If the demand does not involve information collected in connection with an investigation or litigation under the supervision of a division of the Department, and there is a disagreement between the United States Attorney and the originating component on disclosure, the originating component has the authority to decide whether the disclosure is appropriate, except that, when an especially significant issue is raised, the United States Attorney may refer the matter to the Deputy Attorney General for higher level review. 28 C.F.R. § 16.24(d)(2). The term "especially significant issue" is not defined in the regulations. It would seem that the raising by either side of a factor set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(b) would qualify as an "especially significant issue." In addition, as a matter of comity, each of the two parties should give due deference to the views of the other in determining whether to seek higher level review. For an illustrative example, see the DOJ Organization and Functions Manual at 22.

If the demand does not involve information collected in connection with an investigation or litigation under the supervision of a division of the Department, and the United States Attorney and the originating component agree that no disclosure should be made, the originating component has the authority to decline to authorize the disclosure, except that, when an especially significant issue is raised, the United States Attorney may refer the matter to the Deputy Attorney General for higher level review. 28 C.F.R. § 16.24(d)(2). The originating component’s decision declining to authorize disclosure should be memorialized in a written document that states the reasons for the decision.

[Updated April 2018]