any objection of the bank to the subpoena. Therefore, the bank will maximize the likelihood of preserving its objections to the other requests to be further negotiated or quashed as appropriate. In all instances, the bank should strongly consider seeking a protective order from the court to ensure that any production of documents remains confidential and for use only in the immediate lawsuit.20 5. Practical Suggestions for Compliance A bank should include language in customer account agreements confirming that, while it will not generally disclose account information, if the disclosure is required under the law, the bank will produce it. The Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act21 generally prohibits the disclosure of any nonpublic personal information by a bank; complying with a valid subpoena is an exception to this rule.22 If the bank concludes that the subpoena is valid after reviewing the requests, determining its obligation to respond and identifying the universe of responsive, non-privileged documents, the bank should respond to the subpoena. The bank must produce the documents as kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to each request.23 If a responsive document includes privileged or objectionable information, the bank should withhold or redact the privileged information. When producing the documents, the bank should send them via encrypted email or a secure file transfer service. After production, the bank should keep a record of its subpoena response and production. In any instance, immediately notifying legal counsel of the subpoena is imperative to ensure that the bank properly responds to the subpoena, whether by producing the documents sought or objecting as needed. Continued from page 18 1. Rhonda Henry-Webb, Kyle Owens, Subpoena Responses for Financial Institutions, REUTERS (March 2023), https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/litigation/ subpoena-responses-financial-institutions-2023-03-01/. 2. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A). 3. 12 U.S.C.A § 3407. 4. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(4); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(b). 5. NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(d)(2)(e). 6. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A). 7. BNSF Railway Company on behalf of United States v. Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Inc., 2022 WL 1442854, at *4 (D. Mont., 2022). 8. Arthur Miller, § 2459 Subpoena for the Production of Documents and Things—Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena, 9A FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2459 (3d ed.) (June 2024); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(a)(2). 9. 12 C.F.R. § 353.3. 10. Suspicious Activity Reports, 61 FR 6095-02, 1996 WL 64862 (February 16, 1996). 11. NEB. REV. STAT. § 8-108; See NEB. REV. STAT. § 8-112; § 8-101.03(11). 12. Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, 690 F.Supp.3d 941, 958 (D. Minn., 2023). 13. Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools, 690 F.Supp.3d 941, 955 (D. Minn., 2023). 14. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2). 15. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2). 16. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(1); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(d)(8). 17. James Buchwalter, Litigation of Standing to Challenge Subpoena to Nonparty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, 187 AM. JUR. TRIALS 1 (Originally published in 2024); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A). 18. Lupe Development Partners, LLC v. Deutsch, 2023 WL 11960418, at *6 (D. Minn., 2023) (finding subpoena sought irrelevant information regarding financial information spanning 2006 – 2023). 19. Arthur Miller, § 2459 Subpoena for the Production of Documents and Things—Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena, 9A FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2459 (3d ed.) (June 2024); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(a)(2). 20. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(d)(7). 21. 15 USCA § 6802 (2011). 22. James Buchwalter, Litigation of Standing to Challenge Subpoena to Nonparty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, 187 AM. JUR. TRIALS 1 (originally published in 2024). 23. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2); NEB. REV. STAT. § 6-334(A)(f)(1)(a). 20 NEBRASKA BANKER
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==