CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 23, 2015

02-CA-138301 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION
and Cases 02-CA-138301

ANDREAS GARCIA
and 02-CA-138302

PAUL MURRAY
and 02-CA-138303

BERNARD PAEZ
and 02-CA-138502
NICASIUS FELIX
and 02-CA-139708
DONOVAN REID
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition and amended petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum
B-1-KIAXJB are denied. The subpoenas seek information relevant to the matters 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.2 Further, the Petitioner has failed to establish any other legal basis for

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 The Region has indicated in its opposition brief with respect to paragraph 6 that in
light of the Employer’s offer to provide a copy of its April 2014 Employee Handbook, it
has voluntarily reduced the scope of this request so that provision of the Employee
Handbook constitutes sufficient compliance. The Region similarly states with respect to
paragraph 8 that in light of the Employer’s offer to provide the requested contact
information for all non-supervisory and non-managerial employees employed in the
2
revoking the subpoena. See generally, NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d
1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir.
1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 23, 2015.
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

Outside Plant Department at the Bronx Depot as of May 5, 2014, it has voluntarily
reduced the scope of this request so that provision of the offered contact information is
sufficient compliance. In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated the
subpoena as modified by the Region in its opposition brief.
The Region has demonstrated the relevance of the remaining documents sought.
See, e.g., Reg. Opp. Br. at 8-9 (table showing relevance of each component of Request
No. 5).
To the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the
Employer believes in good faith to be subject to the attorney-client privilege, this Order
is without prejudice to the Employer's prompt submission of a privilege log to the Region
identifying and describing each such document, providing sufficient detail to permit an
assessment of the Employer's claim of privilege. The Employer is directed to produce
all responsive documents not subject to any good-faith claim of privilege.