(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 is a party; and
(2) In all federal and state proceedings in which the United States is not a party, including any proceedings in which the Department is representing a government employee solely in that employee's individual capacity, when a subpoena, order, or other demand (hereinafter collectively referred to as a “demand”) of a court or other authority is issued for such material or information.
(b) For purposes of this subpart, the term employee of the Department includes all officers and employees of the United States appointed by, or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction, or control of the Attorney General of the United States, including U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, U.S. Trustees and members of the staffs of those officials.
(c) Nothing in this subpart is intended to impede the appropriate disclosure, in the absence of a demand, of information by Department law enforcement agencies to federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement, prosecutive, or regulatory agencies.
(d) This subpart is intended only to provide guidance for the internal operations of the Department of Justice, and is not intended to, and does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cabral v. United States Dep't of Just., 587 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “District Court for the District of Massachusetts her complaint in the underlying case, concerning Cabral’s motivation for barring her, in which Porter sought money damages for unlawful termination and civil rights violations. During the course of discovery in the underlying case…”
Andrea Smith Gregory Welsh Larry Hornstein v. James Cromer, 159 F.3d 875 (4th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq. Appellant Cromer (hereinafter, “Cromer”) served as a DEA confidential informant (“Cl”) from June 1994 through November 1995, until he was indicted on two charges of delivering heroin to a state informant in November 1995.”
State v. Vance, 339 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Responding on behalf of Agent Laughlin, the *907 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) directed Vance to 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21 and 16.22. These sections required Vance to submit a scope and relevancy letter to obtain testimony or information from a DOJ employee.”
United States v. Battle, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (N.D. Ga. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The government’s response is basically that the Defendant’s motion for an order compelling BOP employees to submit to interviews is premature. The government points out, apparently correctly, that the defense has not complied with DOJ regulations which prohibit DOJ employees…”
Buford v. State, 282 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “The state successfully moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum on grounds that “compliance with the subpoena would be in contradiction to federal regulations, specifically 28 CFR § 16.21 et seq. and would be without authority of the Attorney General of the United States,” and…”
United States v. Feeney, 501 F. Supp. 1337 (D. Colo. 1980).
· cites it 6× “Feeney’s cooperation with the government, the completeness of the Feeney tapes previously furnished to the court, the Department’s awareness of his other activities, and directly related matters.”
United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1994).
“However, the trial court granted the government’s motion to quash the subpoenas because defendants had not complied with the procedure set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq., regulating the issuance of subpoenas to Department of Jus *929 tice employees.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.21(a) — 2 cases
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.21(b) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 16.21(d) — 2 cases
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.