Baker v. Department of Defense

Filing 9

ORDER denying 1 MOTION for Order Pursuant to Customer Challenge Provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/14/2024. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

SCOTT C. BAKER,
Movant,
MC 123-020

V.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.

ORDER

Before the Court is Movant's motion to challenge Government's

access to financial records pursuant to the Customer Challenge

Provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (^'RFPA").
(Doc. 1).

For the following reasons, Movant's motion is DENIED.

Movant is a customer of JP Morgan Chase NA (^'JP Morgan"), and
his

JP

Morgan

Respondent.

records

(Id. at 3.)

are

being

requested

via

subpoena

by

On August 8, 2023, Respondent prepared

a subpoena to the custodian of records at JP Morgan, which sought
^'evidence pertaining to any and all JP Morgan [] account(s), held
solely or jointly by [Movant] . . . , who is suspected of violating

one

or more

punitive Articles of the

Uniform Code of Military

Justice, for the period September 1, 2021 through the date of this
subpoena."

(Id.)

On August 23, 2023, Movant filed his motion to

challenge Respondent's access to his JP Morgan Chase account.
at

1.)

Movant asserts "[t]he financial

records sought

(Id.

by the

Department

of

Defense

are

not

relevant

to

the

legitimate

law

enforcement inquiry stated in the Customer Notice . . . because
the time period of September 2021 to now is overly broad."

(Id.

at 2.)

On January 5, 2024, Respondent moved to file their response
for in camera review by the Court.

(Doc. 3.)

Because the Court

could not determine whether Respondent's request was overly broad
without

more

information

concerning

the

scope

of

its

investigation, the Court found a response would be beneficial to
determine the merit of Movant's motion.

(Doc. 4, at 3-4.)

Thus,

the Court granted Respondent's motion to file their response for
in

camera

review,

and

Respondent

submitted

their

response

on

February 2, 2024. (Docs. 4, 7.)

The

RFPA

regulates

records of individuals.

with

12

U.S.C. §

the

government's

access

to

See 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422.

3401,

a

government

authority

financial

In accordance

may

obtain

an

individual's banl< records by administrative subpoena if "there is
reason

to

legitimate

believe

law

that

the

enforcement

records

inquiry."

sought

12

are

relevant

U.S.C.

§§

to

a

3402(2),

3405(1); see also Thomas v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 876 F.

Supp. 2d 1, 6-8 (D.D.C. 2012).

Section 3410 provides, in relevant

part, that "a customer may file a motion to quash an administrative
summons . . . or an application to enjoin a Government authority

from obtaining

financial records

pursuant to a formal written

request." 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a).

12 U.S.C. § 1310

has been interpreted to

provide three

grounds on which an administrative subpoena can be quashed under
the RFPA: ""(1) the agency's inquiry [was] not a legitimate law
enforcement inquiry; (2) the records requested [were] not relevant

to the agency's inquiry; or (3) the agency [did] not substantially
compl[y] with the RFPA."

Love v. Dep^t of Def., No. 4:22-mc-l,

2023 WL 3474330, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2023) (alterations in
original) (quoting Stehn v.
2012

WL

3860562,

U.S. Dep^t of Def., No. 7:12-mc-l,

at *2 (M.D.

Ga. Sept.

5, 2012)), report and

recommendation adopted. No. 4:22-MC-l, 2023 WL 3457868 (M.D. Ga.

May 15, 2023).

But the Court shall deny the motion if it finds

^^that

a

there

is

demonstrable

reason

to

believe

that

the

law

enforcement inquiry is legitimate and a reasonable belief that the
records sought are relevant to that inquiry."

12 U.S.C. § 3410(c).

Having reviewed Movant and Respondent's filings, the Court
concludes the subpoenas are lawful and due to be enforced, and
Movant's

stated

reason

for

why the

records

requested

were

not

relevant — the time period requested was overbroad — is meritless.
Movant

makes

no

argument

that

Respondent's

inquiry

is

not

legitimate, and the Court concludes there is demonstrable reason

to believe Movant's JP Morgan records are relevant to Respondent's
inquiry.

(See Doc. 1.)

IT
DENIED.

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

Movant's

motion

{Doc.

1)

is

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this /4^day of May, 2024.
ZP/J/Z
HONORAB

E J. RAiTDiAL HALL

UNITED/states DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTJiEKN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA