United States v. Medical Soc.
| Citation | 26 F. Supp. 55 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MEDICAL SOC. OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1938 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
John Henry Lewin, of Baltimore, Md., Allan Hart, of Portland, Or., Douglas B. Maggs, of Durham, N. C., and Grant W. Kelleher, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
The first two paragraphs of the subpœna in broad yet detailed terms do in effect call for production of all writings of every kind in possession of the American Medical Association which were made, sent or received by it or any individual or body during stated periods running back from October 15, 1938, as far as January 1, 1916, "referring or relating" to ten named organizations or persons, and all such writings so made, sent or received from January 1, 1935, to October 15, 1938, "referring or relating" to any individual or body engaged in providing, proposing or attempting to provide prepaid medical care or low cost group practice of medicine.
In moving to quash the subpœna the American Medical Association urges, among other grounds, that it is so broad and all inclusive in its requirements as to be unreasonable and oppressive, and thus violative of the constitutional inhibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.
The assertions made in the motion and in argument that compliance with the subpœna will require an examination for the stated periods of every paper in all the files of the Association scattered through its separate departments, occupying a large nine story building in Chicago, have not been challenged in any way. The statement seems to be fair when one visualizes the situation in the light of the sweeping terms of the subpœna. To fully and strictly comply therewith every paper of whatever nature containing the slightest reference to the ten named organizations and persons for the periods specified must be found and produced. In most instances the dates go back of 1930; in one case to 1916. In addition, it would be necessary to find over a period of about four years all papers of every kind containing any possible reference to persons or bodies engaged in providing, proposing or attempting to provide prepaid medical care or low cost group medical practice. The marks for identifying these papers are not prescribed subjects that might have some possible relevancy to the nature of the grand jury's investigation. The only means for finding them is to examine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smyth
...to the instant motion to dismiss. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 12 S. Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110; United States v. Medical Society of District of Columbia, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 55; In re Fried, 2 Cir., 161 F.2d 453, 1 A.L.R.2d 33 Rule 6(g), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.;......
-
United States v. Woerth
...1445, certiorari denied, McMann v. Engel, 1937, 301 U.S. 684, 57 S.Ct. 785, 81 L.Ed. 1342. In the case of United States v. Medical Soc. of District of Columbia, D.C.1938, 26 F.Supp. 55, the problem of the reasonableness of the subpoena was considered. The Court concluded that the subpoena m......
-
United States v. Tyson's Poultry, Inc., 483
...66 L.Ed. 735, but that possibility does not warrant a demand for the whole. * * *' "* * * In the case of United States v. Medical Soc. of District of Columbia, D.C.1938, 26 F.Supp. 55, the problem of the reasonableness of the subpoena was considered. The Court concluded that the subpoena mu......
-
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, etc.
...United States, 232 F.2d 855, 863 (8th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 833, 77 S.Ct. 48, 1 L.Ed.2d 52 (1956); United States v. Medical Society, 26 F.Supp. 55, 57 (D.D.C.1938); In re Eastman Kodak, 7 F.R.D. 760, 763, 765 The requirement of relevance is satisfied by a showing that there is ......