Bean LLC v. John Doe Bank
Civil Action No. 2017-2187
| D.D.C. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Fusion GPS (a Delaware LLC) performed opposition research in 2016 that produced the "Trump Dossier." The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a subpoena to Fusion's bank for Fusion's banking transaction history (Aug. 1, 2015–Oct. 4, 2017).
- Fusion sued to enjoin the bank from complying, arguing the subpoena was overbroad, lacked legislative purpose, violated First Amendment associational rights, and breached financial-privacy statutes; the Committee intervened.
- Parties negotiated a protective/confidential production; disagreement persisted over 70 transactions, prompting Fusion to renew its motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction.
- The Committee asserted the records were relevant to its investigation into Russian active measures and possible links between Russia and U.S. persons in the 2016 election; some public reporting tied Fusion’s work to law firms and entities of interest.
- The district court reviewed authority for congressional subpoenas, the relevancy standard for investigative subpoenas, First Amendment associational limits, and RFPA/GLBA statutory definitions, and denied Fusion’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity / legislative purpose of subpoena | Nunes acted unilaterally without a formal public resolution; subpoena lacks authority | House and Committee rules authorize the Committee and Chair to investigate and issue subpoenas; investigation was authorized by Chair and Ranking Member | Subpoena valid as part of legitimate congressional investigation under House and Committee rules and Eastland standard |
| Scope / relevance of requested records | Records (70 transactions) are overbroad and irrelevant to Russia inquiry | Committee has classified intelligence and public reporting linking some payors/payees to matters of interest; reasonable possibility they are relevant | Court will not perform line-by-line review; subpoenas enforceable unless materials are plainly incompetent or irrelevant; records not plainly irrelevant |
| First Amendment (association/speech) | Disclosure of financial records will reveal clients and chill anonymous political association and speech | Records reflect commercial transactions not protected associational activity; production will be kept confidential under executive-session rules | Commercial client relationships do not trigger First Amendment associational protection; confidentiality rules reduce real risk of public disclosure; no meaningful First Amendment injury shown |
| RFPA / GLBA statutory claims | RFPA and GLBA prohibit bank disclosure without customer protections/notice; Fusion entitled to protection | RFPA/GLBA protections apply to "persons"/"consumers" as statutorily defined (individuals/partnerships), not a corporate LLC like Fusion | Fusion lacks statutory standing under RFPA and GLBA because it is an LLC, not an individual/partnership/consumer; statutory claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (congressional investigatory power and limits on judicial interference)
- McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) (foundational statement of Congress's investigatory power)
- Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959) (review of congressional inquiry and limits)
- United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991) (standard for relevance review of subpoenas)
- Senate Select Comm. on Ethics v. Packwood, 845 F. Supp. 17 (D.D.C. 1994) (application of R. Enterprises relevancy standard in congressional subpoena context)
- McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372 (1960) (scope of inquiry into committee subpoenas)
- FTC v. Texaco, Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (burden on subpoenaed party to show request unreasonable)
- FEC v. Automated Bus. Servs., 888 F. Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (commercial vendor subpoenas not protected by associational rights)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in bank records)
- Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (release to Congress not necessarily public disclosure; committees presumed to act in good faith)
- United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 1994) (client identity and payment of fees not privileged information)