Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Encore Services, LLC, CR-16-19-GF-BMM. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Montana Number: infdco20161007b15 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER BRIAN MORRIS , District Judge . Defendants moved the Court for a subpoena duces tecum to Rocky Boy Health Board and Dr. James Eastlick, Jr. on September 12, 2016. (Doc. 66.) The United States did not object to the requested subpoena, so long as the documents were provided in camera . (Doc. 78 at 2.) The Court granted the motion and ordered Clerk of Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the Custodian of Records for Rocky Boy Health Board and Dr. James Eastlick, Jr. (Doc. 69 at
More

ORDER

Defendants moved the Court for a subpoena duces tecum to Rocky Boy Health Board and Dr. James Eastlick, Jr. on September 12, 2016. (Doc. 66.) The United States did not object to the requested subpoena, so long as the documents were provided in camera. (Doc. 78 at 2.) The Court granted the motion and ordered Clerk of Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the Custodian of Records for Rocky Boy Health Board and Dr. James Eastlick, Jr. (Doc. 69 at 1.)

The subpoena required the Custodian of Records to produce authenticated copies of "any and all records and documents" from January 1, 2006 to current related to Dr. James Eastlick, Jr.'s treatment of six individuals who the United States alleges to be co-conspirators, but are third parties to this matter. Id. at 2; Doc. 27 at 5. The Order specified records and documents related to Dr. James Eastlick, Jr.'s counseling activities and the dispensing of either controlled substances or other prescribed medications to the third parties. (Doc. 69 at 2.)

Defendants specifically sought any documentation regarding potential substance abuse or severe mental disorders that could be "highly probative of credibility and may materially affect the accuracy of a witness's testimony." (Doc. 67 at 14.)

The Rocky Boy Health Board responded to the subpoena and provided documents to the Court on September 30, 2016, for in camera review. (Doc. 81.) The Court has carefully reviewed the documents. None of the documents indicate substance abuse or severe mental disorders that would be highly probative of credibility or may materially affect the accuracy of a witness's testimony.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' request that the Court disclose the documents submitted in response to the subpoena after the in camera review is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer