11 Cited authorities

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
Edwards v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
43 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 142 times
Holding that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine continued to apply to suits removed under § 1442
Houston Bus. Jour. v. Office, Comp., Treas
86 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 103 times
Holding that § 301 does not "authorize a federal agency to withhold documents from a federal court" and opining that regulations having that effect would be invalid
Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Williams
62 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 80 times
Holding that a member of Congress is an officer of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1442
State of La. v. Sparks
978 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1992) Cited 82 times
Holding that "[t]he district court did not err in dismissing with prejudice for lack of prosecution" where, inter alia, "the district court gave the parties warning prior to dismissal that if neither did anything, the case would be dismissed in two weeks" and neither party responded
Lerner v. District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 00-1590 (GK) (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2005) Cited 7 times
Denying motion to compel and granting motion to quash where requester refused to " ‘set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the official information sought’ " (quoting regulations)
Yousuf v. Samantar
Misc. Action No. 05-110 (RBW) (D.D.C. May. 3, 2005) Cited 4 times
Misc. Action No. 05-110 (RBW). May 3, 2005 MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge This matter stems from a case currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ("Eastern District"). The plaintiffs seek to compel the United States Department of State ("State Department") to comply with a subpoena for documents issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance With A Rule 45 Subpoena ("Pls.' Mot.) at
Longtin v. U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 06-1302 (JMF) (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2006) Cited 1 times
Civil Action No. 06-1302 (JMF). August 3, 2006 MEMORANDUM ORDER JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge This matter was referred to me, upon consent of the parties, for all purposes including trial. The case originates in the United States Attorney's decision to deny, relying on the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, plaintiff Keith Longtin's request for the production of certain documents and the right to depose an Assistant United States Attorney where there was an order issued by the Superior Court of the
Envtl. Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A.
664 F. Supp. 585 (D.D.C. 1987) Cited 9 times
Misc. No. 87-228. July 10, 1987. Virginia Hopkins, Taft, Stettinius Hollister, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Stephen L. Samuels, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Land Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., for defendants. ORDER SPORKIN, District Judge. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") moves to quash two subpoenas issued by the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The case was properly removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, without objection from the plaintiff. The two
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
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

Michelson et al v. Proskauer Rose LLP

11 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine continued to apply to suits removed under § 1442

Holding that § 301 does not "authorize a federal agency to withhold documents from a federal court" and opining that regulations having that effect would be invalid

Holding that a member of Congress is an officer of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1442

Holding that "[t]he district court did not err in dismissing with prejudice for lack of prosecution" where, inter alia, "the district court gave the parties warning prior to dismissal that if neither did anything, the case would be dismissed in two weeks" and neither party responded

Denying motion to compel and granting motion to quash where requester refused to " ‘set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the official information sought’ " (quoting regulations)