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. § 5.48

Considerations in determining whether the Department will comply with a demand or request

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

(a) In deciding whether to comply with a demand or request, Department officials and attorneys shall consider, among any other pertinent considerations:

(1) Whether such compliance would be unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose;

(2) Whether compliance is appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege or disclosure of information;

(3) The public interest;

(4) The need to conserve the time of Department employees for the conduct of official business;

(5) The need to avoid spending the time and money of the United States for private purposes;

(6) The need to maintain impartiality between private litigants in cases where a substantial government interest is not implicated;

(7) Whether compliance would have an adverse effect on performance by the Department of its mission and duties; and

(8) The need to avoid involving the Department in controversial issues not related to its mission.

(b) Among those demands and requests in response to which compliance will not ordinarily be authorized are those with respect to which any of the following factors, inter alia, exist:

(1) Compliance would violate a statute or a rule of procedure;

(2) Compliance would violate a specific regulation or Executive order;

(3) Compliance would reveal information properly classified in the interest of national security;

(4) Compliance would reveal confidential commercial or financial information or trade secrets without the owner's consent;

(5) Compliance would reveal the internal deliberative processes of the Executive Branch; or

(6) Compliance would potentially impede or prejudice an on-going law enforcement investigation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: In Re Complaint of Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. La. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Complaint of Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. La. 2003). “See also, 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 (a)(1)-(3); Conagra Inc., v.”
Debry v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 688 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (S.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 3× “On June 1, 2009, Michael Russell, Acting Associate General Counsel for the DHS, sent Plaintiffs a letter, which stated: Pursuant to 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 , I have determined that it would not be in the best interests of the Department to provide Agent Scott for testimony as requested.”
Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (D.N.J. 2024). · cites it 4× “14 Through that letter, USCIS contended that 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 precluded it from responding to the requests.”
L1 Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “See 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 (a); 19 C.F.R. § 103.23 (a).”
Franchitti v. Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. (D.N.J. 2025). · cites it 2× “In determining whether it may produce records, DHS considers whether disclosure is precluded under 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 , which identifies a variety of considerations.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Thomas Everett(15-09-1184, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “" If defendant complied with the regulations and Homeland Security denied his request, pursuant to the considerations indicated in 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 (a), then defendant's recourse would have been to challenge that decision through an Administrative Procedure Act proceeding in…”
Conroy v. ICE (5th Cir. 2025). “1992); 6 C.F.R. § 5.48 (a). To the extent that Conroy contends that the Texas Attorney General suggested that charges may be brought against officers who violated the law if the recording supported Conroy’s allegations, he has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution…”
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.