7 C.F.R. § 1.214

What information must I include with my demand?

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

Your demand must include the following information, if applicable:

(a) The caption of the legal proceeding underlying your demand, including the docket number and the name of the court or other authority involved;

(b) The parties to the legal proceeding underlying your demand and any known relationships they have to the Department's mission or programs;

(c) A copy of the complaint or equivalent document setting forth the assertions in the legal proceeding underlying your demand;

(d) The identity of the employee whose testimony is sought and an affidavit or declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746 or, if such an affidavit or declaration is not feasible, a written statement by you or your attorney, setting forth a reasonably detailed summary of the testimony sought and its relevance to the legal proceeding underlying your demand. Any authorization the Department decides to grant for testimony by an employee shall be limited to testimony within the scope of the summary provided;

(e) If the demand seeks documents or other materials to be obtained or inspected, a de-scription of the official information and the relevance to the legal proceeding underlying your demand;

(f) A written description of all prior decisions, orders, or pending motions in the legal proceeding underlying your demand that bear on the relevance of the official information or testimony you seek;

(g) A showing that the desired official information or testimony is not reasonably available from any other source, including a showing that no document could be provided and used in lieu of testimony; and

(h) An explanation of how each of the Department's considerations set forth in § 1.220(a) apply to your demand.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1994–1996 · leading case: Loyel Schutterle v. United States, 74 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Loyel Schutterle v. United States, 74 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 12× “Johnston declined to testify, however, and produced a letter in which the SCS denied him permission to testify pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1.214 (1995). 2 The agency reasoned that such testimony was not “in the interest of’ the agency, as required by 7 C.”

Ferrell v. Yarberry, 848 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Ark. 1994). · cites it 3× “The federal employees worked on certain Farmers Home Administration documents, and now plaintiff wishes to ask the employees for their expert opinions and economic expertise concerning economic projections in the private dispute in which the parties became involved.”

Tewes v. Pine Lane Farms, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1994). “42,347, 42,348 (1990) (codified at 7 C.F.R. § 1.214 ). On the back of each photograph was hand written, apparently by the certifier Bergman, the alleged distance from a road to the crop line between the North 80 and the South 80.”

Ferrell v. Yarberry, 848 F. Supp. 120 (E.D. Ark. 1994). “Under 7 C.F.R. 1.214, an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who is served with a subpoena on behalf of a party other than the United States in a case “in which the United States is not a party, may appear only if such appearance has been authorized by the head of his…”

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.