In re: JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v., 799 F.3d 36

Background

Chase sought mandamus review after a magistrate judge ordered production/use of most of 55 contested pages of Chase records in a putative class action alleging the bank failed to detect a customer’s Ponzi scheme.
The dispute centered on whether those records are protected from disclosure by the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)) and related SAR confidentiality regulations (e.g., 12 C.F.R. § 21.11(k)).
OCC and FinCEN were notified; neither agency reviewed the specific documents; OCC filed a general amicus brief but did not inspect the records.
The magistrate judge conducted in camera review and held most documents not protected; Chase sought interlocutory relief which was denied, then petitioned this court for mandamus.
This Court conducted de novo in camera review of the 55 pages and considered (1) whether SAR confidentiality applies to third parties and (2) whether the documents reveal the existence/non-existence of a SAR or otherwise are privileged.
The Court denied mandamus, finding doubts about third-party applicability and concluding the contested documents largely consisted of underlying transactional records (not protected) and the remaining pages did not reveal SAR existence or preparatory evaluative work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is available to review the magistrate’s production order	Name plaintiffs: mandamus not necessary; district proceedings adequate	Chase: mandamus appropriate because disclosure would cause irreparable harm	Court: did not bar mandamus generally but found Chase failed to meet mandamus standard (no clear entitlement)
Whether the BSA/regulations bar disclosure by third parties (non-bank recipients of SAR-related material)	Plaintiffs: statutes/regulations don’t reach third parties; only banks and government recipients are covered	Chase: confidentiality obligations should prevent third-party disclosure of documents that reveal SAR existence or investigative materials	Held: Court doubted applicability to third parties; statutory/regulatory phrasing and canons suggest limits to banks and government recipients
Whether the contested documents are protected as SARs or reveal existence/non-existence of SARs	Plaintiffs: documents are underlying transactional facts not revealing SARs and so are producible	Chase: documents are "evaluative" and prepared to assess reporting obligations and thus privileged	Held: Majority were transactional lists/statements exempted by regulation; the remainder did not reveal SAR existence or preparatory SAR work, so not protected
Scope of SAR confidentiality—whether it shields investigative methods or ordinary monitoring records	Plaintiffs: confidentiality covers SARs and direct indications of SARs, not ordinary course monitoring documents	Chase: confidentiality should extend broadly to evaluative investigative materials and methods	Held: Court rejected an expansive shield for investigative methods; confined protection to SARs and documents that reveal SAR existence or content, consistent with regulations and case law

Key Cases Cited

In re Cargill, 66 F.3d 1256 (1st Cir. 1995) (mandamus standard requires clear entitlement and irreparable harm)
In re Cambridge Literary Props., Ltd., 271 F.3d 348 (1st Cir. 2001) (mandamus requires palpable error)
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (postjudgment remedies and mandamus interplay for privilege disclosures)
Whitney Nat. Bank v. Karam, 306 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2004) (broad discussion of SAR-related privilege categories)
Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 981 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (distinguishing ordinary-course transactional records from evaluative SAR-related materials)
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (U.S. 2012) (statutory interpretation/general/specific canon)