United States v. Aziz Kamali, M.D., Inc.
2:20-cv-02156
E.D. Cal.Dec 3, 2020Background
- Dr. Azizulah Kamali is an internal and geriatric medicine physician in Stockton who provided "auricular electro‑acupuncture" using a battery‑operated neurostimulation device.
- The United States is investigating whether Kamali and his medical corporation submitted false claims to Medicare/Medi‑Cal by billing high‑rate implanted neurostimulator CPT codes for auricular electro‑acupuncture services that are not reimbursable.
- The U.S. Attorney issued CID No. 2020‑EDCA‑11 (16 document demands; 13 interrogatories) on June 12, 2020; it was served June 16, 2020.
- Respondents provided partial responses on August 10, 2020 but failed to produce all requested documents, fully answer multiple interrogatories, or produce a privilege log despite extensions and meet‑and‑confer attempts.
- The United States filed a petition to enforce the CID on October 27, 2020; respondents did not oppose. The magistrate judge recommended granting enforcement and ordering production and a privilege log within 10 business days after adoption of the recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ had statutory authority to issue the CID | §3733 grants authority to seek documents and interrogatories in FCA investigations | No opposition filed (arguments waived) | CID falls within §3733 authority; enforceable |
| Whether statutory procedural requirements were met | CID specified alleged conduct/law, described materials and interrogatories, set return date and contact investigator | No opposition filed (arguments waived) | Procedural requirements satisfied |
| Whether requested evidence is relevant and material | Documents/interrogatories seek communications, billing/reimbursement requests, and persons with knowledge—relevant to whether claims were false/knowing | No opposition filed (arguments waived) | Requests are relevant and material; enforceable |
| Whether the CID is overbroad/unduly burdensome | Once agency meets authority, procedure, relevancy, burden shifts to respondents to demonstrate unreasonableness | Respondents did not attempt to show overbreadth or burden | Court did not find burden shown; enforcement granted with production and privilege‑log deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 1993) (describing FCA as government’s primary tool to combat fraud)
- EEOC v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting review framework: authority, procedural compliance, relevancy/materiality)
- EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Hous. Auth., 260 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2001) (administrative subpoenas enforceable unless plainly irrelevant or incompetent)
- United States v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n, 689 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (administrative subpoenas/CID judicial review is narrow)
- EEOC v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of N. Cal., 719 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1983) (burden on investigated party to show subpoena is overbroad or unduly burdensome)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 1994) (procedural precedents referenced)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to timely object may waive appellate rights)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (same)