# Can the Defense Force the Police/DA Investigators to Testify? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 4, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-defense-force-the-police-da-investigators-to-testify/646074 "2013-01-04T16:34:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-defense-force-the-police-da-investigators-to-testify/646074/21 "2013-01-18T16:23:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It depends on whose documents are being subpoenaed. Those of officials who report directly to the president are covered by executive privilege and are discoverable only on a showing of “demonstrated, specific need” (unless they include sensitive military or diplomatic information, in which case they are not discoverable at all). > > Discovery of government documents generally is covered by the Administrative Procedure Act (and its state equivalents in a suit against a state), and only “administrative record” documents are discoverable - unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the administrative record is incomplete. The “administrative record” is essentially the documents an agency relied on in reaching its own policy decision. > > In the AIG case, the Treasury documents relating to the decision to bail out AIG are discoverable, except the Secretary’s documents and legal opinions and things like that. > [@Hello\_Again](#): > > Yes they can, and not only that, under the Freedom of Information Act, and many similar state laws, they have a particular right to see government documents. Question I have is about the informal stuff that gets everyone else in trouble, e.g. emails and notes. There’s no doubt that the treasury will offer up valid reasons for treating AIG different than the others, but if Greenberg can dig up contemporaneous emails where participants said “we’re going to screw those bastards” or the like - almost a standard feature of these corporate trials - it would bolster his case. Are these discoverable? (I’m pretty sure FOIA would not apply.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-defense-force-the-police-da-investigators-to-testify/646074/22 "2013-01-18T17:46:08Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Question I have is about the informal stuff that gets everyone else in trouble, e.g. emails and notes. There’s no doubt that the treasury will offer up valid reasons for treating AIG different than the others, but if Greenberg can dig up contemporaneous emails where participants said “we’re going to screw those bastards” or the like - almost a standard feature of these corporate trials - it would bolster his case. > > Are these discoverable? (I’m pretty sure FOIA would not apply.) Depends on exactly whose e-mails they are, but unless they are actions by the Treasury or another agency actually promulgating a rule (or judgment) they fall outside the scope of both the FOIA and APA. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-defense-force-the-police-da-investigators-to-testify/646074/23 "2013-01-18T17:47:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Another big exception is freedom of information laws generally don’t cover proposal documents. For example, if I were an assistant to the Governor of New York and I wrote to him to suggest we solve NY’s financial problems by invading Pennsylvania and plundering all their gold, you couldn’t obtain a copy of my suggestion through a FOIL request because it was just a proposal and never an actual government policy. > > The idea is you don’t want to discourage people from “thinking outside of the box” by bringing up the issue of possible liability for suggestions that may be illegal, immoral, or insane (or all three, like my idea). That’s just crazy enough to work… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-defense-force-the-police-da-investigators-to-testify/646074.md?page=1)