United States of America v. California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
824 F. Supp. 2d 31
D.D.C.2011Background
- UDC District of Columbia granted petition for summary enforcement of an investigative subpoena duces tecum issued to CRLA under the Inspector General Act and Section 509(h) of the 1996 Appropriations Act.
- LSC-OIG sought CRLA data from its KEMPS database (including client names, addresses, problem codes) and various CRLA documents, with privilege redactions asserted by CRLA.
- CRLA withheld client identities and other materials as attorney-client and work product privileged and argued burden of reviewing ~39,000 files was excessive.
- LSC-OIG interim findings alleged CRLA may have engaged in prohibited activities (soliciting clients, fee-generating work, and limited identifiable client representation) and raised concerns about impact litigation.
- The court applied a three-pronged test (lawful purpose, relevance, and reasonableness) and held California state privileges do not bar disclosure; federal privileges govern.
- The court approved a data review protocol and protective order to address privacy, with disputes over the scope of the protective order referred to magistrate judge for later resolution and a deadline set for submitting a revised protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do California state privileges preclude disclosure? | CRLA: yes, state privileges apply. | LSC-OIG: no, federal scheme controls; 509(h) overrides state law. | California state privileges do not preclude disclosure; federal privileges govern. |
| Is LSC-OIG's subpoena enforceable under federal law? | CRLA: not enforceable due to burdens and scope. | LSC-OIG: enforceable within IG Act authority and 509(h). | Yes; enforceable under the Inspector General Act and 509(h). |
| Are the requested materials reasonably relevant to a lawful purpose? | CRLA: information not reasonably relevant to lawful purpose. | LSC-OIG: information (including client names) is relevant to assessing compliance with the grant restrictions. | Yes; information reasonably relevant to a congressionally mandated investigation. |
| Is the subpoena unduly burdensome? | CRLA: burden of reviewing ~39,000 files is onerous and disruptive. | LSC-OIG: burden mitigated by proposed data-review protocol and cost-sharing. | No; burden is not undue given the protocol and potential efficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- LSNYC I, 100 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2000) (LSC grants, 509(h) exception to confidentiality; client names disclosure)
- LSNYC II, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (grantees’ ethical obligations do not prevent production of client names)
- Linde Thomson, 5 F.3d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (uniform federal privilege rule; avoid conflicting state privileges)
- Hunton & Williams, 952 F. Supp. 843 (D.D.C. 1997) (three-pronged test for enforceability of subpoenas; relevance and burden)
- FTC v. Texaco, 555 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1977) (burden and tailoring of subpoenas to purpose)