755 F.Supp.3d 285
E.D.N.Y2024Background
- Gilead Sciences Inc. alleges that Peter Khaim is a major participant in a conspiracy to sell counterfeit Gilead-branded HIV medications, and brings civil trademark and related claims.
- Khaim, also a criminal defendant who wore an ankle monitor as a condition of federal release, stands accused of continuing illicit activity after previous court injunctions.
- In the civil case, Gilead sought to compel BI Incorporated, a third party that managed Khaim’s ankle monitor, to produce extensive GPS data from the device.
- Gilead argues the GPS data is needed to establish Khaim’s physical presence at pharmacies implicated in counterfeiting and possibly uncover other participants.
- Khaim opposes, seeking to quash the subpoena on grounds of privacy, Fifth Amendment, and disproportionate scope, arguing it’s an overbroad fishing expedition.
- The court considers whether compelling production of such GPS data is relevant, proportional, premature, or an improper invasion of privacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Challenge Subpoena | Khaim can’t object as subpoena targets third party (BI) | Has privacy/personal interest in GPS data; can object or court can act sua sponte | Khaim has standing to object |
| Relevance & Proportionality of GPS Data | Data shows Khaim’s involvement, is necessary to case | Data is overbroad, capturing irrelevant daily movements, not tailored | Data not sufficiently relevant/proportional |
| Prematurity/Availability by Other Means | Khaim refuses discovery, only means to obtain these facts | Gilead hasn’t tried all less-intrusive or direct discovery (e.g., phone data) | Request is premature |
| Privacy/Fifth Amendment | Privacy already waived as Khaim wore monitor voluntarily | Compulsion would violate privacy, consent was limited to criminal context | Disclosure would violate privacy rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (individuals maintain legitimate privacy interest in comprehensive location records)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (long-term GPS tracking impinges on reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) (law enforcement may use ankle monitor data if related to parole duties, but does not extend to civil litigants)