Background - State charged Dr. Grace Liu with health-care fraud, bond non-compliance, and 14 counts of endangering the welfare of children based on allegations that uncertified dental assistants administered nitrous oxide to child patients. - Attorney General issued a subpoena to Dr. Liu and her practice (The Smile Place) for “any and all medical records” (electronic or paper) for the 14 identified minor patients (names, DOBs, Medicaid IDs listed). - Dr. Liu moved to quash the subpoena as an unreasonable search/seizure under the Fourth Amendment, arguing the request is overbroad and seeks records outside a reasonable time frame. - The State argued the complete files for those 14 patients are finite, relevant to both the endangerment and alleged Medicaid billing fraud, and potentially admissible under Rule 404(b). - Dr. Liu had a Medicaid provider agreement obligating her to retain and produce Medicaid-related records on request; the State relied on this contractual obligation as reinforcing reasonableness. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Liu) | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Particularity: Does the subpoena specify materials with reasonable particularity? | Seeks complete files for 14 named minors — finite and sufficiently particular to show circumstances (identity, billing, medical history). | Request for entire patient files is overbroad; only anesthesia-related portions should be sought. | Denied. Complete files for the 14 named patients are sufficiently particular. | | Relevance: Are requested materials limited to those relevant to the investigation? | Files are limited to the 14 allegedly endangered children and relevant to both endangerment and fraud charges. | Much of full files contain irrelevant information beyond anesthesia issues. | Denied. Files are relevant to State’s investigation; request is not overly broad. | | Temporal scope: Do records requested cover an unreasonable amount of time? | Prior records, even predating limitations, may show prior anesthesia use and be admissible (404(b)). | Records predating statute of limitations are irrelevant and constitute improper character evidence. | Denied. Given children's ages and potential 404(b) relevance, the temporal scope is not unreasonable. | | Effect of Medicaid provider agreement: Does the contractual duty to produce records affect reasonableness? | Agreement obligates provider to produce Medicaid patient records on request; this supports reasonableness of subpoena. | Contract is separate from criminal subpoena analysis and should not control. | Court treats the contract as reinforcing reasonableness across the three factors; subpoena remains enforceable. | ### Key Cases Cited Johnson v. State, 983 A.2d 904 (Del. 2009) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness review of Attorney General subpoenas) In re Blue Hen Country Network, 314 A.2d 197 (Del. Super. Ct. 1973) (framework for subpoena particularity) * Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (analysis required before admitting prior-acts evidence under relevance rules)