In terms of instructing an employee or former employee of the manner in which to respond to a demand, the Associate Solicitor, Regional Solicitor, or Associate Regional Solicitor, whichever is applicable, shall follow the instructions of the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor. No employee or former employee of the Department of Labor shall, in response to a demand of a court or other authority, produce any material contained in the files of the Department or disclose any information relating to material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of the performance of his official duties or because of his official status without approval of the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor.
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. CRC Builders Co., Inc., 626 F. Supp. 12 (D. Colo. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Ypsilantes’ Motion to Quash is based on the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2.22 (1983), promulgated by the DOL.”
Price v. Simakas Co., 133 A.3d 751 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“29 C.F.R. § 2.22 . To summarize the foregoing, IUP has failed to establish that Sipos and Sprankle are federal employees subject to §§ 2.”
Alex v. Jasper Wyman & Son, 115 F.R.D. 156 (D. Me. 1986).
· cites it 3× “One of the defendants, Jasper Wyman and Son [Company], served deposition subpoenas on Alfred Butler, a Department employee, and on the Department, for testimony regarding the Company’s intent to comply with the Act. 1 The Secretary of Labor [Secretary] ordered Mr.”
Culinary Foods, Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 150 F.R.D. 122 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
“Under 29 C.F.R. 2.22, no Department of Labor employee may disclose or produce any information contained in Department of Labor files without the approval of the Deputy Solicitor of Labor.”
Baker v. United States, Dep't of Labor, 31 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1 The plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the regulation nor does the defendant dispute that the regulation does not provide a blanket ban of all requests for testimony.”
Boatright v. Radiation Sterilizers, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 1314 (D. Colo. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Poletto’s motion to set aside the contempt citation issued by the state court judge is based on the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2.22 (1983), promulgated by the DOL.”
Metcalfe v. Ultimate Sys. Ltd., 346 F. Supp. 2d 950 (N.D. Ohio 2004).
“29 C.F.R. § 2.22 . A “demand” includes: [A] subpoena, order, or other demand .”
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.