Opinion ID: 218877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Department of Justice's (DOJ's) internal guidelines

Text: Finally, Company 1 claims that the government violated the DOJ's internal guidelines by failing to obtain the proper approval before subpoenaing Company 1's confidential information that was in the control of Company 2's outside counsel. But Company 2 correctly notes that these guidelines explicitly state that they are set forth solely for the purpose of internal DOJ guidance. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party. United States Attorney Criminal Resource Manual § 9-13.410(G); see also United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 184 (5th Cir.2009) (Several sister circuits have held that the Department of Justice guidelines and policies do not create enforceable rights for criminal defendants.). Company 2 also correctly notes that the DOJ guidelines deal with the disclosure of an attorney's documents that might hinder the attorney-client relationship because the documents relat[e] to the attorney's representation of a client. United States Attorney Criminal Resource Manual § 9-13.410(A). The subpoenas, however, do not seek documents that deal with Company 2's relationship with its own counsel. Rather, in attempting to obtain documents concerning Company 1's internal operations, the government requested documents that happened to be in the possession of Company 2's outside counsel because the Protective Order calls for them to be shielded from Company 2. But these are not the type of attorney-client documents that the DOJ's internal guidelines intend to protect by recommending heightened internal approval. The guidelines thus do not prevent Company 2's compliance with the subpoenas.
For all of the reasons set forth above, the district court's denial of Company 1's motion to quash is AFFIRMED.