Ex parte Sackett, 7704.
| Citation | 74 F.2d 922 |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7704.,7704. |
| Parties | Ex parte SACKETT. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., and Leo V. Silverstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Charles W. Cradick, George K. French, and Roy E. Jackson, all of Los Angeles, Cal., and H. W. Glensor, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NORCROSS, District Judge.
The petitioner was an authorized and acting special agent in charge of the Division of Investigation in the United States Department of Justice. By a subpœna duces tecum issued out of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division, in Special Site Sign Company, a Corporation, v. Foster & Kleiser Company, a Corporation, et al., petitioner was required to produce certain records and documents in his possession as such agent of the Department of Justice. He appeared in response to the subpœna and declined to produce the documents called for by the subpœna duces tecum on the ground that by section 65 of Rules and Regulations of the Division of Investigation of the United States Department of Justice, approved and promulgated by the Attorney General, he was prohibited from producing the records, and that in addition he had communicated with the Attorney General of the United States and had been informed by him "that the documents sought are part of the official and confidential records of the Department, that it is against public policy for the Department to produce any part of the documents obtained confidentially when the purpose for which documents are sought is for the furtherance of private litigation." The petitioner refused to submit such documents for examination in the civil case in which the subpœna was issued upon the ground that he was prohibited by the departmental rule from so doing, that he was also prohibited by the special order of the Attorney General from producing papers, and that it was against public policy to produce such documents because they were part of the confidential and official files of the Division of Investigation of the United States Department of Justice.
The trial court adjudged the petitioner guilty of contempt of court "in failing to answer whether or not he has certain records in his possession and in declining to produce same if they are in his possession, and directed that he stand committed to the custody of the United States Marshal until such time as he complies with the order of the court."
It appears from the subpœna duces tecum attached to the petition for writ of habeas corpus and from the return of the marshal that the documents demanded are copies of correspondence and contracts and other private documents of Foster & Kleiser Company which were made by the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice in connection with the institution and prosecution of a suit by the United States government to enjoin the continuance of activities in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law (15 USCA §§ 1-7, 15 note), and that the action in which such information is desired by the parties is a private action brought to recover the damages and penalty imposed by that act. The claim of the Special Site Sign Company which secured the subpœna duces tecum is that the private records and correspondence of Foster & Kleiser Company have been destroyed, and for that reason they need to use the copies of such instruments made by the agents of the government in the course of its investigation.
It will be assumed, as determined by the trial judge, that these documents are material evidence in the case in which their production is sought and that the sole question involved herein is whether or not the petitioner, a subordinate in the Department of Justice of the United States government, may be compelled to produce documentary evidence in the custody of the Department.
The statute of the United States, 5 USCA § 22, Rev. St. § 161 (see footnote1), authorizes the Attorney General to make rules concerning the custody of the papers and documents of the Department. In pursuance of this authority, the Attorney General has promulgated the rule (No. 65) as shown in the footnote.2 This regulation has the force of law, and the court had no jurisdiction or power to punish an officer for conforming to that law. Boske v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. State
...used for any other purpose than that of the department, although they may be material evidence in the trial of another case. Ex parte Sackett, 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 922; Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 20 S.Ct. 701, L.Ed. 846; Stegall v. Thurman, D.C., 175 F. 813; Caha v. United States, 152 U.S......
-
Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
...U.S. 459 (20 S.Ct. 701, 44 L.Ed. 846); Appeal of United States Securities & Exchange Com., (6 Cir.), 226 F.2d 501, 516-520; Ex parte Sackett, (9 Cir.), 74 F.2d 922; In re Valecia Condensed Milk Co., (7 Cir.), 240 F. 310; Stegall v. Thurman, (D.C.), 175 F. 813; In re Weeks, (D.C.), 82 F. 729......
-
Smith v. Cromer
...Id. Appellees may not be forced to comply with the subpoenas if a valid regulation required them not to comply. Ex Parte Sackett, 74 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir.1935); Boron Oil Co. v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir.1989). We are convinced, both by statute and precedent, that 28 C.F.R. § 16.22......
-
Boeh, In re
...may not be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order if a valid regulation required him not to comply. Ex Parte Sackett, 74 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir.1935); Boron Oil Co. v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir.1989). We are convinced, both by statute and precedent, that 28 C.F.R. ......