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.