United States v. Mattia

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CARMINE A. MATTIA, JR., Defendant.

No. 2:21-cr-00576 (BRM)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 3, 2024

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

HON BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ^[1]

Before the Court are two motions: Defendant Carmine A. Mattia Jr.'s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) Counts 1 through 4 of the Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 15), and Defendant's Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 23). The United States of America (the “Government”) filed a joint opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant's Omnibus Motion. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant filed a reply in further support of his Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 30), and a separate reply in further support of his Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 31). With the Court's permission Defendant later filed a supplemental letter in further support of his motions (ECF No. 58), and the Government filed a supplemental letter in further opposition to Defendant's motions (ECF No. 59). Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with Defendant's motions and having held oral argument,^[2] for the reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, and Defendant's Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 23) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave to refile as applicable and in accordance with this Opinion.

I. Background

On July 23, 2021, a grand jury returned an Indictment against Defendant, charging him with three counts of health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. (ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, on April 8, 2022, a grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment against Defendant, charging him with six counts: one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1); three counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and § 2 (Counts 2 through 4); one count of witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) (Count 5); and one count of obstruction of health care investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1518 (Count 6). (ECF No. 15.) Specifically, Defendant was charged with “knowingly and intentionally conspir[ing] and agree[ing] with others to knowingly and willfully execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a health care benefit program” by causing “false and fraudulent insurance claims” to be submitted to a health care plan for “medically unnecessary” compounded prescription medications for one person (“Individual-1”). (Id.)

For purposes of addressing Defendant's pretrial motions, the Court accepts the factual allegations set forth in the Superseding Indictment as true.^[3] See United States v. Besmajian, 910 F.2d 1153, 1154 (3d Cir. 1990). During the time relevant to the Superseding Indictment, Defendant worked both as an employee of, and union representative for, a telecommunications company, and as a sales representative selling various compounded medications for a marketing company and compounding pharmacies (the “Compounding Pharmacies”).^[4] (ECF No. 15 at 1, 4.) The Compounding Pharmacies obtained payment from the telecommunications company's health care plan (the “Health Plan”), through a pharmacy benefit management company (“PBM-1”), for compounded medications ordered by individuals whom Defendant recruited. (Id. at 2-4.) The Superseding Indictment alleges that “[f]rom at least as early as in or around April 2016 through in or around July 2016,” Defendant gave Individual-1 cash and check payments to induce and persuade him to obtain “medically unnecessary” compounded prescription medications from the Compounding Pharmacies, “including, but not limited to, prescriptions that were filled on or about April 4, 2016, April 29, 2016, June 28, 2016 and July 25, 2016.”^[5] (Id. at 3-5.) Defendant allegedly bribed Individual-1 to get these “medically unnecessary” prescriptions in order to increase his profits as a sales representative and receive money from the Compounding Pharmacies. (Id.)

The Superseding Indictment also alleges Defendant “secured and caused to be secured” Dr. Robert Agresti's signature on prescription forms for Individual-1^[6] even though (1) Individual-1 did not have a “doctor/patient relationship” with Dr. Agresti; (2) Dr. Agresti did not determine Individual-1 had a “medical necessity” for the prescriptions; and (3) Dr. Agresti did not examine Individual-1. (ECF No. 15 at 5.) The Health Plan was subsequently billed for these “medically unnecessary” compounded medications for Individual-1, and Defendant received a percentage of the amount the Health Plan paid for these medications. (Id. at 3-4.) The Superseding Indictment further alleges that a goal of the conspiracy was for Defendant and unidentified “others” to fraudulently obtain money through commissions “by causing the submission of Individual-1's false and fraudulent insurance claims for compounded prescription medications to the [Health Plan.]” (Id.)

Defendant pleaded not guilty to all six counts in the Superseding Indictment. (ECF No. 18.) On May 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 through 4 of the Superseding Indictment. (ECF No. 22.) On the same day, Defendant also filed an Omnibus Motion requesting the Court issue an Order for the following: (1) “[p]ermitting him to serve certain Rule 17(c) subpoenas”; (2) “[r]equiring the production of a bill of particulars”; (3) “[s]triking surplusage from the Superseding Indictment”; (4) “[r]equiring the immediate production of all Rule 16 and Brady material”; (5) “[r]equiring the production of all Giglio [material] at least eight weeks in advance of the commencement of trial”; (6) “[r]equiring the identification of all 404(b) and uncharged criminal acts evidence at least eight weeks in advance of the commencement of trial”; (7) “[r]equiring the immediate production of the agent rough notes for the FBI 302s already produced by the Government”; (8) “[r]equiring the immediate production of the FBI 302s that correspond with all agent rough notes that have already been produced by the Government”; (9) “[r]equiring the Government to produce an expert report and curriculum vitae for Dr. Robert Agresti”; (10) “[r]equiring the Government to identify all additional expert witnesses immediately, and to immediately produce these experts' reports and curriculum vitae”; (11) “[s]uppressing the materials obtained pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) order”; (12) “[r]equiring the production of any grand jury subpoenas issued with return dates after the expiration of the grand jury with regard to the health care fraud-related charges”; (13) “[r]equiring the identification of any documents received pursuant to a grand jury subpoena after expiration of the grand jury with regard to the health care fraud-related charges”; and (14) “[s]uppressing all materials obtained by the grand jury in violation of the grand jury process.” (ECF No. 23.) On August 1, 2022, the Government filed a joint opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant's Omnibus Motion. (ECF No. 27.) On September 21, 2022, Defendant filed a reply in further support of his Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), and separately filed a reply in further support of his Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 31). On October 25, 2022, The Honorable Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J., held oral argument for these motions. (ECF Nos. 33, 41.) On November 1, 2022, in response to Judge McNulty's request during oral argument, Defendant filed a supplemental letter in further support of his request for a Rule 17(c) subpoena for Individual-1's mental health records (ECF No. 34), and the Government filed a supplemental letter regarding a definition of “medical necessity” and what it intends to prove at trial (ECF No. 35). On November 9, 2022, Defendant and the Government filed letters in response to each other's November 1, 2022 supplemental letters. (ECF Nos. 37, 38.) On October 31, 2023, this action was reassigned to the undersigned from The Honorable Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J. (ECF No. 48.) Defendant's motions remained pending at the time of this reassignment.

The Court held a second oral argument for Defendant's motions on April 10, 2024. (ECF Nos. 56, 57.) With the Court's permission, on April 24, 2024, Defendant filed a supplemental letter in further support of his motions (ECF No. 58), and the Government filed a supplemental letter in further opposition to Defendant's motions (ECF No. 59).

II. Legal Standard

“A motion to dismiss a criminal indictment [or certain counts therein] may be brought at any time before trial.” United States v. Hoffert, No. 18-00073, 2018 WL 4829032, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2018), aff'd, 949 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)). “In considering a defense motion to dismiss an indictment, the district court accepts as true the factual allegations set forth in the indictment.” Besmajian, 910 F.2d at 1154. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) provides an indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.]” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). “While detailed allegations might well have been required under common-law pleading rules, . . . they surely are not contemplated by Rule 7(c)(1)[.]” United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 110 (2007). Rather, the Third Circuit has stated:

[A]n indictment [is] sufficient so long as it “(1) contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, (2) sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and (3) allows the defendant to show with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction in the event of a subsequent prosecution.”

United States v. Bergrin, 650 F.3d 257, 264 (3d Cir. 2011) (alterations in...