C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION › Subpart B—Production or Disclosure in Federal and State Proceedings

28 C.F.R. § 16.22

General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party

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

(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 status without prior approval of the proper Department official in accordance with §§ 16.24 and 16.25 of this part.

(b) Whenever a demand is made upon an employee or former employee as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the employee shall immediately notify the U.S. Attorney for the district where the issuing authority is located. The responsible United States Attorney shall follow procedures set forth in § 16.24 of this part.

(c) If oral testimony is sought by a demand in any case or matter in which the United States is not a party, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by his attorney, setting forth a summary of the testimony sought and its relevance to the proceeding, must be furnished to the responsible U.S. Attorney. Any authorization for testimony by a present or former employee of the Department shall be limited to the scope of the demand as summarized in such statement.

(d) When information other than oral testimony is sought by a demand, the responsible U.S. Attorney shall request a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Superior Court, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Superior Court, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2007). · cites it 7× “Kim also noted that, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 , the DOJ “considers whether disclosure is appropriate under the applicable procedural rules and substantive law concerning privilege,” and specified that “disclosure will not be authorized if it would violate a statute, rule or…”
State v. Vance, 339 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “The USAO responded a couple of weeks later and advised Vance that he had failed to comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (c) and (d). The USAO again directed Vance to submit a relevancy letter in accordance with the C.”
United States Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Scotland E. Williams, 170 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 1999). · cites it 5× “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (d). Williams then filed a motion in the state circuit court, requesting an order directing the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records for the FBI.”
In re Recalcitrant Witness Richard Boeh, Julia Gomez v. Daryl Gates, & United States of Am., 25 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “The United States Attorney referred the subpoena to the Department of Justice, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (a) (1991), which provides: In any federal or state ease or matter in which the United States is not a party, no employee .”
Andrea Smith Gregory Welsh Larry Hornstein v. James Cromer, 159 F.3d 875 (4th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “417 (1951), which upheld the validity of a predecessor to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (a). Id. Appellees may not be forced to comply with the subpoenas if a valid regulation required them not to comply.”
State v. Sheckles, 2023-Ohio-133. · cites it 8× “The basis of the motion was that Kessler, as a 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS former Department of Justice employee, was prohibited from testifying or producing documents acquired while performing his official duties without obtaining prior approval by a Department of…”
Richard Lewellen v. William Morley, 909 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (d). The information sought in the subpoena — the addresses of the federal agents — is unquestionably “information other than oral testimony.”
Mir Aimal Kasi v. Ronald J. Angelone, 300 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2002). “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (a) (2001). As noted by the Supreme Court, “[w]hen one considers the variety of information contained in the files of any government department and the possibilities of harm from unrestricted disclosure in court, the usefulness, indeed the necessity, of…”
State v. De La Beckwith, 344 So. 2d 360 (La. 1977). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 16.22 and 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 (c) provide as follows: 28 C.”
Michael Rimmer v. Eric Holder, Jr., 700 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2012). “§ 301 , commonly known as the “Housekeeping Statute,” has adopted Touhy regulations restricting the ability of department employees to produce documents, see 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (a), and also outlining the procedures one must follow to request documents and the factors officials…”
Kwan Fai Mak v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation Dep't of Just. John Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. §§ 16.22 (b); 16.24. They also provide a mechanism for the United States Attorney's determination to be appealed to the Deputy Attorney General, who is authorized by the regulations to make a final determination for the Justice Department.”
Jay Campbell Kirk Lane v. Citizens for an Honest Gov't, Inc., 255 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Evidentiary Issues Matrisciana argues that the district court abused its discretion when it foreclosed cross-examination under 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 , but contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b), regarding the personal bias and prejudice of FBI supervisor Michael Smith, whom…”
Show all 69 citing cases →
28 C.F.R. § 16.22(A): 1 case
State v. Sheckles, 2023-Ohio-133. “The basis of the motion was that Kessler, as a 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS former Department of Justice employee, was prohibited from testifying or producing documents acquired while performing his official duties without obtaining prior approval by a Department of…”
28 C.F.R. § 16.22(a): 4 cases
Kwan Fai Mak v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation Dep't of Just. John Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2001). “28 C.F.R. §§ 16.22 (b); 16.24. They also provide a mechanism for the United States Attorney's determination to be appealed to the Deputy Attorney General, who is authorized by the regulations to make a final determination for the Justice Department.”
State v. Sheckles, 2023-Ohio-133. “The basis of the motion was that Kessler, as a 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS former Department of Justice employee, was prohibited from testifying or producing documents acquired while performing his official duties without obtaining prior approval by a Department of…”
State v. Sheckles, 2024-Ohio-3339, 249 N.E.3d 113.
State v. Sheckles, 2024-Ohio-3339, 249 N.E.3d 113.
28 C.F.R. § 16.22(c): 1 case
State v. Sheckles, 2023-Ohio-133. “The basis of the motion was that Kessler, as a 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS former Department of Justice employee, was prohibited from testifying or producing documents acquired while performing his official duties without obtaining prior approval by a Department of…”
28 C.F.R. § 16.22(d): 1 case
State v. Sheckles, 2023-Ohio-133. “The basis of the motion was that Kessler, as a 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS former Department of Justice employee, was prohibited from testifying or producing documents acquired while performing his official duties without obtaining prior approval by a Department of…”
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.