Thanks to Marvin Umholtz, I recently discovered the fact that the CFPB suffers from the same psychological ailment that struck the OCC a few years ago: “transparencyphobia.”
A federal judge forced the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to obey the same rules of discovery in civil litigation that apply to everybody else even if government officials are annoyed by them.
Judge John E. McDermott rejected a motion by CFPB. As a result, the bureau’s officials were required to submit to depositions — cross-examinations of witnesses conducted under oath but outside the courtroom — in a case filed by the bureau.
The Adjustment Bureau had sued, in federal district court, a document storage firm that holds attorney-client privileged information for bankruptcy lawyers. The defendant wanted to conduct normal discovery procedures, including depositions of CFPB officials. The CFPB balked, as did the OCC in a case discussed on this blog several years ago (a discussion that brought this blogger anonymous threats of regulatory retaliation). In this case, the judge was no more sympathetic to the government’s fear of the spotlight than was the judge who ruled against the OCC.
But CFPB balked, telling the court that the bureau has an inherent right to “nondisclosure” and that “even the disclosure of purely factual material may be protected by deliberative process privilege.”
The CFPB added that “requiring the bureau to designate any individual to appear at deposition would only serve to annoy, oppress, and cause undue burden on the bureau.”
McDermott’s Sept. 15, 2014, order forced CFPB to provide a witness for an October deposition. Samuel Gilford, a CFPB spokesman, told the Washington Examiner that the Morgan Drexen case was the only time a bureau official has submitted to a deposition.
As the reporter notes, that’s likely because the CFPB usually pursues defendants through administrative enforcement actions and extracts settlements from them prior to things getting nasty. In only a relatively few cases has the CFPB filed civil litigation. Apparently, the crack trial attorneys at the bureau weren’t aware that the federal rules of discovery apply to the oppressor as well as the oppressed. A level playing field is apparently a novel concept to them.
This is somewhat surprising because it’s not a novel concept.
“I do not think that there is legal support for the conclusion that there is a blanket prohibition on taking depositions of federal agency employees,” said Jonice Gray Tucker, a partner with BuckleySandler LLP, a Chicago-based law firm that provides legal counsel to financial service companies.
James Copland, director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute in New York, said all plaintiffs, including federal agencies, should be treated identically. “I don’t think that civil enforcement action should be treated any differently due to a federal agency,” he said.
Moreover, it’s not as if legal commentators hadn’t been telling the CFPB that it had to comply with federal rules of discovery.
A March 14, 2013, securities enforcement and litigation update published by the WilmerHale law firm in Boston also said that once an agency goes into court, it must abide by federal discovery rules, including submitting to depositions.
The ability of both sides to depose each other, WilmerHale argued, levels the playing field. “Several recent court decisions strongly suggest that the playing field levels once the agency ends up in litigation,” the law firm wrote.
WilmerHale cited five cases since 2012 that affirmed federal agency officials aren’t exempted from depositions.
Among the five was a 2012 case involving another federal agency, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, titled SEC v. Merkin. Of that case, the WilmerHale update said “the court determined that ‘like any party litigating in federal court, Merkin has the right to take a … deposition from the SEC.’”
So, what gives? Why did the CFPB try to pull something that seems over-the-top, even for an agency that pushes the envelope of unaccountability? According to Ms. Tucker, it may be a case of “inexperience.”
Tucker suggested that CFPB’s aggressiveness may be a result of having “more junior staff attorneys [who] may be less experienced. In addition, some staffers are relative newcomers to consumer financial services issues.”
In addition, she said, “this can present challenges because, in making day-to-day decisions, some of the enforcement staff may not yet fully understand the businesses they are regulating or how much effort goes into responding to their requests.”
That can “result in situations where the staff take positions that are not completely reasonable, or take actions that are perceived as more aggressive than they may have intended,” she said.
Oh, I think the positions taken were just as aggressive as they were intended. When you truly believe that you’re doing God’s work, it’s always a shock when the heathens don’t see things your way. In addition, many of the regulators apparently believe that if the public understands that the way in which they “reason” their way to a decision to screw with a member of the regulated is just as dysfunctional as they sausage-making manner in which Congress makes legislation, they might decide to take up arms and burn the house down. Or worse, adversely affect their government pensions.
Then again, Ms. Tucker’s speculation regarding inexperience is consistent with the fact that the Adjustment Bureau’s lawyers have also found it very valuable to take basic bank regulatory courses in order to learn what experienced bank lawyers learned decades ago. Perhaps basic courses in civil procedure should be added to the curriculum, along with a few lectures on the principles of due process. It couldn’t hurt.