N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R. Energy Corp.

18 Citing cases

  1. National Labor Relations v. Carolina Food Pro

    81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a court should enforce an NLRB subpoena "if the information sought is relevant" and "described with sufficient particularly"

    The district court should enforce the Board's subpoena if the information sought is relevant to an investigation being conducted by the Board and is described with sufficient particularity. See NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); accord EEOC v. City of Norfolk Police Dep't, 45 F.3d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that district court's review of administrative subpoena is limited to determining whether the agency is authorized to conduct the investigation, whether the agency "has complied with statutory requirements of due process," and whether the information sought is relevant). We, in turn, review the district court's decision to enforce the subpoena for abuse of discretion; we may reverse the district court's enforcement order "only in the most extraordinary of circumstances." G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d at 113 (footnote omitted).

  2. N.L.R.B. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., (N.D.Ind. 1985)

    611 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. Ind. 1985)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining NLRB v. Dutch Boy, Inc., Glow Light Div., 606 F.2d 929, 993-94 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1979)

    A district court's review of an NLRB subpoena is "extremely limited," "extremely narrow," and of "a summary nature." NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); NLRB v. Frederick Cowan and Co., Inc., 522 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1975). See also EEOC v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp., 668 F.2d 304, 310 (7th Cir. 1981); EEOC v. Suburban Transit System, Inc., 538 F. Supp. 530, 532 (N.D.Ill. 1982).

  3. Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    651 F. App'x 294 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    We review a district court's order enforcing an NLRB subpoena for abuse of discretion. NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982). III.

  4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maryland Cup Corp.

    785 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1986)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding EEOC's request was not unduly burdensome where company was required to inspect photos and interview employees in order to ascertain the race of former employees, even though compliance would cost $75,000

    Administrative subpoenas are subject only to limited review. See, e.g., NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (interpreting a statute granting subpoena power identical to that of the EEOC). Upon petitioning for enforcement of an administrative subpoena, the issuing agency must make a threshold showing that the subpoena is within the agency's authority, that the agency has satisfied statutory requirements of due process, and that the information' sought is relevant and material to the investigation.

  5. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MHAC

    MISC. ACTION No. 07-222-KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 16, 2008)

    In any event, Judge Waxse correctly concluded that the subject matter of the investigation is whether J Cubed and MHCP are successors of MHAC. The subpoenas seek documents and information concerning the business structure, assets and customers of J Cubed and MHCP — information vital for the NLRB to determine whether J Cubed and MHCP are legal successors to MHAC. See NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1982) (to determine whether companies constitute single employer, one must look at interrelation of operations, which involves "fairly wide-ranging investigation into affairs" of companies). The Court finds that the subpoenas do not request evidence which is unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation.

  6. CITIZENS' AIDE/OMBUDSMAN v. GROSSHEIM

    498 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1993)   Cited 12 times
    Upholding authority of "citizens' aide" to issue subpoenas to investigate complaints relating to penal/correctional agencies

    Because agency subpoena power is essentially a discovery tool, our review is limited to abuses of trial court discretion. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 497 (Iowa 1981); see also NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (district court's enforcement order to be affirmed unless discretion abused). That does not mean, however, that the court's discretion is unlimited. Enforcement is the rule, not the exception, so long as the four-factor test we adopted in Roadway is met.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Interbake Foods

    637 F.3d 492 (4th Cir. 2011)   Cited 92 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party claiming privilege bears the burden of showing that the communication was "for the purpose of securing primarily either an opinion on law or legal services or assistance in some legal proceeding"

    Under this standard of review, we will reverse the district court's ruling "only in the most extraordinary of circumstances." Id. (quoting NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982)). A party asserting privilege has the burden of demonstrating its applicability.

  8. E.E.O.C. v. United Parcel Ser

    587 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court applied "too restrictive a standard of relevance" when it denied enforcement of a subpoena seeking information regarding an employer's nationwide application of allegedly discriminatory policy

    I concur in the Court's opinion and write separately to consider the standard of review applicable to appellate consideration of a district court's determination of the relevance of information sought by an administrative subpoena. Preliminarily I note that with respect to review of the ultimate decision of a district court whether to enforce an administrative subpoena, it is generally said that the standard for appellate review is abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ratliff v. Davis Polk Wardwell 354 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir. 2003); FTC v. GlaxoSmithKline, 294 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2002); FDIC v. Wentz, 55 F.3d 905, 908 (3d Cir. 1995); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, 81 F.3d 507, 510 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982)). A Sixth Circuit opinion has said that the appellate task is "to weigh the likely relevance of the requested material to the investigation against the burden to Ford of producing the material."

  9. U.S. v. Chevron U.S.A

    186 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 12 times
    Finding no undue burden where the employer "offer[ed] no explanation . . . why, relative to [its] size, the compliance cost and effort 'unduly disrupt[ed] or seriously hinder[ed] normal operations' " (quoting FTC v. Jim Walter Corp., 651 F.2d 251, 258 (5th Cir. 1981))

    B. A subpoena enforcement order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982). "[I]t is settled that the requirements for judicial enforcement of an administrative subpoena are minimal."

  10. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Quad/Graphics, Inc.

    63 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding company failed to meet its burden of establishing compliance with the EEOC subpoena would threaten its normal business operations even when it presented an affidavit averring it would cost over 200,000 employee-hours to comply with the EEOC subpoena

    This approach comports with the standard employed by the majority of the circuits. See, e.g., FDIC v. Wentz, 55 F.3d 905, 908 (3d Cir. 1995); In re McVane, 44 F.3d 1127, 1135 (2d Cir. 1995); Reich v. National Eng'g Contracting Co., 13 F.3d 93, 98 (4th Cir. 1993); Linde Thomson Langworthy Kohn Van Dyke, P.C. v. RTC, 5 F.3d 1508, 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing FTC v. Lonning, 539 F.2d 202, 210 n. 14 (D.C. Cir. 1976)); United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 463, 466 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 347 (1993); NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); EEOC v. Packard Elec. Div., 569 F.2d 315, 317-18 (5th Cir. 1978). But see Reich v. Montana Sulphur Chem. Co., 32 F.3d 440, 443 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We review de novo the district court's decision regarding enforcement of an agency subpoena.") (citing EPA v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 836 F.2d 443, 445-46 (9th Cir. 1988)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1355, (1995).