Hasie v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2415
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- OCC denied Hasie’s request to disclose SARs for civil litigation use.
- USAO produced SARs and related materials to Hasie and co-defendants in the criminal case.
- Hasie later sued State National in Texas state court alleging malicious prosecution etc.
- During discovery in the civil matter, Hasie used SARs disclosed by the USAO.
- OCC and FinCEN concluded the SARs remained non-public and could not be disclosed under Touhy and BSA policies.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of the OCC; Hasie appeals and seeks unsealing of the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of non-public status by government disclosure | Hasie argues USAO disclosure waived confidentiality. | OCC contends disclosure to USAO did not waive non-public status. | No waiver; OCC retains rights to control dissemination. |
| OCC’s Touhy denial proper balancing | Hasie asserts balance favors disclosure due to need in litigation. | OCC balanced public policy and found confidentiality outweighed need. | OCC’s balancing was not arbitrary or abusive. |
| OCC’s use of BSA safe harbor in Touhy analysis | Hasie claims safe harbor should not control the Touhy analysis. | OCC properly considered safe harbor in weighing factors. | Safe harbor weight properly considered; not error. |
| Bias/predetermination and procedural fairness | Hasie claims pre-determination showing improper bias. | OCC communications do not show pre-judgment; impartial process. | No evident pre-determination or procedural bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (presumption of honesty in adjudicators; due process concerns)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1975) (biased-adjudicator standard in administrative context)
- Baran v. Port of Beaumont Navigation Dist., 57 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 1995) (higher burden for proving administrative bias)
- United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) (federal agencies may regulate production of agency documents)
- BizCapital Bus. & Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Comptroller of Currency of the U.S., 467 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2006) (Touhy disclosures and balancing criteria under OCC regs)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary or capricious review standard in APA actions)
- James v. Tex. Collin Cnty., 535 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of summary judgment for administrative actions)