The AHF Subpoena, What You Won't Read On AVN or XBiz

[mikesouth]

from

MikeSouth.Com

I got a copy of the subpoena that AHF has sent to TTS and CET it is linked below.

What I want to point out is what it is that is being asked for.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1.
All DOCUMENTS and RECORDS, including COMMUNICATIONS,
REFERRING or RELATING to the results of all tests for any and all SEXUALLY
TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS that were provided to, forwarded to, released to,
accessed by, and/or utilized by the Free Speech Coalition, the Adult Industry Medical
Foundation, the Performer Availability Provider Services (also known as PASS), the
Adult Production Health & Safety Services (also known as APHSS), and/or any other
person or entity associated with and/or involved in the making of an ADULT FILM,
for all tests conducted during the period January 1, 2007 to the present. Information
that would disclose the identity of the persons who received the tests may be redacted
from the DOCUMENTS and/or RECORDS, including, but not limited to the
following: name, date of birth, social security number, address, and/or phone number.

The request is pretty clear to me they aren't really asking for any information that is technically private because they are requesting information that has already been shared (with or without performers knowledge or permission) with the FSC, APHSS, AIM and others. The testing facilities also have the option to redact any and all identifying information.

I don't like this one bit but then I dont like that any of this information has been shared with The FSC and others either...they cant say AHF is evil for doing EXACTLY what they are doing, they are both evil.

The FSC can ask you to write letters till the cows come home as we say here in the south but right now the testing facilities have only two choices, one is to comply and release the information, the other is to try and fight it in court and all the performer letters on earth wont change that...fighting it in court is expensive and may or may not be worth doing since AHF will argue that the information has already been shared and that they are perfectly fine with any and all identifying info being blacked out. If The FSC REALLY wants them to fight it maybe they should be offering TTS and CET resources to do so.

This is what you got with APHSS, I have said since it's inception that no good will come of it, specially with The FSC's dirty little hands all over it.

This information is going to really play hell with The FSC statements that porn is safe and that testing works. The real data is likely to be in direct contradiction to that.

I am contacting TTS and CET to inquire if they will redact all identifying information from the data they turn over if they are forced to turn it over.

If there's an attorney out there who would like to expand on this, correct me or disagree I welcome the input.

attachment to the pdf file is on my site

[The Porn Nerd]

Let me be the first to say.......did not read.

Carry on.

[baddog]

Ask for the world is the rule of thumb.

[marcop]

I have little legal knowledge, so these are probably stupid questions:

1) How can the AHF just ask for this information? Don't they need standing or to show harm or something? Otherwise, what's to stop anyone just filing a subpoena asking for this kind of thing? And unless they're actually involved in a lawsuit (which they may be, though that's not mentioned), can they really just ask to be allowed to start a fishing expedition with an organization that they've been in an adversarial relationship for a number of years? And why do they need the information as hasn't any instances of STD infection already been notified to the County Board of Health?

2) Although the information requested has been shared among the groups mentioned above, that doesn't mean it's not private. Doesn't the document the talent fills in when getting tested delineate the various parties the information might be released to? And surely it's not intended to be released to all and anyone.

3) Who pays for the collection of the information demanded? Presumably, someone will spend X hours being paid Y dollars/hour to do the work to amass the data and redact personal details. Who pays that? The people being subpoenaed or the people submitting the subpoena? It seems more than a little unfair to subpoena some random organization, demand they supply private and sensitive information, and then make them bear the cost of the collection of that information.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by marcop

I have little legal knowledge, so these are probably stupid questions:

1) How can the AHF just ask for this information? Don't they need standing or to show harm or something? Otherwise, what's to stop anyone just filing a subpoena asking for this kind of thing? And unless they're actually involved in a lawsuit (which they may be, though that's not mentioned), can they really just ask to be allowed to start a fishing expedition with an organization that they've been in an adversarial relationship for a number of years? And why do they need the information as hasn't any instances of STD infection already been notified to the County Board of Health?

2) Although the information requested has been shared among the groups mentioned above, that doesn't mean it's not private. Doesn't the document the talent fills in when getting tested delineate the various parties the information might be released to? And surely it's not intended to be released to all and anyone.

3) Who pays for the collection of the information demanded? Presumably, someone will spend X hours being paid Y dollars/hour to do the work to amass the data and redact personal details. Who pays that? The people being subpoenaed or the people submitting the subpoena? It seems more than a little unfair to subpoena some random organization, demand they supply private and sensitive information, and then make them bear the cost of the collection of that information.

