49 C.F.R. § 9.7

Testimony by employees before the Department or in other legal proceedings in which the United States is a party

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

In any legal proceeding before the Department or in which the United States (including any federal agency or officer of the United States) is a party:

(a) Agency counsel shall arrange for an employee to testify as a witness for the United States whenever the attorney representing the United States requests it.

(b) An employee may testify for the United States both as to facts within the employee's personal knowledge and as an expert or opinion witness. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an employee may not testify as an expert or opinion witness, with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or the functions of the Department, for any party other than the United States in any legal proceeding in which the United States is a party. An employee who receives a demand to testify on behalf of a party other than the United States may testify as to facts within the employee's personal knowledge, provided that the testimony be subject to the prior approval of agency counsel and to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable claims of privilege.

(c) An employee may testify as an expert or opinion witness on behalf of an officer or enlisted member of the Coast Guard in any legal proceeding conducted by the Coast Guard.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: US Ex Rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, 924 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. Wis. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

US Ex Rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, 924 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. Wis. 1996). · cites it 2× “Counsel cited 49 C.F.R. § 9.7 , which addresses testimony by DOT employees in legal proceedings in which the United States is a party, as authority for these requests.”

Kline v. Martin, 345 F. Supp. 31 (E.D. Va. 1972). “§ 1441 (e), but argues that its regulations, 49 CFR §§ 9.7 , 9.11 and 9.13 prevent the witnesses answering the questions and that, under the Federal Rules, only facts are to be elicited from witnesses, not opinions.”

Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 103 F.R.D. 12 (E.D. Pa. 1984). · cites it 4× “See 49 C.F.R. § 9.7 (1983). DOT argues that because the regulation is not contrary to any express statutory provision, it has the force and effect of law.”

Trenton Palmer v. FAA, 103 F.4th 798 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “49 C.F.R. § 9.7 (b). Speeg “testified for the Administrator as an expert,” J.”

Drewett v. Rainier Sch., 806 P.2d 1260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “…related to his duties or the function of the Department, in any legal proceeding between private litigants . . .". 49 C.F.R. § 9.7 (1983).”

In Re: M/V BAYLOR TREGRE Case electronically transferred to United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Louisiana. (S.D. Tex. 2025). “Those regulations further provide that employees 6 As Trinity observes: “Since Hebert has not identified the personnel he seeks to call as witnesses, there is no way of knowing whether they are even stationed in Texas at this point or when they might be re-assigned to another…”

In Re: m/v Baylor Tregre (E.D. La. 2025). “Those regulations further provide that employees 6 As Trinity observes: “Since Hebert has not identified the personnel he seeks to call as witnesses, there is no way of knowing whether they are even stationed in Texas at this point or when they might be re-assigned to another…”

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.