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. 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. Justice Manual. Washington, DC. § 9-110.101.

Sources

Related Research Articles

The False Claims Act (FCA), also called the "Lincoln Law", 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. Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

United States Department of Justice U.S. federal executive department in charge of law enforcement

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 modern incarnation of the department was formed in 1870 during the Ulysses S. Grant presidency. The department is composed of federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The primary actions of the DOJ are investigating instances of white collar crime, representing the U.S. government in legal matters, and running the federal prison system. The department is also responsible for reviewing the conduct of local law enforcement as directed by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Contempt of Congress is the 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.

United States Attorney Chief prosecutor representing the United States federal government

United States attorneys represent the United States federal government in United States district courts and United States courts of appeals.

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.

Discovery (law) Pre-trial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties 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.

Competitive Enterprise Institute American libertarian think tank

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank founded by the political writer Fred L. Smith Jr. on March 9, 1984, in Washington, D.C., to advance principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. CEI focuses on a number of regulatory policy issues, including business and finance, labor, technology and telecommunications, transportation, food and drug regulation, and energy and environment in which they have promoted climate change denial. Kent Lassman is the current President and CEO.

Merrick Garland American lawyer, judge, and 86th United States Attorney General

Merrick Brian Garland is an American attorney and jurist serving as the 86th United States attorney general since March 2021. He served as a circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 2021.

Foreign Agents Registration Act United States law regulating foreign lobbying

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate "evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons." The law is administered by the FARA Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) of the United States Department of Justice. As of 2007 the Justice Department reported there were approximately 1,700 lobbyists representing more than 100 countries before Congress, the White House and the federal government.

National security letter

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 authorized national security investigations. 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.

Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush Administration's Department of Justice ordered the unprecedented 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. 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.

A detailed chronology of events in the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.

Presidents Surveillance Program

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. While only five people were individually named within the subpoena, according to lawyer Mark Stephens the order effectively entailed the collection in relation to criminal prosecution of the personal identifying information of over six hundred thousand Twitter users, principally those who were followers of WikiLeaks. The U.S. government also 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. Subsequent reactions included the discussion of secret subpoenas in the U.S., criticism of the particular subpoena issued, an immediate, temporary 0.5 percent reduction in the number of Twitter followers of WikiLeaks, and calls for the recognition and emulation of Twitter's stance.

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) of 1980 is a United States federal law intended to protect the rights of people in state or local correctional facilities, nursing homes, mental health facilities and institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau United States government agency

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an 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, and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding, the CFPB has "engaged the 21st century" by using 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. ____ (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", violates the separation of powers. The Court's 5–4 decision, issued on June 29, 2020, recognized that the directorship position was severable from the statute that established the CFPB, allowing the CFPB to continue to operate.

2017–2018 Department of Justice congressional metadata seizures Secret data seizure of sitting Congress members personal data

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.