United States District Court, D. Maryland
ELLEN LIPTON HOLLANDER, District Judge.
On October 14, 2014, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"), a federal agency that administers and regulates the defined benefit pension plan insurance program established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), filed a petition in this Court. ECF 1. In the Petition, PBGC seeks an order to enforce the administrative subpoena that PBGC issued to Members First Federal Credit Union ("MFFCU") on July 25, 2013, seeking various documents. ECF 1. When MFFCU did not respond, PBGC resent the subpoena to MFFCU on May 7, 2014. Id.
MFFCU did not respond to the second subpoena. Nor has it responded to the Petition. No hearing is necessary to resolve this matter. See Local Rule 105.6.
The Petition is supported by several exhibits. These exhibits establish that the second copy of the subpoena (ECF 1-2; ECF 1-3) was delivered to MFFCU on May 8, 2014. ECF 1-4. Moreover, MFFCU has failed to respond to the subpoena. See Declaration of Terrence Sampson, a paralegal in the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC, dated October 14, 2014. ECF 9-1 at ¶ 7. The exhibits also show that the requested documents relate to PBGC's ongoing efforts to recover funds that it believes were erroneously paid and withdrawn from an account at MFFCU. See Declaration of David W. Smith, the Deputy Manager of the Retiree Services Division of PBGC, dated October 14, 2014. ECF 9 at ¶¶ 3-10.
Under 29 U.S.C. § 1303(c), PBGC may invoke the aid of a federal court to enforce an investigative subpoena "[i]n the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey" a subpoena issued by the agency. The court may order such contumacious respondents to appear before PBGC and/or produce the records or testimony requested. Id. "Any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt thereof." Id.
An agency seeking court enforcement of its administrative subpoena need only show: (1) the agency is authorized to make such investigation; (2) it has complied with the statutory requirements of due process; and (3) the materials requested are relevant. EEOC v. Lockhead Martin Corp., Aero & Naval Systems, 116 F.3d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 1997). Having reviewed the brief (ECF 10) in support of the Petition, as ...