Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-mc-80212/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-mc-80212-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Inspector General of the National Science Foundation
Respondent
Michael Winner
Movant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WINNER,

Movant,

 v.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,

Respondent

 /

No. C-07-80212 MISC MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER

PURSUANT TO CUSTOMER

CHALLENGE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT

TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT 

Before the Court is movant Michael Winner’s (“Winner”) “Motion for Order Pursuant

to Customer Challenge Provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978,” filed

August 29, 2007, and respondent National Science Foundation Inspector General’s

response thereto.

Under 12 U.S.C. § 3410, a customer of a financial institution to whom an

administrative summons has been served may move to quash the summons. See 12

U.S.C. § 3410(a). Such motion must be supported by a sworn statement “stating the

applicant’s reasons for believing that the financial records are not relevant to the legitimate

law enforcement inquiry stated by the Government authority in its notice, or that there has

not been substantial compliance with the provisions of [chapter 35 of title 12].” See 12

U.S.C. § 3410(a)(2).

Case 3:07-mc-80212-MMC Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Although respondent was not required to file any response until ordered to do so by

the Court, see 12 U.S.C. § 3410(b), respondent chose to file a response before the Court

had issued any order so directing respondent.

2

Here, Winner seeks an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum served by

respondent on JPMorganChase, by which respondent seeks “all documents and

information pertaining to [a specific] VISA account” in Winner’s name. (See Supp. to

Movant’s Mot., filed September 6, 2007.) Winner asserts, in a sworn statement, that he

believes the justification set forth in the subpoena “lacks specificity.” Further, Winner

argues that, in any event, there is no showing his “entire financial history pertaining” to the

VISA number in question should be disclosed to respondent, and, consequently, an

“appropriate time frame” should be stated in the subpoena.

Respondent’s response to the motion consists of a sworn statement by Montgomery

K. Fisher, Senior Counsel, Office of Investigations, Office of Inspector General, National

Science Foundation.1 According to respondent, it is investigating reports from three women

that an individual placed advertisements on the internet site sfbay.craigslist.org, in which he

assertedly misrepresented himself as a researcher employed by the National Science

Foundation, and attempted to lure or, in some cases, lured women to hotel rooms to

engage in certain “research.” According to respondents, the women who went to the hotel

rooms report they were asked to sign a “non-disclosure agreement” in which the National

Science Foundation’s seal was included. Respondent also states it has learned the VISA

account in question was used to rent the hotel rooms to which the women were lured.

Where a respondent shows that the “law enforcement inquiry is legitimate” and that

there is a “reasonable belief that the records sought are relevant to that inquiry,” the district

court “shall” deny the motion to quash and order the process enforced. See 12 U.S.C.

§ 3410(c). Here, the Court finds respondents have met their burden. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 506(a)(2) (prohibiting knowing use of counterfeited seal of federal agency); 18 U.S.C.

§ 701 (prohibiting unauthorized possession or use of “colorable imitation” of insignia of

federal agency); 18 U.S.C. § 912 (prohibiting false impersonation of federal employee); 18

Case 3:07-mc-80212-MMC Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

2

Although the Court afforded Winner the opportunity to submit a proposed order

setting forth the specific relief he sought, (see Order, filed September 4, 2007), Winner did

not submit a proposed order, and, consequently, has failed to suggest any appropriate

limiting period.

3

U.S.C. § 1017 (prohibiting wrongful affixing of federal agency seal to any document).

Further, because the records in question may reasonably shed light on the time

period in which the alleged false impersonation and misuse of a government seal may have

occurred, the Court finds Winner is not entitled to an order limiting the temporal scope of

the subpoena.2

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion and will, upon submission of an

appropriate proposed order from respondent, order the process enforced.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Winner’s motion is hereby DENIED.

If respondent seeks an order enforcing the process, respondent shall, no later than

September 28, 2007, submit an appropriate proposed order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-mc-80212-MMC Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3