Open court vs. chambers with a subpoena in relation to substance abuse?

Question

I have a question for my homework that I just can't seem to figure out. If anyone could help me answer it I would really appreciate it.

Question:

Judge Jones is hearing a motion to order release of substance abuse records pursuant to a subpoena. The hearing...

A. Must be in open court because the records were subpoenaed.
B. May be in open court at the discretion of the judge.
C. Must be heard in chambers and sealed from public scrutiny.
D. May be heard in chambers if the motion so requested.

This is for my lesson on Confidentiality of Health Information. If anyone could tell me which it should be, and why, I would really really appreciate the help and explanation. Thanks in advance!!!

Answer 1

B. a judge may set his motion calendar at either location. in chambers or not all hearings are public record unless the judge orders the record sealed

Answer 2

The key to the answer is in it's question the key word "Hearing", the correct answer to this question is definately A. However, if a motion is requested to hear this matter in chambers,the judge at his/her discretion will hold the hearing in chambers.

Generally if this is not a criminal proceeding, then the judge would hold the hearing in chambers. In any case Judges are god and normally dispose of these types of motions in any way they see fit.

Answer 3

I would say B. It is only a motion hearing to order the holder of records to release them to the court -- not an actual placement of the medical records into the court record.

One of the classes I teach is health law and legislation.

Answer 4

I would think D is the only correct answer. HIPAA is a strange thing...the things you think are obvious aren't.

In this case, I think it would depend on if it were a bench trial or jury trial, and whether or not the jury should be provided with the information...but, even then, juries are sequestered if a motion is to be argued....