United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jacqueline Blaesi-Freed, Linda I. Marks and Roger J. Gural
for the United States of America.
S. Friedberg, Joseph S. Friedberg, Robert D. Richman for
Defendant Moran Oz.
JaneAnne Murray, Murray Law LLC for Defendant Babubhai Patel.
Celine Pacyga and Ryan M. Pacyga, Pacyga and Associates for
Defendant Lachlan Scott McConnell.
L. Gerdts, John C. Brink for Defendant Elias Karkalas.
E. Ostgard, Paul Daniel Schneck for Defendant Prabhakara Rao
RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendants' First Motion in
Limine (“Defs.' Mot.”) [Doc. No. 715]. That
Motion asks the Court to exclude evidence and argument in
support of the counts alleging that Defendants violated the
Controlled Substances Act by distributing Fioricet without
valid prescriptions and through an online pharmacy that was
not properly registered. (Id.) For the reasons set
forth below, Defendants' Motion is denied.
are charged with a variety of offenses related to their
involvement with an online pharmacy, RX Limited
(“RXL”). (See Indict. [Doc. No. 5].) In
relevant part, Defendants Moran Oz, Babubhai Patel, Lachlan
McConnell, and Elias Karkalas,  are charged with violating the
Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) by: (1)
dispensing a drug known as Fioricet without valid
prescriptions as required by 21 U.S.C. § 829(e); (2)
dispensing Fioricet through RXL and its affiliates, which
were not registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency
(“DEA”) as required by 21 U.S.C. § 823(f);
and, (3) dispensing Fioricet through RXL, which did not
display certain information on its website(s) as required by
21 U.S.C. § 831. (See Indict. at 38-41.) The
Government charges that Defendants' failures to abide by
the requirements of 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f), 829(e),
and 831 constituted criminal violations of 21 U.S.C. §
841(h)(1). (See id. at 40- 41.)
certain Defendants moved to dismiss the CSA counts based on
their contention that Fioricet is not a controlled substance.
(See Doc. No. 340, 377, 417.) The Court rejected
this argument, found that Fioricet is a controlled substance,
and denied the motion. United States v. Oz, No.
13-cr-273 (SRN/JJK), 2016 WL 1183041, at *3-6 (D. Minn. Mar.
28, 2016). Defendants now argue that the Court should exclude
all evidence and argument regarding the CSA charges that
Fioricet was dispensed without a valid prescription and that
RXL dispensed Fioricet without being registered with the DEA
because Fioricet is “explicitly exempted” from
those provisions of the CSA. (Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of
First Mot. in Limine (“Defs.' Mem. in Supp.”)
at 2-3 [Doc. No. 716].) Defendants explain that this argument
is different from their previous challenge to the CSA charges
because “even assuming Fioricet is a controlled
substance, it is still exempt from 21 U.S.C. §§ 829
and 823 and, therefore, its distribution is authorized
without regard to those statutes.” (Id. at 2.)
minimum, Defendants' past and present challenges to the
CSA charges are closely related. Thus, the Court incorporates
its previous analysis in this opinion.
Fioricet, the Controlled Substances Act, and the ...