## Facts

- Texas Lawyers Insurance Exchange (TLIE) was a legal-malpractice insurance company.
- TLIE issued professional liability policies to the law firm Eikenburg & Stiles.
- The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was involved in litigation against Eikenburg & Stiles.
- In connection with proceedings under 12 U.S.C. § 1818, RTC issued TLIE a subpoena duces tecum seeking documents relating to Eikenburg & Stiles.
- The subpoena cited 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n), which authorizes an agency or a party to § 1818 proceedings to seek district-court enforcement of a subpoena.
- TLIE asserted the subpoenaed materials were privileged and filed an action in federal district court seeking to quash or modify the subpoena and obtain related declaratory relief.
- TLIE argued the district court could hear its motion to quash because, if TLIE refused to comply, § 1818(n) would expose it to immediate prosecution or penalties.
- RTC moved to dismiss, arguing § 1818(n) subpoenas are not self-executing and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction until RTC first filed a statutory enforcement proceeding.
- A magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the subpoena was not self-executing.
- The district judge conducted de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, and ruled on RTC’s motion.

## Issues

1. Is an RTC subpoena issued under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n) self-executing, allowing the recipient to file a pre-enforcement federal suit to quash or modify the subpoena?
2. If RTC has not initiated a judicial enforcement proceeding under § 1818(n), does a federal district court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the subpoena recipient’s standalone challenge?

## Decision

- The court granted RTC’s motion to dismiss.
- The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court agreed with the magistrate judge that a subpoena issued under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n) is not self-executing and requires RTC to seek judicial enforcement before the court may compel compliance.
- Because RTC had not filed an enforcement action to compel production, TLIE’s pre-enforcement challenge presented no ripe case or controversy for the court to decide.
- The court rejected TLIE’s concern about immediate penalties by holding that TLIE (and similarly situated subpoena recipients) would not face sanctions, criminal penalties, or fines unless and until (1) RTC instituted a judicial enforcement proceeding, (2) the court issued an order compelling compliance, and (3) the recipient failed to comply with that court order.
- All other pending motions were denied as moot.

## Legal Principles

- Subpoenas issued in administrative proceedings under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n) are not self-executing; they require judicial enforcement through a court action brought by the issuing agency or a party authorized by the statute.
- A subpoena recipient generally may not create federal jurisdiction by filing a standalone, pre-enforcement suit to quash or modify a non-self-executing § 1818(n) subpoena when the agency has not sought enforcement.
- A pre-enforcement challenge to a non-self-executing administrative subpoena is typically unripe until the agency invokes the district court’s enforcement mechanism.
- Sanctions or penalties for noncompliance do not attach from the subpoena alone; they may follow only after a court enters an enforcement order and the recipient disobeys that order.

## Conclusion

Because RTC had not brought a § 1818(n) enforcement proceeding to compel compliance, the district court found no ripe controversy and no subject-matter jurisdiction over TLIE’s pre-enforcement attempt to quash or modify the subpoena, and it dismissed the action without prejudice while clarifying that penalties could arise only after disobedience of a later court enforcement order.


Texas Lawyers Insurance Exchange v. Resolution Trust Corp., 822 F. Supp. 380 (1993)