C.F.R. » Title 6 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY › PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION › Subpart C—Disclosure of Information in Litigation

6 C.F.R. § 5.44

Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless approved by appropriate Department officials

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

(a) No employee, or former employee, of the Department shall, in response to a demand or request, including in connection with any litigation, provide oral or written testimony by deposition, declaration, affidavit, or otherwise concerning any information acquired while such person is or was an employee of the Department as part of the performance of that person's official duties or by virtue of that person's official status, unless authorized to do so by the Office of the General Counsel, or as authorized in § 5.44(b).

(b) No employee, or former employee, shall, in response to a demand or request, including in connection with any litigation, produce any document or any material acquired as part of the performance of that employee's duties or by virtue of that employee's official status, unless authorized to do so by the Office of the General Counsel or the delegates thereof, as appropriate.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: State v. Vance, 339 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Vance, 339 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “DHS directed Vance to 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.44 and 5.45, which require individuals to submit a scope and relevancy letter *908 regarding the information sought.”
Ming Dow Ho v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2005). “6 C.F.R. § 5.44 . And in this case, Ho has sought to enforce a subpoena ad testificandum on an agency employee — ICE Special Agent Louis Garthe.”
Debry v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 688 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (S.D. Cal. 2009). “6 C.F.R. § 5.44 (a). The applicable regulations provide that the DHS, in deciding whether to comply with a request for testimony, shall consider, “among any other pertinent considerations,” the following: (1) Whether such compliance would be unduly burdensome or otherwise…”
Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (D.N.J. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 552a; 6 C.F.R. § 5.44 ). 17 Civ. No. 17-6317, Doc.”
L1 Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (S.D. Cal. 2020). “See 6 C.F.R. § 5.44 ; 19 C.F.R. § 103.22 . Each agency provides the 11 necessary procedures and requirements for subpoenas and demands for information.”
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.