45 C.F.R. § 2.3
Policy on Presentation of testimony and production of documents
No employee or former employee of the DHHS may provide testimony or produce documents in any proceedings to which this part applies concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of the person's official relationship with the Department unless authorized by the Agency head pursuant to this part based on a determination by the Agency head, after consultation with the Office of the General Counsel, that compliance with the request would promote the objectives of the Department.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2007).
United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2007). “” 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 . These regulations do not apply to civil proceedings where the United States, HHS, or any other federal agency is a party.”
Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC, 221 Cal. App. 4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “The agency requested the withdrawal of the subpoena in light of a federal regulation ( 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 (2012)) that described the procedure for requesting authorization of testimony by DHHS employees.”
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 844 F. Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1993). “45 C.F.R. § 2.3 (emphasis added). Dr. Mason duly consulted with the Office of the General Counsel, and he is well within his discretion to conclude that permitting Drs.”
Moore v. Armour Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1991). “part: No Department of Health and Human Services employee may provide testimony or produce documents in any proceedings to which this part applies concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of the employee’s official relationship with…”
Forgione v. HCA Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Fla. 2013). “” 45 C.F.R § 2.3. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The underlying state action stems from a July 2008 incident in which a mentally ill person, admitted involuntarily under the Baker Act 1 to Fort Walton Beach Medical Center (“the hospital”) for observation, escaped from the…”
United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 246 F.R.D. 322 (D.D.C. 2007). “” 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 . These regulations do not apply to civil proceedings where the United States, HHS, or any other federal agency is a party.”
United States of Am. v. Supervalu Inc (C.D. Ill. 2019). “” 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 . The Court does not believe that an adverse jury instruction is warranted when CMS acted in a manner consistent with its authority.”
The United States of Am. v. Safeway, Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2019). “” 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 . The Court does not believe that an adverse jury instruction is warranted when CMS acted in a manner consistent with its authority.”
Mickendrow v. Watner, Esq. (D.N.J. 2021). “45 C.F.R. § 2.3 . (HHS’s Br. 7.) Pursuant to Touhy, most courts require a party seeking information from the non- party Government to make a request to the agency pursuant to their administrative regulations.”
United States of Am. v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2024). “See 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 (before allowing an employee to provide testimony or produce documents, the agency must determine whether "compliance with the request would promote the objectives of the Department").”
Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “Because he performed a Medicare survey, the investigator was considered an employee of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, a federal agency, which requested the withdrawal of the subpoena in light of a federal regulation…”
Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2012). “Frieden duly consulted with the Office of General Counsel as he is required to do pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 2.3 . In addition, while acknowledging Plaintiffs contention that the CDC has “an interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease and ensuring that practices by…”
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.