C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 2—GENERAL REGULATIONS › Subpart C—Employees Served With Subpoenas

29 C.F.R. § 2.21

Procedure in the event of a demand for production or disclosure

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

Whenever an employee or former employee of the Department receives a demand for the production of material or the disclosure of information described in § 2.20(a), he shall immediately notify the appropriate Office of the Solicitor. The appropriate Office of the Solicitor shall be furnished by the party causing the subpoena to be issued with a written summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding in connection with which it was served. The Associate Solicitor, Regional Solicitor, or Associate Regional Solicitor, whichever is appropriate, may waive the requirement that a written summary be furnished where he or she deems it to be unnecessary. The election to waive the requirement of a written summary in no way constitutes a waiver of any other requirement set forth in this subpart.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Robert Niland v. Delta Recycling Corp., 377 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robert Niland v. Delta Recycling Corp., 377 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004). “Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 2.21 and 2.22, Perry was not permitted to testify without permission from the DOL.”
Culinary Foods, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 150 F.R.D. 122 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “1 Thereafter, on April 16, 1993, Ray-chem, in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 2.21, served a subpoena upon Ronald McCann, Area Director for OSHA, requesting the production of any and all documents related to Culinary Foods.”
Guy v. Absopure Water Co. (E.D. Mich. 2024). “Under 29 C.F.R § 2.21, Absopure was required to furnish the Office of the Solicitor “with a written summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding in connection with which it was served.”
Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. v. United States Internal Revenue Serv. (D.N.J. 2024). “69 Rather, it was only after further meeting and conferring on the scope of Request (d) that DOL took the position that Cognizant failed to meet those regulations in its February 17, 2023 letter by contending that Cognizant only generally asserted the relevancy and need for the…”
360 Mortg. Grp., LLC v. Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “416 (1951) and codified under 29 C.F.R. § 2.21 . In response, 360 Mortgage was asked to send a written request that complied with these requirements and allowed 30 days for HUD’s review.”
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.