(a) If official information is sought, through testimony or otherwise, by a request or demand, the party seeking such release or testimony must (except as otherwise required by federal law or authorized by the Office of the General Counsel) set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the official information sought. Where documents or other materials are sought, the party should provide a description using the types of identifying information suggested in § 5.3(b). Subject to § 5.47, Department employees may only produce, disclose, release, comment upon, or testify concerning those matters which were specified in writing and properly approved by the appropriate Department official designated in § 5.44. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The Office of the General Counsel may waive the requirement of this subsection in appropriate circumstances.
(b) To the extent it deems necessary or appropriate, the Department may also require from the party seeking such testimony or documents a plan of all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to the names of all employees and former employees from whom discovery will be sought, areas of inquiry, expected duration of proceedings requiring oral testimony, and identification of potentially relevant documents.
(c) The appropriate Department official designated in § 5.42 will notify the Department employee and such other persons as circumstances may warrant of its decision regarding compliance with the request or demand.
(d) The Office of the General Counsel will consult with the Department of Justice regarding legal representation for Department employees in appropriate cases.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case:
State v. Vance, 339 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
United States v. Louis Joseph Bahamonde, 445 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “When Bahamonde attempted to call Agent Rodmel as a witness, however, the government objected on the sole ground that Bahamonde had failed to comply with 6 C.F.R. § 5.45 (a) (requiring a litigant to “set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and…”
State v. Vance, 339 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “6 C.F.R. § 5.45 (a). A valid regulation prohibited Agent Peay from submitting to a deposition or providing information, and the state court had no authority to order her otherwise.”
State v. Bray, 383 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“at 1228-29 (quoting 6 CFR § 5.45 ). Thus, as in Wardius but not this case, the defendant was “required to state with specificity the testimony he expected from [a witness] but the government was not required at any time to state what evidence it expected to offer in rebuttal.”
Sai v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 99 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D.D.C. 2015).
“Plaintiff's assertion that an actual conflict of interest exists at this time is particularly farfetched because the individual defendants are all agency employees, whose ability to testify concerning these matters will be constrained by the procedures provided in 6 C.”
United States v. Jimenez-Montoya, 348 F. App'x 73 (5th Cir. 2009).
“1994), given that Agent Carter's testimony was not relevant, we need not need reach the issue of whether the failure to comply with 6 C.F.R. § 5.45 (a) is mandatory in this case.”
United States v. Rosen, 518 F. Supp. 2d 798 (E.D. Va. 2007).
“In that criminal prosecution for the importation of marijuana, the district court excluded the trial testimony of the arresting Customs and Border Protection agent on the ground that Bahamonde had failed to comply with 6 C.F.R. § 5.45 (a) — the Department of Homeland Security’s…”
United States v. Bahamonde (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “When Baha- monde attempted to call Agent Rodmel as a witness, however, the government objected on the sole ground that Bahamonde had failed to comply with 6 C.F.R. § 5.45 (a) (requiring a liti- gant to “set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature…”
Boudreau v. Smith (D. Conn. 2019).
“Boudreau counters that the Second Circuit allows for the discovery of such material, and, if in governed by 6 C.F.R. §5.45 . Cullen’s Resp. at 6. 18 fact there are no complaints of misconduct against Cullen, then he should file a sworn affidavit stating as such.”
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.