38 C.F.R. § 14.805

Contents of a demand or request

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

The request or demand for testimony or production of documents shall set forth in, or be accompanied by, an affidavit, or if that is not feasible, in, or accompanied by, a written statement by the party seeking the testimony or records or by the party's attorney, a summary of the nature and relevance of the testimony or records sought in the legal proceedings containing sufficient information for the responsible VA official to determine whether VA personnel should be allowed to testify or records should be produced. Where the materials are considered insufficient to make the determination as described in § 14.807, the responsible VA official may ask the requester to provide additional information.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 (a) and (b); 5 U.S.C. 301)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case: Cooper v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 662 F. Supp. 2d 757 (S.D. Tex. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cooper v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 662 F. Supp. 2d 757 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “” 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.805 , 14.807(b). Wal-Mart submitted written requests to depose Gottumukkala and Rousseau.”

Mclvenny-Robinson v. Nazario (D.P.R. 2022). · cites it 2× “]” 38 C.F.R. § 14.805 . As explained in the Motion, without such written justification, the VA cannot properly determine whether it will produce its employee to testify.”

Schroeder v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs, The (D. Kan. 2023). “38 C.F.R. § 14.805 . The VA Touhy regulations provide 15 factors for the responsible VA official to consider when deciding whether to produce the requested information.”

Johnson v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. (E.D.N.Y 2019). “]” 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.805 , 14.807(b). The VA evaluates the request based on certain factors, including, among others: (i) how the testimony would assist the VA in performing its statutory duties; (ii) whether the testimony is “necessary to prevent the perpetration of fraud and…”

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.