Pennington v. Donovan, Misc. No. H-82-144.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. H-82-144. |
| Citation | 574 F. Supp. 708 |
| Parties | R.R. PENNINGTON, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Jack F. Urquhart, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.
Karen Handorf, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
This matter is before the court on R.R. Pennington's motion to quash an administrative subpoena, issued pursuant to Section 504 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1134, and subject to the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 ("the Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a). On March 19, 1983, the Court ordered the Secretary of Labor ("the Secretary") to file a sworn response to the plaintiff's motion to quash, which response was filed on March 18, 1983. The matter is now before the Court for decision.
The Secretary has met his burden of showing that he is engaged in a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. An investigation is legitimate if it is one the agency is authorized to make and is not being conducted solely for an improper purpose such as political harassment or intimidation or otherwise in bad faith. ERISA § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 1134, gives the Secretary of Labor the authority to investigate to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate Title I of ERISA or any regulation or order issued under that Title. The affidavit of Oscar E. Masters, the Administrator of the Dallas Area Office of the Labor Management Services Administration, states that the investigation of Control Specialties, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan ("the Plan") was instituted pursuant to that authority. The assertions of the Plaintiff that the investigation has interfered with his work and put him to great expense are insufficient to establish that the investigation of the Plan is not legitimate.
The records concerning Certificates of Deposit jointly owned by the Plan and by private individuals required to be produced by the subpoena are relevant to that law enforcement inquiry. Any records relating to the manner in which proceeds from the Certificates of Deposit have been disbursed or transferred and the manner in which extensions of credit have been granted to co-owners of the Certificates may be used as evidence or may lead to evidence which would establish whether any person has violated or is about to violate Title I of ERISA.
The Secretary of Labor has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keith v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Office of Inspector Gen.
... ... RFPA. Pennington v. Donovan, 574 F.Supp. 708, 710 ... (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 1983). An ... ...
-
Keith v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Office of the Inspector Gen.
...benefits.” I find that the same describes, with reasonable specificity, what is being investigated by the SSA-OIG. See, e.g., Pennington, 574 F.Supp. at 710 (concluding that a letter stating that the investigation was to determine whether any person had violated or was about to violate any ......
-
Abrams v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 3:05 CV 2242 L.
...such as political harassment or intimidation or otherwise in bad faith," the investigation is legitimate. See Pennington v. Donovan, 574 F.Supp. 708, 709 (S.D.Tex.1983). Second, insofar as Plaintiff asserts that the OCC seeks the subpoenaed records solely to ascertain whether he breached a ......
-
Ward v. U.S. Dept. of Labor
...ERISA investigation of the plan because he was party in interest and fiduciary with respect to the plan); R.R. Pennington v. Donovan, 574 F. Supp. 708, 709-10 (S.D. Tex. 1983) (holding that records concerning certificates of deposit owned by plan and privateindividuals were relevant to law ......