C.F.R. » Title 22 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE › SUBCHAPTER R—ACCESS TO INFORMATION › PART 172—SERVICE OF PROCESS; PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS, SUBPOENAS, NOTICES OF DEPOSITIONS, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, OR SIMILAR REQUESTS OR DEMANDS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LITIGATION; EXPERT TESTIMONY

22 C.F.R. § 172.5

Procedure when testimony or production of documents is sought; general

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If official Department information is sought, through testimony or otherwise, by a request or demand, the party seeking such release or testimony must (except as otherwise required by federal law or authorized by the Office of the Legal Adviser) set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the official information sought. Subject to § 172.7, Department employees may only produce, disclose, release, comment upon, or testify concerning those matters which were specified in writing and properly approved by the appropriate Department official designated in § 172.4. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The Office of the Legal Adviser may waive this requirement in appropriate circumstances.

(b) To the extent it deems necessary or appropriate, the Department may also require from the party seeking such testimony or documents a plan of all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to the names of all employees and former employees from whom discovery will be sought, areas of inquiry, expected duration of proceedings requiring oral testimony, and identification of potentially relevant documents.

(c) The appropriate Department official designated in § 172.4 will notify the Department employee and such other persons as circumstances may warrant of its decision regarding compliance with the request or demand.

(d) The Office of the Legal Adviser will consult with the Department of Justice regarding legal representation for Department employees in appropriate cases.

[57 FR 32896, July 24, 1992, as amended at 83 FR 17489, Apr. 20, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2005 · leading case: Virtual Def. & Dev. Int'l, Inc. v. Repub. of Moldova, 133 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Virtual Def. & Dev. Int'l, Inc. v. Repub. of Moldova, 133 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001). “30(b)(6); 22 C.F.R. § 172.5 . The plaintiff sought testimony from the Ambassador on three specified areas and the record reflects that the plaintiff took testimony on those areas.”
Owens v. Repub. of Sudan, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005). “See 22 C.F.R. § 172.5 ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 . Plaintiffs made vague allusions at the most recent hearing in this ease to a letter they sent one of the agencies, but they have not submitted evidence of this letter to the Court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.