Texas Lawyers Insurance Exchange v. Resolution Trust Corporation

822 F. Supp. 380 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a legal malpractice insurance company which has issued policies of legal malpractice insurance to the law firm of Eikenburg & Stiles. P asserts that it has twelve (12) claims files in connection with Eikenburg and that it maintains a total of twenty-seven (27) files which relate to the firm. P asserts that the files contain privileged communications from the insured and their counsel, as well as P's own attorney-client communications, attorney work product, and consultant expert reports. Eikenburg is a defendant in a lawsuit filed by D. A number of P's files relate directly to this pending lawsuit. D sent a subpoena duces tecum requesting the production of nine categories of documents by June 19, 1992. P sued to quash or modify this administrative subpoena duces tecum. P objects to the subpoena on multiple grounds. D asserts that the subpoena issued is not self-executing, and D must file an appropriate motion with a federal district court and with an opportunity to respond provided to P. D asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this pre-enforcement challenge to the administrative subpoena. P asserts that §1818(n) grants D the extraordinary power to fine or imprison those who do not produce subpoenaed documents. It alleges that the penalties and fines are self-executing because the statute does not require D to first initiate a court action to compel compliance with the subpoena. P asserts that this exposure to criminal penalties vests the district court with jurisdiction. P argues that 'federal courts have long held that exposure to criminal penalties based upon the mere refusal to comply with a regulatory scheme vests the district court with jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the regulations.' P argues that the main case supporting the D's position, Reisman v. Chapman, is distinct from the situation here. P contends that the taxpayer who refused to comply with the subpoena in Reisman was not immediately subject to criminal penalties. P argues, §1818(n) gives D power to enforce criminal penalties without need to first pursue a judicial action to enforce compliance; thus, P's immediate subjugation to prosecution provides this court with jurisdiction to entertain this motion.