Legal Opinion
In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided November 24, 1993No. Misc. No. 93-63; Grand Jury Subpoena No. KMS-41-02PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Entry Denying Motion to Quash, Denying Motion for Protective Order & Modifying. Subpoena
TINDER, District Judge.
The [Corporation]1 pursuant to Rule 17(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has moved to quash a grand jury subpoena, No. KMS^41-02, ordering the Corporation to produce various records of both a financial and treatment nature. Alternatively, the Corporation requests the court to issue a protective order preventing disclosure of certain patient records. For the reasons dis*1395cussed below, the motion to quash will be essentially denied.
I. Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
The…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Trammel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hancock v. DodsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Violette)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- In re August, 1993 Regular Grand JuryDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1994
- Awalt v. MarkettiDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2012
- River Village West LLC v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008
- State v. BrightSuperior Court of Delaware · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.