Rios, Jr. v. Office of Treasury Inspector General

Filing 2

ORDER to movant directing, no later than October 3, 2014, the filing of a copy of the original notice and the Subpoena Duces Tecum he received from the Office of the Treasury and any other related paperwork accompanying the subpoena. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/5/2014. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

14-mc-00058 GSA

LEO RIOS, JR.,
Movant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE TREASURY
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX
ADMINISTRATION,

ORDER TO MOVANT REQUIRING THE
FILING OF THE SUBPOENA AND
RELATED DOCUMENTS

Respondent.

18
19

The movant, Leo Rios, Jr. (“movant”), filed a Motion for an Order Pursuant to the

20

Customer Challenge Provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 against the Office

21

of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“Office of the Treasury”) on August

22

28, 2014. As a general matter, the RFPA permits challenges by customers of financial

23
institutions to government subpoenas. See, 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a). These challenge procedures
24
25
26
27

constitute the sole judicial remedy available to customers who oppose the disclosure of their
financial records pursuant to the RFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq., 12 U.S.C. § 3410(e).
Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a), a customer of a financial institution “may file a motion

28
1

1

to quash an administrative summons or judicial subp[o]ena, or an application to enjoin a

2

Government authority from obtaining financial records pursuant to a formal written request”

3

within “ten days of service or within fourteen days of mailing” of said summons or subpoena,

4

with “copies served upon the Government authority.”1 A motion to quash a judicial subp[o]ena

5
6

shall be filed in the court which issued the subp[o]ena. Such a written request shall be filed in

7

the appropriate United States district court and shall contain an affidavit or sworn statement

8

providing the following:

9

(1) stating that the applicant is a customer of the financial institution from which financial
records pertaining to him have been sought; and

10

(2) stating the applicant's reasons for believing that the financial records sought 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
this chapter.

11
12
13

Service shall be made under this section upon a Government authority by delivering or

14
15

mailing by registered or certified mail a copy of the papers to the person, office, or department

16

specified in the notice which the customer has received pursuant to this chapter.

17
18
19

Plaintiff is advised that the Supreme Court has held that “[a] customer's ability to
challenge a subpoena is cabined by strict procedural requirements.” S.E.C. v. Jerry T. O'Brien,
Inc., 467 U.S. 735, 745 (1984). Thus, failure to follow these procedural requirements may be

20
21

grounds for a denial of the motion.
Here, the Movant has filed a motion to challenge the government’s access to the financial

22
23

records under this Act. However, the movant has not filed a copy of the Subpoena Duces Tecum

24

requesting financial documents from Wells Fargo Bank, or the related documentation the Office

25

of the Treasury sent to him. Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot assess whether the

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 3401(5), “ ‘customer’ means any person or authorized representative of that person who
utilized or is utilizing any service of a financial institution, or for whom a financial institution is acting or has acted as
a fiduciary, in relation to an account maintained in the person's name[.]” 12 U.S.C. § 3401(5).

2

1
2
3

procedural requirements of the Act have been met without this information.
Accordingly, no later than October 3, 2014, the movant shall file a copy of the original
notice and the Subpoena Duces Tecum he received from the Office of the Treasury and any other

4
related paperwork accompanying the subpoena.
5
6
7

Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of
this action.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 5, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3