NPC International, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Hut

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 2013

15-CA-101501 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and Case 15-CA-101501
GORDON E. JACKSON
ORDER1
The Petition to Revoke Subpoenas Duces Tecum B-709016 and B-709017 is
denied. With respect to Subpoena B-709016, which is directed to the Petitioner’s
custodian of records, the petition is denied because 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. Further, the Petitioner has failed to establish any other
legal basis for 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).2
With respect to Subpoena B-709017, which is addressed to Tamala Gilbert-
Harris, Claims Representative, Gallagher Bassett Services, the petition is denied
because the Petitioner, NPC International, Inc., does not have standing to file a petition
to revoke a subpoena addressed to a third party unless it asserts that the requested

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 The Petitioner contends that the subpoena seeks documents that are not in its
possession. To the extent that the subpoena references such documents, the Petitioner
is not obligated to produce them.
information is protected by a privilege or a right of privacy.3 In this proceeding, the
Petitioner has not argued that the information sought from Gilbert-Harris or Gallagher
Bassett Services is protected by any privilege or right. In addition, even assuming that
the Petitioner has such standing, we find that it has not established any valid basis for
revoking the subpoena.
Dated, Washington D.C., October 25, 2013.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER

3 “Ordinarily a party has no standing to seek to quash a subpoena issued to someone
who is not a party to the action unless the party claims some personal right or privilege
with regard to the documents sought.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe, No.
05GJ1318, 584 F.3d 175, 184 fn. 14 (4th Cir. 2009), citing 9A Wright & Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2459 (1995).