California Tees Up Privacy Clash With DEA Over Cannabis License Records
The case appears to be one of the first clashes between the California cannabis agency and federal agents over access to license-related records.
July 29, 2020 at 05:03 PM
3 minute read
A cannabis storefront. Credit: Mike Scarcella / ALM
California pushed back in court Wednesday against a federal subpoena seeking state records tied to marijuana licenses and shipping manifests.
In a response filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, lawyers with the attorney general's office said the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has not offered any required explanation for why its agents want documents about three unnamed marijuana businesses and three related individuals.
"Here, a facial reading of the subpoena reveals only that there is an ongoing investigation authorized under the Controlled Substances Act, nothing more," Senior Assistant Attorney General Harinder Kapur told the court. "This does not satisfy the relevancy requirement."
The case appears to be one of the first clashes between the state and federal agents over access to the thousands of license-related records submitted by legal California marijuana operators.
A DEA spokesman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. A state Bureau of Cannabis Control spokesman declined to comment.
The DEA on July 20 asked the District Court to enforce the administrative subpoena the federal agency served on California marijuana regulators in January. The subpoena references a "criminal investigation" underway.
The BCC "has not complied with the subpoena and informed the United States multiple times that it will not produce the requested documents," Assistant U.S. Attorney Dylan Aste in San Diego wrote in the petition. "The United States has made all efforts to obtain compliance short of litigation, but the BCC refuses to comply with the subpoena."
Sign up for Law.com's weekly newsletter Higher Law, which untangles the compliance issues around marijuana legalization, tracks state and federal regulatory developments, and delivers the information lawyers need to advise clients in this emerging industry.
Attorneys for the state argued that federal agents haven't explained the relevancy of their records request to their investigation, nor have they shown that their subpoena is properly limited in scope.
Additionally, the BCC objected to the subpoena "because it failed to identify the relevancy of the requested information which 'is confidential, protected from disclosure, and part of pending licensing application investigations,'" all categories of documents shielded under state law, Kapur wrote.
Bureau records can contain sensitive information about license applicants, including their financial worth and criminal history.
In their original petition to the court, prosecutors argued that federal law requiring compliance with subpoenas for drug violation investigations supersedes state laws governing records protection and privacy.
Read more:
Potential Insurance Coverage for Looted Cannabis Dispensaries
ABA Backs COVID-19 Aid for Law Firms With State-Legal Cannabis Clients
California Employers' Ability to Test for Marijuana Post-Proposition 64
Sign up for Law.com's Legal Radar to keep up with the latest news and lawsuits in a free, personalized news feed. Personalize Legal Radar by selecting core interest areas—from the emerging cannabis sector, technology clients and insurance work to labor employment and global companies. Want more information about Legal Radar? Visit our FAQ page.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Latham Adds Former Treasury Department Lawyer for Cross-Border Deal Guidance
2 minute read
Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Carol-Lisa Phillips to Rise to Broward Chief Judge as Jack Tuter Weighs Next Move
- 2Data Breaches in UK Legal Sector Surge, According to ICO Data
- 3Georgia Law Schools Seeing 24% More Applicants This Year
- 4After Shutting USAID, Trump Eyes Department of Education, CFPB
- 5‘Keep Men Out’: Female Swimmers Sue Ivy Leagues Over Lia Thomas’ Sweep
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
