## Facts

- Medical insurers, including Blue Cross, sued Janet Greeson and related entities operating “A Place for Us” (APFU), alleging the clinics billed insurers for covered psychiatric services while providing weight-loss services, resulting in alleged fraud exceeding $100 million.
- After extensive discovery, the civil case settled before trial.
- The district court entered a protective order governing discovery materials produced in the civil action.
- A federal grand jury later investigated APFU and subpoenaed Blue Cross’s law firm, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes (MMH), seeking copies of all documents produced during the civil discovery.
- APFU intervened in the subpoena proceeding and moved to quash, arguing the protective order barred production.
- The district court allowed intervention but denied the motion to quash, permitting production to the grand jury.
- Because the subpoena was directed to a third party (MMH), the court of appeals exercised immediate appellate jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal grand jury subpoena may compel production of materials covered by a civil protective order.
2. What standard governs a motion to quash or modify a protective order when the grand jury seeks protected civil discovery.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of APFU’s motion to quash.
- The court held that a civil protective order does not categorically bar compliance with a grand jury subpoena.
- The court adopted a case-by-case balancing approach rather than a rigid “compelling need/extraordinary circumstances” test.
- Applying that balance, the court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the grand jury to obtain the discovery materials.

## Legal Principles

- Grand jury subpoenas are presumptively reasonable and reflect a strong public interest in obtaining evidence for criminal investigations, subject to recognized privileges.
- Civil protective orders are equitable tools that facilitate discovery and settlement but are subject to modification when circumstances change.
- A protective order does not function as immunity from criminal investigation; parties cannot use civil confidentiality to prevent the grand jury from accessing otherwise obtainable evidence.
- When a grand jury seeks protected civil discovery, courts should balance:
  - the grand jury’s need for the materials and the public interest in law enforcement, against
  - the interests served by the protective order, including reasonable reliance on confidentiality and the role of the order in facilitating civil discovery and settlement.
- Appellate jurisdiction may be available immediately under Perlman when a subpoena is served on a third party unlikely to risk contempt to protect the intervenor’s interests.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that documents subject to a civil protective order may still be obtained by a grand jury subpoena, with enforcement determined by a discretionary, case-specific balancing of criminal investigatory needs against confidentiality and reliance interests protected by the civil order.


In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Meserve, Mumper & Hughes, 62 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 1995)