Charles v. Print Fulfillment Services, LLC, 3:11-cv-00553

Plaintiff Keith Charles moves to compel ICE documents related to the 2009 ICE investigation of defendant Print Fulfillment Services, LLC and to depose a retired ICE special agent who oversaw the investigation.
ICE refused to comply with the subpoena, citing agency regulations that restrict production and testimony in private litigation where the United States is not a party.
ICE relied on 6 C.F.R. § 5.48(a) factors and did not identify with particularity which factors applied; cited potential costs, unrelated issues, and appearance of partiality.
Print Fulfillment asserts it has produced its entire non-privileged file and that no exceptional need exists to override ICE’s restrictions.
Both ICE and defendant argue that the agency’s discretionary refusals should not be overridden and that the plaintiff already has other witnesses for immigration-law expert testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ICE’s decision not to produce documents was arbitrary and capricious.	Charles argues ICE’s refusal is improper and overly protective.	Print Fulfillment contends ICE properly exercised discretion under § 5.48(a).	No; agency discretion not arbitrary or capricious.
Whether ICE should be compelled to allow deposition of a current or former employee.	Charles seeks deposition testimony to aid his case.	ICE testimony would raise impartiality concerns and is restricted by regulation.	No; deposition not compelled.
Whether plaintiff has an exceptional need to override ICE restrictions.	Charles asserts exceptional need justifying compelled production/testimony.	No exceptional need; documents mostly produced; alternative witnesses exist.	No; exceptional need not shown.

Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) (agency-subpoena limitations govern production by federal employees)
Rimmer v. Holder, 700 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2012) (proper enforcement limits on subpoenas to federal employees)