Reposted by Holly Olson, BCPA
Holly Olson, BCPA
@hollyolsonbcpa.bsky.social
3.1K followers 1.6K following 494 posts
I help people get the healthcare they need and deserve. I became a Board Certified Patient Advocate after seeing people struggle trying to navigate the US healthcare system. Family, dogs, writing, beekeeping, books, National Parks & Alzheimer's awareness
![In its motion for a stay, DOJ argues that grand jury secrecy requirements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) preclude it from offering any evidence to demonstrate its lawful and legitimate interest in provisional class members' sensitive medical information. But as the Court explained almost one month ago, "[t]hat is not quite true. It is within DOJ's authority to petition the Texas court for authorization to disclose grand jury matters in connection with this
2
Case 5:26-cv-04998-PCP Document 108 Filed 07/31/26
Page 3 of 4
proceeding." Id. at *21 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i)). The Court invited DOJ to seek such authorization and to "request that this Court review any materials in camera as needed to preserve grand jury secrecy." Id. More than four weeks later, DOJ appears to have taken no action. DOJ could have used its reply in support of its stay motion (if not the stay motion itself) to identify evidence of its legitimate interest in provisional class members' medical information or, at the least, to apprise the Court of its efforts to seek authorization to disclose such evidence. Instead, DOJ opted not to file any reply at all. The Court must therefore conclude that DOJ lacks evidence to support its claimed interest or to demonstrate irreparable harm to that interest as a result of the preliminary injunction.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreib7fyygbq2mtguq2jaqyb66ccwbmudceegcsy7725x6lsheo3vf4m)
