FALCON TRUCKING, LLC and RAGLE, INC., A Single Employer and/or Joint Employers

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 19, 2015

25-CA-132518 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FALCON TRUCKING, LLC and
RAGLE, INC.
and Cases 25-CA-132518
25-CA-135316
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS and 25-CA-135335
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 215
ORDER1
The Petitioners’ joint petition to revoke subpoenas duces tecum B-1-J6VQTF and
B-1-J6RTFZ is denied. The subpoenas seek information relevant to the matter under
investigation and describe with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, as required
by Section 11(1) of the Act and Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Further, the Petitioners have failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the
subpoenas.2 See generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 In denying the petition to revoke, we consider the subpoenas as modified by the
Region’s statement in its opposition to the petition to revoke that (1) it is no longer
seeking enforcement of subpoena paragraphs 11, 14, 16, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 53,
55, 56, 57 and 59, (2) subpoena paragraph 17 only requires the production of
responsive documents kept in the Petitioners’ normal course of business or that are in
the Petitioners’ possession, and (3) that the Petitioners may redact bank account
numbers, credit card numbers, and/or tax identification numbers from the subpoenaed
documents.
In addition, to the extent the subpoenas encompass some documents that the
Petitioners believe in good faith to be protected from disclosure, the Petitioners may
submit a privilege log providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment by the Region
of the Petitioners’ claims.
Finally, to the extent the Petitioners have provided some of the material
requested in the subpoenas, they are not required to produce that information again,
provided that the Petitioners accurately describe which documents under subpoena
they have already provided, state whether those previously-supplied documents
constitute all of the requested documents, and provide all of the information that was
subpoenaed.
2
1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 19, 2015.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER