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. § 16.24

Procedure in the event of a demand where disclosure is not otherwise authorized

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

(a) Whenever a matter is referred under § 16.22 of this part to a U.S. Attorney or, under § 16.23 of this part, to an Assistant Attorney General, the Director of the EOUST, or their designees (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “responsible official”), the responsible official shall immediately advise the official in charge of the bureau, division, office, or agency of the Department that was responsible for the collection, assembly, or other preparation of the material demanded or that, at the time the person whose testimony was demanded acquired the information in question, employed such person (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “originating component”), or that official's designee. In any instance in which the responsible official is also the official in charge of the originating component, the responsible official may perform all functions and make all determinations that this regulation vests in the originating component.

(b) The responsible official, subject to the terms of paragraph (c) of this section, may authorize the appearance and testimony of a present or former Department employee, or the production of material from Department files if:

(1) There is no objection after inquiry of the originating component;

(2) The demanded disclosure, in the judgment of the responsible official, is appropriate under the factors specified in § 16.26(a) of this part; and

(3) None of the factors specified in § 16.26(b) of this part exists with respect to the demanded disclosure.

(c) It is Department policy that the responsible official shall, following any necessary consultation with the originating component, authorize testimony by a present or former employee of the Department or the production of material from Department files without further authorization from Department officials whenever possible: Provided, That, when information is collected, assembled, or prepared in connection with litigation or an investigation supervised by a division of the Department or by the EOUST, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of such a division or the Director of the EOUST may require that the originating component obtain the division's or the EOUST's approval before authorizing a responsible official to disclose such information. Prior to authorizing such testimony or production, however, the responsible official shall, through negotiation and, if necessary, appropriate motions, seek to limit the demand to information, the disclosure of which would not be inconsistent with the considerations specified in § 16.26 of this part.

(d)(1) In a case in which the United States is not a party, if the responsible U.S. attorney and the originating component disagree with respect to the appropriateness of demanded testimony or of a particular disclosure, or if they agree that such testimony or such a disclosure should not be made, they shall determine if the demand involves information that was collected, assembled, or prepared in connection with litigation or an investigation supervised by a division of this Department or the EOUST. If so, the U.S. attorney shall notify the Director of the EOUST or the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the division responsible for such litigation or investigation, who may:

(i) Authorize personally or through a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the demanded testimony or other disclosure of the information if such testimony or other disclosure, in the Assistant or Deputy Assistant Attorney General's judgment or in the judgment of the Director of the EOUST, is consistent with the factors specified in § 16.26(a) of this part, and none of the factors specified in § 16.26(b) of this part exists with respect to the demanded disclosure;

(ii) Authorize, personally or by a designee, the responsible official, through negotiations and, if necessary, appropriate motions, to seek to limit the demand to matters, the disclosure of which, through testimony or documents, considerations specified in § 16.26 of this part, and otherwise to take all appropriate steps to limit the scope or obtain the withdrawal of a demand; or

(iii) If, after all appropriate steps have been taken to limit the scope or obtain the withdrawal of a demand, the Director of the EOUST or the Assistant or Deputy Assistant Attorney General does not authorize the demanded testimony or other disclosure, refer the matter, personally or through a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for final resolution to the Deputy or Associate Attorney General, as indicated in § 16.25 of this part.

(2) If the demand for testimony or other disclosure in such a case does not involve information that was collected, assembled, or prepared in connection with litigation or an investigation supervised by a division of this Department, the originating component shall decide whether disclosure is appropriate, except that, when especially significant issues are raised, the responsible official may refer the matter to the Deputy or Associate Attorney General, as indicated in § 16.25 of this part. If the originating component determines that disclosure would not be appropriate and the responsible official does not refer the matter for higher level review, the responsible official shall take all appropriate steps to limit the scope or obtain the withdrawal of a demand.

(e) In a case in which the United States is a party, the Assistant General or the Director of the EOUST responsible for the case or matter, or such persons' designees, are authorized, after consultation with the originating component, to exercise the authorities specified in paragraph (d)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section: Provided, That if a demand involves information that was collected, assembled, or prepared originally in connection with litigation or an investigation supervised by another unit of the Department, the responsible official shall notify the other division or the EOUST concerning the demand and the anticipated response. If two litigating units of the Department are unable to resolve a disagreement concerning disclosure, the Assistant Attorneys General in charge of the two divisions in disagreement, or the Director of the EOUST and the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, may refer the matter to the Deputy or Associate Attorney General, as indicated in § 16.25(b) of this part.

(f) In any case or matter in which the responsible official and the originating component agree that it would not be appropriate to authorize testimony or otherwise to disclose the information demanded, even if a court were so to require, no Department attorney responding to the demand should make any representation that implies that the Department would, in fact, comply with the demand if directed to do so by a court. After taking all appropriate steps in such cases to limit the scope or obtain the withdrawal of a demand, the responsible official shall refer the matter to the Deputy or Associate Attorney General, as indicated in § 16.25 of this part.

(g) In any case or matter in which the Attorney General is personally involved in the claim of privilege, the responsible official may consult with the Attorney General and proceed in accord with the Attorney General's instructions without subsequent review by the Deputy or Associate Attorney General.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. De La Beckwith, 344 So. 2d 360 (La. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. De La Beckwith, 344 So. 2d 360 (La. 1977). · cites it 3× “22 and 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 (c) provide as follows: 28 C.”
Owens v. Repub. of Sudan, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005). “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.”
United States v. Raymond J. Cadet, Barry Saffaie, Tabassom Ayazi, 727 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1984). “27 pending review by the Deputy Attorney General of the United States Attorney’s refusal to comply with the court’s discovery order, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 (f). IX. Hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on September 24, 1982.”
Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 66 (D.D.C. 1998). “” 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 . The DOD regulations make no such distinction.”
Meisel v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 204 F. Supp. 2d 684 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 . It appears from the FBI’s argument that upon receiving the requested additional detail the FBI would be in a position to determine “whether it would be appropriate to disclose the requested information.”
State of Kan. v. Call, 760 F. Supp. 190 (D. Kan. 1991). “Here, however, it is clear that the information sought in the subpoena is general knowledge unrelated to any specific investigation, and thus its disclosure is subject to appropriate denial under 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 (d)(2). The state defendants also raise several additional…”
People of State of Cal. v. Reyes, 816 F. Supp. 619 (E.D. Cal. 1992). “28 C.F.R. § 16.24 sets forth procedures governing the submission of the demand to the Assistant Attorney General for resolution.”
Jose Elias Sepulveda v. Ralph W. Burnside, 380 F. App'x 821 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 . Sepulveda has failed to demonstrate that the Assisted United States Attorney (“AUSA”) made misrepresentations in his motion to quash Dr.”
State v. Sheckles, 2024 Ohio 3339 (Ohio 2024). “The provisions of 28 C.F.R. 16.24 provide for a chain of command in deciding whether to honor the subpoena or request and refer the decision-maker to 28 C.”
State v. Sheckles, 2024 Ohio 3339 (Ohio 2024). “The provisions of 28 C.F.R. 16.24 provide for a chain of command in deciding whether to honor the subpoena or request and refer the decision-maker to 28 C.”
Harris v. McDonald (M.D. Penn. 2022). · cites it 2× “The DOJ's Touhy regulations prohibit any current or past DOJ employees from producing material relating to their official duties without prior approval of the proper DOJ official in accordance with 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.24 and 16.25. 28 C.F.R. § 16.”
Ronald Gillette v. Golden Grove Corr. (3rd Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “38 See 28 C.F.R. § 16.24 . 39 See, e.g., Davis Enters.”
Show all 20 citing 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.