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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Elvia Lorena Lamont,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00079-001-TUC-CKJ (DTF)

ORDER 

Before the Court are non-party Motions to Quash Subpoena filed by Defendant’s 

sons. (Docs. 91, 92). For the following reasons, the non-party Motions are DENIED. 

On September 17, 2018, Defendant Elvia Lorena Lamont pleaded guilty to one 

count of Misprision of Felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4. (Doc. 59) Defendant and her husband 

committed healthcare fraud by submitting exaggerated and falsified billing invoices to 

Medicare for their private in-home healthcare company for nearly 10 years. (Doc. 74) As

part of her plea agreement, Defendant was sentenced to 13 months incarceration and was 

ordered to pay $1,054,839 in restitution. (Docs. 59 at 5; 85 at 1)

On May 20, 2020, the United States Government served JP Morgan Chase Bank 

(“Chase”) with a subpoena requesting:

Case 4:18-cr-00079-CKJ-DTF Document 95 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

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

[A]ll records in your possession, custody or control or to which 

you have any right of access for any account in which Elvia 

Lamont . . . has/had any signatory authority or interest, whether 

it be individually, jointly, severally, as part of an entity, or 

through nominees, agents, powers of attorney, letters of 

direction, or any device whatsoever.

(Doc. 94 at 2) The subpoena covered the time period from May 1, 2013, through the 

present. Id. According to the Government, the subpoena further requested specific types 

of documents associated with financial accounts including signature cards and account 

applications. Id. The Government also asserts that it requested only records from accounts 

in which Defendant had an interest. Id.

On July 10, 2020, two of Defendant’s sons filed separate Motions to Quash along 

with affidavits testifying they objected to release of their financial records because they do 

not have any accounts or statements with Chase that contain Defendant’s information or 

statements. (Docs. 91, 92)

On July 20, 2020, the Government filed its response arguing the Federal Debt 

Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”) permits it to seek discovery regarding the financial 

condition of Defendant (the debtor) in the manner authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Doc. 94 at 3) The Government concedes that the Right to Financial Privacy 

Act (“RFPA”) allows non-party banking customers of the financial institution from which 

financial records pertaining to him have been sought to object to a subpoena. Id. The 

Government concludes that while the RFPA establishes privacy rights over an individual’s 

financial records, the Act also permits the United States to obtain records when necessary 

as part of the Government’s legitimate law enforcement activities. Id. Financial records 

in which Defendant has an interest, it argues, meets the legitimate law enforcement 

guideline. 

To date, neither Defendant nor her sons have filed a reply. This Order follows.

Case 4:18-cr-00079-CKJ-DTF Document 95 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs motions to quash or modify a subpoena. 

Section (d)(3)(A) of the Rule identifies circumstances in which a court must grant a motion 

to quash or modify a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). It provides:

On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance 

is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to 

allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to 

comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, 

if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to 

undue burden.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 also guides the parameters of a motion to quash 

subpoena since it defines the permissible scope of discovery. Brown v. Sperber-Porter, 

No. CV-16-02801-PHX-SRB, 2017 WL 10409840, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2017). Rule 

26(c) requires that a court limit the extent of discovery, including that which is obtained by 

a subpoena, if it “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive” or “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii). In turn, Rule 26(b)(1) broadly allows “discovery regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional 

to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). 

The “relevance” standard, however, does not apply to non-parties. See Dart Indus. 

Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1980) (“While discovery is a 

valuable right and should not be unnecessarily restricted . . . , the ‘necessary’ restriction 

may be broader when a nonparty is the target of discovery.”) (internal citation omitted). 

“To obtain discovery from a nonparty, a party must demonstrate that its need for discovery 

outweighs the nonparty's interest in nondisclosure.” R. Prasad Indus. v. Flat Iron Envtl. 

Solutions Corp., No. CV-12-08261-PCT-JAT, 2014 WL 2804276, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 20, 

2014). 

Case 4:18-cr-00079-CKJ-DTF Document 95 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

Lastly, section 3410 of the RFPA provides additional guidelines to consider when 

analyzing a motion to quash subpoena for financial records. In relevant part, it provides:

A motion to quash an administrative summons or an 

application to enjoin a Government authority from obtaining 

records pursuant to a formal written request shall be filed in the 

appropriate United States district court. Such motion or 

application shall contain an affidavit or sworn statement (1) 

stating that the applicant is a customer of the financial 

institution from which financial records pertaining to him have 

been sought; and (2) stating the applicant's reasons for 

believing that the financial records sought are not relevant to 

the legitimate law enforcement inquiry stated by the 

Government authority in its notice, or that there has not been 

substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

. . . . 

If the court finds that the customer has complied with 

subsection (a), it shall order the Government authority to file a 

sworn response, which may be filed in camera if the 

Government includes in its response the reasons which make 

in camera review appropriate. If the court is unable to 

determine the motion or application on the basis of the parties' 

initial allegations and response, the court may conduct such 

additional proceedings as it deems appropriate. 

. . . . 

If the court finds . . . that there is a demonstrable reason to 

believe that the law enforcement inquiry is legitimate and a 

reasonable belief that the records sought are relevant to that 

inquiry, it shall deny the motion or application, and, in the case 

of an administrative summons or court order other than a 

search warrant, order such process enforced. 

12 U.S.C.A. § 3410 (West)

ANALYSIS

The Court finds there is a demonstrable reason to believe that the Government’s 

inquiry into Defendant’s financial records, or those records in which Defendant has a

financial interest, is legitimate. The Court also finds there exists reasonable belief that the 

records sought are relevant to that inquiry. Defendant was convicted of a serious felony

Case 4:18-cr-00079-CKJ-DTF Document 95 Filed 07/30/20 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

offense which constituted years of fraud upon the United States. According to the 

Government, Defendant still owes over $1,000,000 in restitution. The Government seeks 

records in which Defendant has a financial interest and/or signatory authority and its 

request for information does not appear irrelevant or overly broad. See Magnaleasing, Inc. 

v. Staten Island Mall, 76 F.R.D. 559, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (ruling that discovery into a 

third-party’s assets is permissible where the “relationship between the judgment debtor and 

the [third-party] is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the bona fides of the transfer 

of assets between them”). 

The Government has also demonstrated that its need for discovery outweighs the 

nonparties’ interest in nondisclosure, as the nonparties fail to sufficiently indicate that the 

records the Government seeks are entirely unrelated to Defendant’s financial interests or 

that any of the scenarios under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A) apply. The 

non-parties’ cursory assertions to the contrary are insufficient to quash the subpoena. 

Accordingly, the Motions to Quash Subpoena are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

1. The Motions to Quash Subpoena (Docs. 91, 92) are DENIED. 

2. The Government may proceed with review of those records. 

Dated this 30th day of July, 2020.

Case 4:18-cr-00079-CKJ-DTF Document 95 Filed 07/30/20 Page 5 of 5