U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 165— UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROCEDURE

28 U.S.C. § 2521

Subpoenas and incidental powers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Subpoenas requiring the attendance of parties or witnesses and subpoenas requiring the production of books, papers, documents or tangible things by any party or witness having custody or control thereof, may be issued for purposes of discovery or for use of the things produced as evidence in accordance with the rules and orders of the court. Such subpoenas shall be issued and served and compliance therewith shall be compelled as provided in the rules and orders of the court.(b) The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority as—(1) misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;(2) misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; or(3) disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.(c) The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have such assistance in the carrying out of its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command as is available to a court of the United States. The United States marshal for any district in which the Court of Federal Claims is sitting shall, when requested by the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims, attend any session of the Court of Federal Claims in such district.(Added Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, § 59(a), 68 Stat. 1248; amended Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 910(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4519.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 inserted “and incidental powers” in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Pyramid Real Est. Servs., LLC v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 613 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pyramid Real Est. Servs., LLC v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 613 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 4× “The three sources of authority relevant in the context of a breach of a protective order are RCFC 16(f), which governs the breach of pretrial orders, 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (b)(3) (2006), which grants the court power to hold parties in civil contempt, and the court’s inherent…”
Tippett v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 171 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 2× “Tippett relies on 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (b)-(c) (2006) and RCFC 4.”
Savantage Fin. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 700 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (b)(3) (2009). Despite possessing the authority to hold litigants accountable for failing to adhere to instruction, the court does not exercise its enforcement authority lightly.”
Vasile v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 465 (E.D.N.Y 1998). “Rules 56(a), 60(b)(2)(3), 26(c), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2521 (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4 , 1001, 42 U.”
Tasby v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 344 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “§ 2503 (B); and 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (A). These statutes confer authority on this Court to promulgate its rules of practice and procedure, and to issue subpoenas.”
Wolfchild v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 54 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “Exercising those powers offers the best prospect of adhering to the terms of the Distribution Act insofar as it is legally possible to do so.”
Capital Props., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 607 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “…a subpoena against a non-party state government. This issue is moot if the State complies with this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2521 .”
Jennette v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 126 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “”); 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (a) (2000) (discussing the authority of the Court of Federal Claims to issue subpoenas).”
Mission Critical Solutions v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 18 (Fed. Cl. 2012). · cites it 2× “The two sources of authority relevant in the context of a failure to comply with an injunction are, first, 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (b)(3) (2006), which grants the court power to hold parties in civil contempt, and, second, the court’s inherent authority to sanction a party or attorney…”
Wolfchild v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 92 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “§ 1491 (a)(2) (“In any *98 case within its jurisdiction, the court shall have the power to remand appropriate matters to any administrative or executive body or official with such direction as it may deem proper and just.”
Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 153 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2521 (b)(2) (1994) (permitting court “to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority” as “misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions”); RCFC 11 (permitting court to impose sanctions “upon motion or upon…”
Unico Servs., Inc. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 464 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “28 U.S.C. § 2521 . This Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the government in more than military pay cases.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.