28 C.F.R. §16.22 - General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party

Cite as28 C.F.R. §16.22
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
82 cases
  • Rajaratnam v. Motley Rice, LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 26, 2020
    ...not elaborate what this means, but the Motley Defendants reasonably surmise that this refers to the so-called "Touhy regulations" at 28 C.F.R. § 16.22, a Department of Justice regulation prohibiting the production of DOJ materials in a civil proceeding. (Motley Mot. 21.) Plaintiff's opposit......
  • Smith v. Cromer
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 22, 1998
    ...States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 468, 71 S.Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417 (1951), which upheld the validity of a predecessor to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22(a). Id. Appellees may not be forced to comply with the subpoenas if a valid regulation required them not to comply. Ex Parte Sackett, 74 F.2d ......
  • Kasi v. Angelone, CIV.A. 200CV470.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • January 10, 2002
    ...that person's official duties or because of that person's official status without prior approval of the proper Department official...." 28 C.F.R. § 16.22(a) 12. The Commonwealth did not wish to alarm or disturb the jury while the defense asked that the court conduct individual voir dire wit......
  • F.B.I. v. Superior Court of Cal., C-07-01876 PJH (JCS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • August 22, 2007
    ...had been improperly served. Kim Decl., Ex. B (Letter re: Subpoena in People v. Hammonds) at 1. Kim also noted that, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22, the DOJ "considers whether disclosure is appropriate under the applicable procedural rules and substantive law concerning privilege," and specif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Background
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library The Merger Review Process. A Step-by-Step Guide to U.S. and Foreign Merger Review. Fourth Edition
    • December 6, 2012
    ...Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 34 n.22 (2d Cir. 1981). See generally Antitrust Division Manual , supra note 125, at III.E.6.a.1. 166. 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.22, 16.26. party unless its General Counsel determines that disclosure would be appropriate under the circumstances. 167 Moreover, materials ......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...agents are not in the possession of the state, and federal agents are prohibited from releasing the reports without authorization under 28 CFR §16.22. Under those circumstances, when the state does not possess the report, they are not obligated to provide them to the defense and no discover......
  • Expert Discovery
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Econometrics. Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues
    • January 1, 2014
    ...*8-9. 65. A party seeking discovery from a non-party government agency must comply with the appropriate agency regulations. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 (Department of Justice). Any refusal by the agency to produce information may then be tested under the Administrative Procedure Act, wheth......
  • Subpoenas: Compelling Witness Attendance and Productions at Trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Trial Notebook - Volume 1 Preparing for trial
    • May 3, 2022
    ...the federal marshal responsible for running the hotel; marshal refused to appear, on direction of the U.S. Attorney, who cited 28 CFR 16.22(a) (i.e., Department of Justice employees shall not disclose any information in litigation where the United States is not a party); the court held that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT