Tex. Codes » Finance Code · TITLE 3. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESSES · SUBTITLE A. BANKS · CHAPTER 59. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Texas Codes

Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006 (2026)

Discovery Of Customer Records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 59.006. DISCOVERY OF CUSTOMER RECORDS. (a) This section provides the exclusive method for compelled discovery of a record of a financial institution relating to one or more customers but does not create a right of privacy in a record. This section does not apply to and does not require or authorize a financial institution to give a customer notice of:

(1) a demand or inquiry from a state or federal government agency authorized by law to conduct an examination of the financial institution;

(2) a record request from a state or federal government agency or instrumentality under statutory or administrative authority that provides for, or is accompanied by, a specific mechanism for discovery and protection of a customer record of a financial institution, including a record request from a federal agency subject to the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. Section 3401 et seq.), as amended, or from the Internal Revenue Service under Section 1205, Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(3) a record request from or report to a government agency arising out of:

(A) the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense;

(B) the investigation of alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elderly or disabled person in accordance with Chapter 48, Human Resources Code; or

(C) the assessment for or provision of guardianship services under Subchapter E, Chapter 161, Human Resources Code;

(4) a record request in connection with a garnishment proceeding in which the financial institution is garnishee and the customer is debtor;

(5) a record request by a duly appointed receiver for the customer;

(6) an investigative demand or inquiry from a state legislative investigating committee;

(7) an investigative demand or inquiry from the attorney general of this state as authorized by law other than the procedural law governing discovery in civil cases;

(8) the voluntary use or disclosure of a record by a financial institution subject to other applicable state or federal law; or

(9) a record request in connection with an investigation conducted under Section 1054.151, 1054.152, or 1102.001, Estates Code.

(b) A financial institution shall produce a record in response to a record request only if:

(1) it is served with the record request not later than the 24th day before the date that compliance with the record request is required;

(2) before the financial institution complies with the record request the requesting party pays the financial institution's reasonable costs of complying with the record request, including costs of reproduction, postage, research, delivery, and attorney's fees, or posts a cost bond in an amount estimated by the financial institution to cover those costs; and

(3) if the customer is not a party to the proceeding in which the request was issued, the requesting party complies with Subsections (c) and (d) and:

(A) the financial institution receives the customer's written consent to release the record after a request under Subsection (c)(3); or

(B) the tribunal takes further action based on action initiated by the requesting party under Subsection (d).

(b-1) If the requesting party has not paid a financial institution's costs or posted a cost bond as required by Subsection (b)(2), a court may not:

(1) order the financial institution to produce a record in response to the record request; or

(2) find the financial institution to be in contempt of court for failing to produce the record.

(c) If the affected customer is not a party to the proceeding in which the record request was issued, in addition to serving the financial institution with a record request, the requesting party shall:

(1) give notice stating the rights of the customer under Subsection (e) and a copy of the request to each affected customer in the manner and within the time provided by Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure;

(2) file a certificate of service indicating that the customer has been mailed or served with the notice and a copy of the record request as required by this subsection with the tribunal and the financial institution; and

(3) request the customer's written consent authorizing the financial institution to comply with the request.

(d) If the customer that is not a party to the proceeding does not execute the written consent requested under Subsection (c)(3) on or before the date that compliance with the request is required, the requesting party may by written motion seek an in camera inspection of the requested record as its sole means of obtaining access to the requested record. In response to a motion for in camera inspection, the tribunal may inspect the requested record to determine its relevance to the matter before the tribunal. The tribunal may order redaction of portions of the records that the tribunal determines should not be produced and shall enter a protective order preventing the record that it orders produced from being:

(1) disclosed to a person who is not a party to the proceeding before the tribunal; and

(2) used by a person for any purpose other than resolving the dispute before the tribunal.

(e) A customer that is a party to the proceeding bears the burden of preventing or limiting the financial institution's compliance with a record request subject to this section by seeking an appropriate remedy, including filing a motion to quash the record request or a motion for a protective order. Any motion filed shall be served on the financial institution and the requesting party before the date that compliance with the request is required. A financial institution is not liable to its customer or another person for disclosure of a record in compliance with this section.

