JBS USA, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 2016

07-CA-159023 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JBS USA, LLC
and Cases 07-CA-159023
07-CA-165946
SHIQUITA MOORE
and 07-CA-160978
EARL MOORE
and 07-CA-162382
SHARRELL MOORE
and 07-CA-163155
EARLINIA MOORE
ORDER1
The Employer’s Petition to Revoke Subpoena Duces Tecum No. B-1-PPGNN9 is
denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matter under investigation and
describes 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

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated the subpoena in light of the
Region’s statements that, based on additional information provided by the Employer,
the only outstanding subpoena requests are paragraphs 3 and 6. As to paragraph 6, it
appears from the Region’s opposition to the petition to revoke that the Region seeks
information only for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 24, 2015.
Accordingly, for purposes of this order, we treat the subpoena as having been amended
to that effect. To the extent that the Petitioner has provided some of the requested
material, it is not required to produce that information again, provided that the Petitioner
accurately describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided, states
whether those previously-provided documents constitute all of the requested
documents, and provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.
2
Petitioner has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.3 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 29, 2016
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

Further, to the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the
Petitioner believes in good faith to be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the
attorney work product doctrine, this Order is without prejudice to the Petitioner’s prompt
submission of a privilege log to the Region identifying and describing each such
document, and providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment of the Petitioner’s
claim of privilege or protection. The Petitioner is directed to produce all responsive
documents in its possession not subject to any good-faith claim of privilege or
protection.
3 The Employer’s argument that subpoena paragraph 3 should be revoked because the
underlying unfair labor practice charge is barred by Sec. 10(b) is without merit. Issues
regarding Sec. 10(b) are generally not considered in an investigative subpoena context.
See, e.g., NLRB v. The Bakersfield Californian, 128 F.3d 1339, 1341 (9th Cir. 1997)
(“Like other defenses to an unfair labor practice complaint, a section 10(b) statute of
limitations defense is not properly evaluated in a subpoena enforcement proceeding”).