From clear to likely. Since no case on Hipaa has been brought to trial yet concerning this, it will be hard to prove or disprove. BUT, common sense will tell you that the minimum neccessary means minimum. He can say 7, but he can't say he won't limit. Surely you can follow this logic. But, if you can't, I will help you. Please tell me how how many people are in a "no limitation" group. The answer: many... all.... limitless.. Next question. How many are in a minimum? It must be defined or it is limitless. Thus, the judge did not set a minimum. Instead, he set "no limitation". This IS A CLEAR violation of Hipaa laws.
"He can say 7, but he can't say he won't limit. "
Sure he can, first off he's not a Federal judge, and without any experience in the matter, common sense says it would have to be left up to the people in charge of investigating to decide how many people they need to perform an investigation. A judge can't simply pull a number out of a hat.
This is another losing arguement for Black, but as long as Rush's wallet holds out - they are all winners.