Civil investigative demand

Last updated

A civil investigative demand (CID) is a discovery tool used by a number of executive agencies in the United States to obtain information relevant to an investigation. By contrast with other discovery mechanisms, CIDs are typically issued before a complaint has been filed by the government in order to commence a lawsuit against the recipient of the CID. [1] CIDs are considered a type of administrative subpoena. [2]

Contents

Background

In civil litigation, the discovery process is intended to help clarify and narrow the issues in a case in advance of trial. Parties request documents from one another in order to gather evidence, determine if a case is viable, examine what issues should be explored further, and consider what arguments they might make in court. [3]

CIDs are unusual, as compared to civil procedure under ordinary discovery rules, for two reasons. First, they are issued before the relevant government agency has filed a complaint against the target of the demand. [1] Ordinarily, a lawsuit must have commenced before one party can demand documents from the other party. Second, they are not reciprocal: the government can issue a CID to investigate a person before a complaint has been filed, but that person is not entitled to demand information from the government. [4]

A number of state and federal statutes authorize the issuance of CIDs.

Antitrust law

Federal antitrust law authorizes the Attorney General to issue a CID "[w]henever [he or she] has reason to believe" that a person has information "relevant to a civil antitrust investigation" or to an investigation under section 3 of the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994. [5] Texas antitrust law gives the Attorney General of Texas similar authority. [6]

Dodd–Frank

The Dodd–Frank Act gives the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) authority to issue civil investigative demands. [7] Richard Cordray, a former director of the CFPB, has described CIDs as a "crucial" tool for the CFPB's enforcement operations. [8] [9]

Consumer protection law

State consumer protection laws known as Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices statutes, which prevent various kinds of unfair commercial behavior, often authorize state attorneys general to issue CIDs. [10]

FARA

Since 1991, the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intermittently requested that the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) be amended to include the authority to issue CIDs under FARA. [11] A number of proposed bills would grant DOJ this authority, [12] but as of June 2020 none had been passed.

FCA and state analogues

The False Claims Act (FCA) authorizes the Attorney General to issue CIDs requiring the recipient to produce documents relevant to an investigation under the FCA "[w]henever [he or she] has reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a false claims law investigation." [13] A CID may only be served under the FCA before the Attorney General has brought an action against the target of the investigation, after which the statute requires the government to use more traditional discovery tools such as the subpoena. [14] CIDs may be issued under the FCA at the initiative of the Attorney General or in relation to a qui tam action brought by a private relator. [15] Courts have not imposed significant limits on the issuance of CIDs under the FCA, rendering their potential ambit quite expansive. [2] One commentator has observed that it is "difficult[]" for a recipient to avoid complying with a CID under the FCA. [16]

As of 2007, several state laws gave state attorneys general analogous powers to those under the FCA. [17]

RICO

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) authorizes CIDs. [18] According to DOJ policy, they may be issued only with the consent of DOJ's Criminal Division. [19] [20]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 McFarland 1980, p. 1451: "The civil investigative demand is a precomplaint compulsory process used by state or federal attorneys general to gather information to ascertain whether any violation of law has occurred or whether further investigation is warranted."
  2. 1 2 Kristofcak, Alexander (April 2020). "FCA v. FDA: The Case Against the Presumption of Immateriality from Agency Inaction" (PDF). New York University Law Review . 95: 264.
  3. ↑ Seitz, Esther (2009). "Federal Rules Discovery". Fact-Gathering in Patent Infringement Cases: Rule 34 Discovery and the Saisie-Contrefaçon. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. pp. 11–22. ISBN   978-3-8329-4855-9. JSTOR   j.ctv941vb9.4 . Discovery in the United States relies on the adversaries to gather and develop the facts underlying a lawsuit. … The Federal Rules direct the parties to learn as much relevant and nonprivileged information as possible about the case and resort to the courts only in case of irreconcilable conflicts.
  4. ↑ McFarland 1980, pp. 1477–1479.
  5. ↑ 15 U.S.C.   § 1312(a)
  6. ↑ Davis, James E.; Gillum, Jon L. (Summer 2013). "Government Pre-Suit Investigative Powers: A Survey of Common Issues Arising from Investigations by the Texas Attorney General and the Texas Department of Insurance". Texas Tech Administrative Law Journal. 14 (2): 304 – via HeinOnline.
  7. ↑ 12 U.S.C.   § 5562(c)
  8. ↑ Kisluk, E. Sylvester (2017). "Fishing for Trouble: On the Appropriate Limits of a Civil Investigative Demand Issued by the CFPB". North Carolina Banking Institute. 21: 301 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ Decision and Order on PHH Corporation's Petition to Modify or Set Aside Civil Investigative Demand, In re PHH Corporation, 2012-MISC-PHH Corp-0001, at 3.
  10. ↑ Vlach, Kate (May 13, 2020). "What's Old is New Again: How State Attorneys General Can Reinvigorate UDAP Enforcement to Combat Crisis Pregnancy Center Deception". Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. 39 (2): 164. doi:10.7916/cjgl.v39i2.6071.
  11. ↑ Audit of the National Security Division's Enforcement and Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (PDF). Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice. September 2016. p. 18.
  12. ↑ "Updates on Congressional Action on FARA Reform". Caplin & Drysdale. February 2019. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  13. ↑ 31 U.S.C.   § 3733(a)(1)
  14. ↑ Fetzer, Lindsey (October 12, 2016). "The Civil Investigative Demand: An Increasingly Aggressive Investigative Tool and Common-Sense Scope-Reduction Strategies". Inside the FCA. Bass Berry Sims. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  15. ↑ "Investigative Tools in the Government's Arsenal: Civil Investigative Demands". Berger Montague. July 3, 2018. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  16. ↑ Holloway, James P. (May 22, 2019). "Recent Court Decision Shows Best Way to Handle Civil Investigative Demands". Baker Donelson . Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  17. ↑ Bucy, Pamela H. (2007). "Federalism and False Claims". Cardozo Law Review . 28 (4): 1608 – via HeinOnline.
  18. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1968(a)
  19. ↑ Klimek, Andrew Robert (March 23, 2020). "Reinvesting in RICO with Cryptocurrencies: Using Cryptocurrency Networks to Prove RICO's Enterprise Requirement". Washington and Lee Law Review. 77 (1): 546.
  20. ↑ Department of Justice (February 19, 2015). Justice Manual. Washington, DC. § 9-110.101.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Sources

