The Subpoena and the Missing File Note
Harbor Investigations is served with a subpoena in a civil lawsuit seeking its complete file on a subject, including raw surveillance video, client communications, and a memo analyzing the subject's finances. The client, a bank, objects, citing confidentiality. The file contains a note from investigator Ray saying he 'pulled credit header data' on the subject and a second note saying a source was paid $400 cash for 'records from a friend at the county.' Ray's supervisor, Dana, must decide what to produce, what to withhold, and whether the file raises independent compliance problems.
1. Analyze the production decision: what should Harbor produce, what may it withhold, and on what basis?
Read the worked answer
The starting point is that a subpoena compels production of materials within its scope unless a legal basis for objection applies. Harbor should inventory the file against the subpoena's categories: raw video, client communications, and the analysis memo. Confidentiality owed to the bank is a contractual and ethical obligation, but it does not by itself defeat a valid subpoena. The proper response is to assert specific objections-such as privilege, work product, or overbreadth-rather than a blanket refusal.
The agency should notify the client of the subpoena so the bank can seek a protective order, and should produce what is clearly responsive and non-privileged while withholding only what a specific objection covers. The analysis memo may contain opinion work product depending on how it was prepared and for whom. The agency should create a privilege log identifying withheld items and the basis. Dana should also confirm the subpoena's date, court, and scope, and calendar the deadline. Producing nothing risks contempt; producing everything without objection risks breaching client confidentiality.
2. The two file notes describe credit header data and paid records from a county contact. What independent compliance concerns do they raise?
Read the worked answer
Both notes raise concerns independent of the subpoena. Credit header data: obtaining consumer information requires a permissible purpose under applicable consumer-reporting law, and the investigator must be able to document the permissible purpose and the source. The note is vague about authorization, so Dana should determine whether the bank's engagement supplied a permissible purpose and whether the data was obtained through a lawful channel.
The paid county contact raises a different problem: paying a government employee or insider for records can implicate bribery, records-integrity, and professional-conduct rules, especially if the records were not publicly available or were obtained outside proper channels. Dana should identify the source, the records, and the payment terms. If the payment was for lawful public-record retrieval, document that; if it purchased non-public information from an insider, the agency faces serious exposure.
Dana should preserve the notes, avoid altering the file, consult counsel, and consider whether disclosure obligations arise. The subpoena response should not be used to sanitize the file; spoliation or alteration would compound the problem.