They can ask for whatever they want; it does not mean they will get it.

As far as who would pay, the requesting party would be responsible for the cost.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by marcop

I have little legal knowledge, so these are probably stupid questions:

1) How can the AHF just ask for this information? Don't they need standing or to show harm or something? Otherwise, what's to stop anyone just filing a subpoena asking for this kind of thing? And unless they're actually involved in a lawsuit (which they may be, though that's not mentioned), can they really just ask to be allowed to start a fishing expedition with an organization that they've been in an adversarial relationship for a number of years? And why do they need the information as hasn't any instances of STD infection already been notified to the County Board of Health?

2) Although the information requested has been shared among the groups mentioned above, that doesn't mean it's not private. Doesn't the document the talent fills in when getting tested delineate the various parties the information might be released to? And surely it's not intended to be released to all and anyone.

3) Who pays for the collection of the information demanded? Presumably, someone will spend X hours being paid Y dollars/hour to do the work to amass the data and redact personal details. Who pays that? The people being subpoenaed or the people submitting the subpoena? It seems more than a little unfair to subpoena some random organization, demand they supply private and sensitive information, and then make them bear the cost of the collection of that information.

1 This is not a request its a subpoena they are compelled by the court to produce what is demanded. That subpoena had to be signed by a judge so they had to have legal standing and yes they are involved in a lawsuit. the testing facilities can not simply say no.

2. The document required is called a HIPPA release and it isnt blanket there must be one for each and every entity the info is shared with, Im not a lawyer but I believe the data can be shared so long a sno identifying information is shared, for example they could report to the county health dept (and do) that we did x number of tests and y were positive for an std. whether or not individual results even with no identifying information is shareable is a legal question I dont have an answer to. The FSC has always said they dont have any of that info, we all know thats a lie, and the passing of this info to the FSC and APHSS and PASS and whomever else is going to be the basis AHF will use to say its not private specially when AHF just wants the numbers, not the individuals identifying info...same as or less than The FSC and APHSS and AIM and womever gets

3. That may be something the testing facilities will claim but unless otherwise ordered by the court the testing facilities bear that burden.

Let me re-iterate that I do not like this at all but I dont like that the info is shared with ANYONE which is why I have never and will never be in the PASS system.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by baddog

Ask for the world is the rule of thumb.

while it would seem that way the scope of what they are demanding is actually fairly narrow, had it not been theyd never have gotten a judge to sign off on it.
You could argue that the clause about anyone involved in the making of adult films is too broad but its kind of a weasel clause to close any loopholes that may be exploited.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Let me be the first to say.......did not read.

Carry on.

A man who does not read has no advantage over a man who can not read.

[plaster]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

A man who does not read has no advantage over a man who can not read.

This is porn. .. read it l Ike u meant it and let everything else fall in place

[JFK]

Originally Posted by plaster

This is porn. .. read it l Ike u meant it and let everything else fall in place

Did it ?

[Biggy]

That subpoena sounds like bullshit if you ask me.

Medical records are a very sensitive thing, and just because patients agreed to share it with some parties doesn't automatically assume it's non-private, and can be shared with anyone.

From a quick google search, to be HIPPAA compliant, the testing agencies & Dr. Riggs may have to notify the patients that they are sharing their information, as one precaution. So those letters would go a long way. Redaction or no redaction, medical information is medical information, a very compelling case can be made that if the patient doesn't want anything shared, then it's their right.

I don't think what they are asking for is narrow at all. "Hey, turn over all of your medical information that you've shared with other parties, and yeah - you can redact it."

Narrow would be asking about specific patients they are interested in, that they know they have approval for-- not asking for everything. This is not a narrow subpoena at all, its a fishing expedition, and if I was a betting man there will be a fight over it. I am sure the testing agencies know better and don't actively want to cooperate (And rightfully so out of privacy concerns), but Dr. Riggs, who knows, but if he's a smart man who doesn't want to put his financial life in jeopardy, he should know not to just turn everything over. He can scream he was subpoenad all he wants, it very well may not shield him from liability in other parts of the law.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

A man who does not read has no advantage over a man who can not read.

Ah that was posted late on a Friday night. LOL

This IS an important subject so good job on delivering it to us Mike.