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False Claims Act of 1863</span> United States federal anti-fraud law

The False Claims Act of 1863 (FCA) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Department of Justice</span> U.S. federal executive department

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the United States government tasked with the enforcement of federal law and administration of justice in the United States. It is equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries. The department is headed by the U.S. attorney general, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet. The current attorney general is Merrick Garland, who has served since March 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914</span> 1914 US law establishing the Federal Trade Commission

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 is a United States federal law which established the Federal Trade Commission. The Act was signed into law by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1914 and outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices that affect commerce.

Contempt of Congress is the misdemeanor act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Attorney</span> Chief prosecutor representing the United States federal government

United States attorneys are officials of the U.S. Department of Justice who serve as the chief federal law enforcement officers in each of the 94 U.S. federal judicial districts. Each U.S. attorney serves as the United States' chief federal criminal prosecutor in their judicial district and represents the U.S. federal government in civil litigation in federal and state court within their geographic jurisdiction. U.S. attorneys must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, after which they serve four-year terms.

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. In some jurisdictions, it can also be issued by legislative bodies such as county boards of supervisors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery (law)</span> Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merrick Garland</span> American lawyer and jurist (born 1952)

Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who has served as the 86th United States attorney general since 2021. He previously served as a circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 2021. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Republican-led U.S. Senate effectively blocked Garland's appointment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Agents Registration Act</span> United States law regulating foreign lobbying

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law that imposes public disclosure obligations on persons representing foreign interests. It requires "foreign agents"—defined as individuals or entities engaged in domestic lobbying or advocacy for foreign governments, organizations, or persons —to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and disclose their relationship, activities, and related financial compensation.

Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism is the fifth of ten titles which comprise the USA PATRIOT Act, an anti-terrorism bill passed in the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks. It contains 8 sections regarding the capture and prosecution of terrorists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section summary of Title II of the Patriot Act</span>

The following is a section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures gave increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, of 31 December 2005, for most of the title's provisions. On 22 December 2005, the sunset clause expiration date was extended to 3 February 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National security letter</span> US government administrative subpoena

A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information for national security purposes. NSLs do not require prior approval from a judge. The Stored Communications Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Right to Financial Privacy Act authorize the United States government to seek such information that is "relevant" to an authorized national security investigation. By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.

On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the midterm dismissal of seven United States attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. attorney positions for political advantage. The allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President's Surveillance Program</span> Intelligence activities in the US

The President's Surveillance Program (PSP) is a collection of secret intelligence activities authorized by the President of the United States George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks in 2001 as part of the War on Terrorism. Information collected under this program was protected within a Sensitive Compartmented Information security compartment codenamed STELLARWIND.

The Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation was a civil investigative demand initiated in April 2010 by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, for a wide range of records held by the University of Virginia related to five grant applications for research work by a leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann, who was an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. The demand was issued under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act in connection with claims by Cuccinnelli that Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws in relation to five research grants, by allegedly manipulating data. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented to support the claim. Mann's earlier work had been targeted by climate change deniers attacking the hockey stick graph, and allegations against him were renewed in late 2009 in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy but found to be groundless in a series of investigations.

The WikiLeaks-related Twitter court orders were United States Department of Justice 2703(d) orders accompanied by gag orders issued to Twitter in relation to ongoing investigations of WikiLeaks issued on 14 December 2010. The U.S. government sent Twitter a subpoena for information about Julian Assange and several other WikiLeaks-related persons, including Chelsea Manning. Twitter appealed against the accompanying gag order in order to be able to disclose its existence to its users, and was ultimately successful in its appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</span> United States government agency

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, for-profit colleges, and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding, the CFPB has used technology tools to monitor how financial entities used social media and algorithms to target consumers.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.

The United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration acquired by a February 2018 subpoena the Apple iCloud metadata of two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, several others associated with the committee, and some of their family members. The subpoena covered 73 phone numbers and 36 email addresses since the inception of the accounts. Seizing communications information of members of Congress is extraordinarily rare. The department also subpoenaed and obtained 2017 and 2018 phone log and email metadata from news reporters for CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Apple also received and complied with February 2018 subpoenas for the iCloud accounts of White House counsel Don McGahn and his wife. Microsoft received a subpoena relating to a personal email account of a congressional staff member in 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</span>

The United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election began in early 2021 with investigations and prosecutions of hundreds of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. By early 2022, the investigation had expanded to examine Donald Trump's inner circle, with the Justice Department impaneling several federal grand juries to investigate the attempts to overturn the election. Later in 2022, a special counsel was appointed. On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted. The indictment also describes six alleged co-conspirators.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.