32 C.F.R. § 97.6
Responsibilities—DoD Component heads
The DoD Component heads:
(a) Implement the policy and procedures in this part and, through their chief legal advisors, provide guidance for their respective components.
(b) Must issue or update, as appropriate, their respective components' implementing regulations within 180 days of October 24, 2022.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Agility Pub. Warehousing Co. K.S.C.P. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 246 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D.D.C. 2017).
Agility Pub. Warehousing Co. K.S.C.P. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 246 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D.D.C. 2017). “32 C.F.R. § 97.6 (b). Agility raises four main arguments in claiming that the government’s denial of its deposition requests was arbitrary and capricious: (1) that the information it seeks is in fact relevant and non-cumular tive; (2) that the government’s privilege…”
Bae Sys. Land & Armaments L.P. v. Ibis Tek, LLC, 124 F. Supp. 3d 878 (D. Minnesota 2015). “) See 32 C.F.R. § 97.6 (procedures regarding release of official information in litigation and testimony by Department of Defense personnel as witnesses).”
United States ex rel. Roby v. Boeing Co., 189 F.R.D. 512 (S.D. Ohio 1999). “See 32 C.F.R. § 97.6 (e). Defendant replies that the Government’s position is “directly contrary to law, and violates the principle of fundamental fairness,” and, thus, Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order should be granted (doc.”
Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 66 (D.D.C. 1998). “These regulations are contained, in part, in 32 C.F.R. § 97.6 (c). This regulation provides: (c)(1) .”
Agility Pub. Warehousing Co. K.S.C. v. Dep't of Def., 110 F. Supp. 3d 215 (D.D.C. 2015). “, 32 C.F.R. § 97.6 . The regulations make clear the Department’s “policy that official information should generally be made reasonably available for use in Federal and State courts and by other governmental bodies unless the information is classified, privileged, or otherwise…”
1800 Atl. Developers v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 552 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). “" 1800 Atlantic objected to permitting this witness to testify as an expert because he had not first obtained prior written authorization from the Corps of Engineers pursuant to 32 C.F.R. 97.6(e) (1986). DER contends that the hearing officer's ruling was correct because the…”
Progme Corp. v. Fox Network, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2020). “Progme has not indicated that it requested or received approval from the General Counsel of the FCC to authorize the proposed FCC witnesses to produce records or speak on behalf of their work conducted during the course of business as present FCC personnel, as required by 47 C.”
Progme Corp. v. Google LLC (E.D. Mich. 2020). “Progme has not indicated that it requested or received approval from the General Counsel of the FCC to authorize the proposed FCC witnesses to produce records or speak on behalf of their work conducted during the course of business as present FCC personnel, as required by 47 C.”
— 32 C.F.R. § 97.6(c)(2) — 1 case
Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 66 (D.D.C. 1998). “These regulations are contained, in part, in 32 C.F.R. § 97.6 (c). This regulation provides: (c)(1) .”
— 32 C.F.R. § 97.6(e) — 1 case
1800 Atl. Developers v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 552 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). “" 1800 Atlantic objected to permitting this witness to testify as an expert because he had not first obtained prior written authorization from the Corps of Engineers pursuant to 32 C.F.R. 97.6(e) (1986). DER contends that the hearing officer's ruling was correct because the…”
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.