§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Application of Debbie Gushlak Pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1728

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Petitioner's Application for Leave to Serve a Subpoena Duces Tecum

17 Cited authorities

  1. United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

    510 U.S. 487 (1994)   Cited 667 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”

  2. Touhy v. Ragen

    340 U.S. 462 (1951)   Cited 660 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subordinate agency employee cannot be compelled to comply with a subpoena duces tecum where a valid agency regulation prohibits such compliance in the absence of agency authorization, and where no authorization has been granted

  3. Boron Oil Co. v. Downie

    873 F.2d 67 (4th Cir. 1989)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that Touhy authorizes federal agencies to control the dissemination of information, and that "[t]he doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the state court — and the federal court which gained limited jurisdiction upon removal — from exercising jurisdiction to compel [a federal officer] to testify contrary to [the agency's] instructions"

  4. McKevitt v. Mueller

    689 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 52 times
    Recognizing that a court may consider "documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in plaintiff’s possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit"

  5. Antonelli v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    591 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that the names of informants were properly redacted from otherwise responsive records under § 552(b)(C)

  6. Al Fayed v. Central Intelligence Agency

    229 F.3d 272 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that the United States was not a "person" within the meaning of section 1782 and therefore the court did not have the authority to order the giving of testimony or production of documents

  7. Sullivan v. U.S. Postal Service

    944 F. Supp. 191 (W.D.N.Y. 1996)   Cited 17 times
    Recognizing that the disclosure of information from a record is enough to trigger the protection of the Privacy Act

  8. Rivera v. Potter

    400 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D.P.R. 2005)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that an email was not contained in a system of records absent evidence indicating that emails were kept in a filing system and were retrievable under the employee's name or that those emails were included in those employee's personnel files

  9. Butler v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Civil Action No. 05-643 (JDB) (D.D.C. Sep. 27, 2005)   Cited 5 times

    Civil Action No. 05-643 (JDB). September 27, 2005 MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN BATES, District Judge Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, seeks a copy of a recorded telephone conversation in the possession of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and plaintiff has opposed the motion. Based on the factual record

  10. Bechhoefer v. U.S. Dept. of Justice D.E.A

    209 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a "record" is personal information about an individual linked through an identifying particular

  11. Section 552a - Records maintained on individuals

    5 U.S.C. § 552a   Cited 4,439 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Finding that it is a Department of Justice component that has as its principal function the enforcement of criminal laws includ[ing] correctional authorities

  12. Section 1782 - Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals

    28 U.S.C. § 1782   Cited 2,100 times   247 Legal Analyses
    In § 1782, Congress has expressly authorized federal courts to order discovery from domestic persons in aid of foreign proceedings like the ongoing Polish prosecution.

  13. Section 301 - Departmental regulations

    5 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 481 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Granting rulemaking authority to executive agencies

  14. Section 16.21 - Purpose and scope

    28 C.F.R. § 16.21   Cited 157 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) This subpart sets forth procedures to be followed with respect to the production or disclosure of any material contained in the files of the Department, any information relating to material contained in the files of the Department, or any information acquired by any person while such person was an employee of the Department as a part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's official status: (1) In all federal and state proceedings in which the United States

  15. Section 16.22 - General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party

    28 C.F.R. § 16.22   Cited 94 times

    (a) In any federal or state case or matter in which the United States is not a party, no employee or former employee of the Department of Justice shall, in response to a demand, produce any material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information relating to or based upon material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's official

  16. Section 16.26 - Considerations in determining whether production or disclosure should be made pursuant to a demand

    28 C.F.R. § 16.26   Cited 72 times
    Listing various "demands in response to which disclosure will not be made by any Department official"