6 Critical Issues When Responding to Government Subpoenas
Government investigations take a variety of shapes and forms, but nearly all will include requests for the production of documents. It is important to protect sensitive customer and employee data in those materials.
June 16, 2015 at 07:22 AM
7 minute read
Government investigations take a variety of shapes and forms, but nearly all will include requests for the production of documents. Here are six critical issues that may result in significant problems for a bank or financial institution if overlooked before materials are produced—and some related issues to consider after production is done.
1. Time Limitations on Challenging the Scope of a Government Subpoena
Subpoenas for documents in government investigations are often quite broad. Some agencies are not very flexible in reducing or narrowing the scope. It is important to recognize that the statutes that authorize government agencies to issue subpoenas often provide a narrow time period for the recipient to challenge the scope of the subpoena in court. For example, the statute applicable to many subpoenas issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1968(h)), provides a party with just 20 days after service, or the deadline of the subpoena production, whichever is shorter.
If the subpoena recipient wants to negotiate the scope or the timing, it is critical to reach out to the government agency that issued the subpoena as soon as possible. Otherwise, the entity that received the subpoena could lose its ability to challenge the subpoena in court, should the negotiations be unsuccessful. It also may be necessary to request additional extensions if these matters are not resolved before the initial extension expires.
2. Bank Examiner Privilege
Banks regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Banks (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and certain other financial institutions often have documents in their possession that are covered by the bank examiner privilege (BEP). This privilege belongs to the bank examiners per federal regulations, and documents subject to the privilege must be protected by the banks, even from disclosure to other federal government agencies.
Thus, in order to avoid violating federal regulations and damaging the bank's relationship with bank examiners, it is important to determine whether any documents responsive to requests by another agency are potentially covered by the BEP before such documents are inadvertently produced in violation of these federal regulations. Examples of documents covered by the BEP include documents, both internal and external, reflecting findings and recommendations reached by the bank examiners, as well as discussions or communications concerning bank regulatory examinations or findings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Are Adopting Gen AI Five Times Faster Than the Cloud
Mitigating Off-Channel Communications: A Guide for In-House Counsel and Compliance Professionals
12 minute readE-Discovery Services Company Repario Taps Former UnitedLex VP as New GC
From In-House at AstraZeneca to an E-Discovery Startup: New Fileread GC Discusses Major Career Move
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250