Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00585/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00585-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jose Gutierrez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Seth McLaws et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00585-PHX-DGC

 ORDER 

 The United States has moved to quash a subpoena issued to the Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS”) on December 10, 2013. Doc. 28. The Court will grant the 

motion. 

 The United States argues that Plaintiff has “failed to follow DHS regulations 

governing the production of documents.” Doc. 28 at 3. The Court agrees. The 

regulations clearly state that in cases where DHS has not entered an appearance or given 

notice of representation, “only the Office of the General Counsel is authorized to receive 

and accept subpoenas[.]” 6 C.F.R. § 5.43. The Office of the General Counsel must 

receive a writing setting forth “with as much specificity as possible, the nature and 

relevance of the information sought.” Id. at § 5.45. Further, DHS employees are 

prohibited from producing documents “unless authorized to do so by the Office of the 

General Counsel[.]” Id. at § 5.44(b). 

 The subpoena in question was issued to “Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection.” Doc. 30. There is no evidence that Plaintiff served the 

subpoena on DHS’s Office of the General Counsel or provided that office a writing 

Case 2:13-cv-00585-SPL Document 32 Filed 01/16/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

setting forth with specificity the nature and relevance of the information sought. Because 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the appropriate regulations, the Court will grant the 

motion to quash. See United States v. Henson, 123 F.3d 1226, 1237 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(upholding the district court’s decision to quash a subpoena where the plaintiff failed to 

follow an agency’s procedures for obtaining records). 

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ motion to quash (Doc. 28) is granted. 

 Dated this 16th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00585-SPL Document 32 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 2