file a subsequent enforcement action. See Doc. No. 10. 

The magistrate judge granted Petitioner leave to file a supplemental declaration “as part of 

a motion for the Court to reconsider its Order denying enforcement of the underlying 

administrative subpoena” on March 11, 2019. Doc. No. 11. On March 15, 2019, Petitioner 

filed a motion for reconsideration with declaration of a special agent attached affirming 

that the CURES records sought were relevant to an ongoing investigation. See Doc. No. 

12-2. Respondents opposed the motion asserting that there was no excuse for Petitioner’s 

previous failures to submit the required declaration, and, in the alternative, Respondents 

requested the Court impose the disclosure conditions Respondents initially proposed. Doc. 

No. 13. On March 26, 2019, the magistrate judge granted Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration and ordered Respondents to comply with the subpoena within 30 days of 

the order, absent a contrary agreement between the parties or further court order. See Doc. 

No. 14. 

On April 9, 2019, Respondents filed the instant motion for reconsideration or 

objections to the magistrate judge’s order granting Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 

and the petition to enforce administrative subpoena. Doc. No. 15. The Court then stayed 

the enforcement of the administrative subpoena until resolution of the instant motion and 

ordered Petitioner to file an opposition. See Doc. No. 17. Petitioner filed an opposition on 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 19 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
 4 

3:18-cv-2868-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

28

April 23, 2019 pursuant to the Court’s order. Doc. No. 18. For the following reasons, the 

Respondents’ motion is DENIED and the magistrate judge’s ruling is affirmed. 

DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) sets forth the following grounds from which 

a the court could relieve a party from a court order: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; the 

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief. 

Respondents contend the magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law because no new 

facts were presented in Petitioner’s reconsideration motion to warrant relief. The Court 

disagrees. After review of the magistrate judge’s order granting Petitioner’s motion to 

reconsider and petition to enforce administrative subpoena, the Court finds that the 

magistrate judge’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion. Although required by the 

magistrate judge here, the Court does not agree that F.D.I.C. v. Garner, 126 F.3d 1138, 

1142-43 (9th Cir. 1997) requires an agency to file a declaration when seeking enforcement 

of an administrative subpoena in district court. As follows, the Court finds that “the 

especially constraining” relevance standard could have been satisfied upon a facial reading 

of the subpoena itself. From the Court’s reading of the subpoena, it gathers that an ongoing 

DEA investigation, authorized under the Controlled Substances Act, sought prescription 

records in connection with a possible diversion of if fentanyl which may related to a death. 

The Ninth Circuit demands the Court enforce this subpoena as is not “plainly incompetent 

or irrelevant to any lawful purpose of the [DEA].” U.S. v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass’n, 689 

F.3d 1108, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting EEOC v. Kanuk Tribe Hous. Auth., 260 F.3d 

1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that the magistrate judge’s grant of the 

reconsideration motion and petition here served an underlying purpose of Rule 60, to 

prevent manifest injustice. The instant subpoena was served on California DOJ in June 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 19 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
 5 

3:18-cv-2868-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

28

2018, and the relevance to the data sought was plainly identified in the communications 

between the agencies before the petition was filed. A grant of Respondents’ motion here 

only elevates form over substance in that each prong of the Court’s inquiry1

 to enforce the 

administrative subpoena undisputedly has been met. Respondents have not shown any 

substantive impediment to disclosure of the relevant data to Petitioner. Therefore, the 

Court would only further prolong the statutorily authorized investigation by granting 

Respondents’ motion. As such, the Court DENIES Respondents’ motion. 

Respondents also contend the magistrate judge’s order should be set aside or 

modified for its failure to adequately protect the confidentiality of patient prescription 

records. The Court again disagrees. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Privacy Act, see

5 U.S.C. § 552a, restricts its use of CURES records. To the extent any privacy protections 

under California conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), the CSA expressly 

preempts state law. See 21 U.S.C. § 903. For these reasons, the Court finds that 

Respondents’ proposed conditions of disclosure are not necessary in this instance. Thus, 

Respondents’ motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Accordingly, Respondents must comply with the administrative subpoena served by the 

DEA upon the California CURES program within 30 days of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2019 

                                              

1

 The “narrow” inquiry to be considered by courts is set forth in United States v. Golden Valley 

Elec. Ass’n, 689 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Case 3:18-cv-02868-L-MDD Document 19 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5