(f) A financial institution may not be required to produce a record under this section before the later of:

(1) the 24th day after the date of receipt of the record request as provided by Subsection (b)(1);

(2) the 15th day after the date of receipt of a customer consent to disclose a record as provided by Subsection (b)(3); or

(3) the 15th day after the date a court orders production of a record after an in camera inspection of a requested record as provided by Subsection (d).

(g) An order to quash or for protection or other remedy entered or denied by the tribunal under Subsection (d) or (e) is not a final order and an interlocutory appeal may not be taken.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 344, Sec. 2.016, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 528, Sec. 15, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1056 (S.B. 221), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 780 (S.B. 1235), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 230 (H.B. 2394), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1031 (H.B. 1438), Sec. 31, eff. September 1, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: British Int'l Ins. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
British Int'l Ins. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000). · cites it 13× “Rather, LNB objects to the production sought in requests 3 and 6 3 on the ground that the documents are not relevant, would be burdensome to produce and, until ACIC complies with Texas Finance Code § 59.006, the production would subject LNB to liability to the non-parties whose…”
Preston State Bank, F/K/A Dallas City Bank v. Roach, John, in His Off. Capacity as Collin Cnty. DA, & Collin Cnty., Texas, 443 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 59.006 (West Supp.2013).”
Gus H. Comiskey, III A/K/A Trey Comiskey & TC3, Inc. v. FH Partners, LLC, 373 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “23 FH Partners suggests that informing Comiskey about Gomberg’s debt would have run contrary to certain banking laws, citing Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006. We need take no position on whether this is correct under the circumstances of this case.”
In the Est. of Gaines, 262 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 59.006 (Vernon Supp.”
LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “201(b)(3)(“review”)(confiden-tiality and disclosure of information); Tex. Fin.Code § 59.006(d)("inspection”)(discoveiy of customer records at a financial institution); Tex.”
Fleming v. Texas Coastal Bank of Pasadena, 67 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. App. 2002). “§ 34-03 ; Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006 (concerning confidentiality of banking records).”
In Re Texas Dow Employees Credit Union v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “210 (allowing a debtor to request an accounting, list of collateral, or statement of account from a secured party); TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 59.006 (governing the discovery of customer records from a financial institution).”
In Re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., D/B/A "Chase Bank" v. the State of Texas (2026). · cites it 4× “176, 200, 205; TEX. FIN. CODE § 59.006 (governing the discovery of customer records from financial institutions).”
in Re 8650 Frisco, LLC D/B/A Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse, Mandona, LLC, Galovelho, LLC, Bahtche, LLC, Claudio Nunes & David Jeiel Rodrigues (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Defendants withheld the bank statements of 8650 Frisco, LLC, on the basis that it “is an improper method to request records of a financial institution” under TEX. FIN. CODE § 59.006. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2, Request for Production No.”
Humphries Constr. Corp. v. Highland Vill. Ltd. P'ship, Highland Vill. GP LLC, Highland Vill. Holding LLC, & Trans Am. Holding Corp. A/K/A Trans Am. Holdings Corp. N/K/A Trans Am. Holdings LLC, Highland Vill. GP LLC (Tex. App. 2025). “The Defendants argue that the use of the Morgan Stanley Subpoena without complying with the Texas Finance Code is a violation of law, and thus subject to sanctions. Specifically, a financial institution shall produce customer records only if the request was served twenty-four…”
First Nat'l Bank of Giddings v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Tex. 2025). “8TEX. FIN. CODE § 59.006(b)(3)(A) (requiring authorization from the bank customer when a financial institution is asked to release a record that relates to the customer who is not a party to the proceeding).”
Humphries Constr. Corp. v. Highland Vill. Ltd. P'ship, Highland Vill. GP LLC, Highland Vill. Holding LLC, & Trans Am. Holding Corp. A/K/A Trans Am. Holdings Corp. N/K/A Trans Am. Holdings LLC, Highland Vill. GP LLC (2026). “The Defendants argue that the use of the Morgan Stanley Subpoena without complying with the Texas Finance Code is a violation of law, and thus subject to sanctions. Specifically, a financial institution shall produce customer records only if the request was served twenty-four…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(a) — 4 cases
In the Est. of Gaines, 262 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 59.006 (Vernon Supp.”
British Int'l Ins. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000). “Rather, LNB objects to the production sought in requests 3 and 6 3 on the ground that the documents are not relevant, would be burdensome to produce and, until ACIC complies with Texas Finance Code § 59.006, the production would subject LNB to liability to the non-parties whose…”
In Re Texas Dow Employees Credit Union v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024). “210 (allowing a debtor to request an accounting, list of collateral, or statement of account from a secured party); TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 59.006 (governing the discovery of customer records from a financial institution).”
In Re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., D/B/A "Chase Bank" v. the State of Texas (2026). “176, 200, 205; TEX. FIN. CODE § 59.006 (governing the discovery of customer records from financial institutions).”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(a)(3) — 1 case
Preston State Bank, F/K/A Dallas City Bank v. Roach, John, in His Off. Capacity as Collin Cnty. DA, & Collin Cnty., Texas, 443 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2014). “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 59.006 (West Supp.2013).”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(b) — 2 cases
British Int'l Ins. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000). “Rather, LNB objects to the production sought in requests 3 and 6 3 on the ground that the documents are not relevant, would be burdensome to produce and, until ACIC complies with Texas Finance Code § 59.006, the production would subject LNB to liability to the non-parties whose…”
in Re 8650 Frisco, LLC D/B/A Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse, Mandona, LLC, Galovelho, LLC, Bahtche, LLC, Claudio Nunes & David Jeiel Rodrigues (Tex. App. 2015). “Defendants withheld the bank statements of 8650 Frisco, LLC, on the basis that it “is an improper method to request records of a financial institution” under TEX. FIN. CODE § 59.006. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2, Request for Production No.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(b)(2) — 1 case
Preston State Bank, F/K/A Dallas City Bank v. Roach, John, in His Off. Capacity as Collin Cnty. DA, & Collin Cnty., Texas, 443 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2014). “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 59.006 (West Supp.2013).”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(b)(3)(A) — 1 case
First Nat'l Bank of Giddings v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Tex. 2025). “8TEX. FIN. CODE § 59.006(b)(3)(A) (requiring authorization from the bank customer when a financial institution is asked to release a record that relates to the customer who is not a party to the proceeding).”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(b)(i) — 2 cases
Humphries Constr. Corp. v. Highland Vill. Ltd. P'ship, Highland Vill. GP LLC, Highland Vill. Holding LLC, & Trans Am. Holding Corp. A/K/A Trans Am. Holdings Corp. N/K/A Trans Am. Holdings LLC, Highland Vill. GP LLC (Tex. App. 2025). “The Defendants argue that the use of the Morgan Stanley Subpoena without complying with the Texas Finance Code is a violation of law, and thus subject to sanctions. Specifically, a financial institution shall produce customer records only if the request was served twenty-four…”
Humphries Constr. Corp. v. Highland Vill. Ltd. P'ship, Highland Vill. GP LLC, Highland Vill. Holding LLC, & Trans Am. Holding Corp. A/K/A Trans Am. Holdings Corp. N/K/A Trans Am. Holdings LLC, Highland Vill. GP LLC (2026). “The Defendants argue that the use of the Morgan Stanley Subpoena without complying with the Texas Finance Code is a violation of law, and thus subject to sanctions. Specifically, a financial institution shall produce customer records only if the request was served twenty-four…”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(c) — 1 case
British Int'l Ins. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000). “Rather, LNB objects to the production sought in requests 3 and 6 3 on the ground that the documents are not relevant, would be burdensome to produce and, until ACIC complies with Texas Finance Code § 59.006, the production would subject LNB to liability to the non-parties whose…”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 59.006(d) — 3 cases
LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “201(b)(3)(“review”)(confiden-tiality and disclosure of information); Tex. Fin.Code § 59.006(d)("inspection”)(discoveiy of customer records at a financial institution); Tex.”
British Int'l Ins. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000). “Rather, LNB objects to the production sought in requests 3 and 6 3 on the ground that the documents are not relevant, would be burdensome to produce and, until ACIC complies with Texas Finance Code § 59.006, the production would subject LNB to liability to the non-parties whose…”
Lapointe, James Thomas (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
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.