While OSHA may obtain a court- ordered warrant in such a circumstance, there is nothing in the OSH Act that grants OSHA the authority to issue citations or penalties to an employer if an employer refuses to grant OSHA access to its worksite for the purpose of an inspection. See generally 29 U.S.C. § 666. Indeed, while PJS has had four worksites inspected where the compliance officer was accompanied by non-employee representatives, it does not allege that it was threatened with civil penalties or business injuries if it refused to grant access to OSHA and the non-employee representative.

Second, under the OSH Act, “standards” are “ex ante, prophylactic measures 4 Notably, once the state plan is approved and certified, state penalty provisions preempt the OSH Actpenalty provisions. (29 U.S.C.A. § 667(e) [upon certification of the state plan, the OSH Act penalty provisions of 29 U'S.C.A. § 666 shall not apply.].) 5 Like criminal prosecution, the UCL action here was brought by a “representative of the state.” (Solus, supra, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d at 134.)

Failure to comply with FDA, USDA, and OSHA stand rds exposes Butterball to civil and criminal liability and injunctive relief. 21 U.S.C. § 461 (FDA civil penalties for adulterated products); 29 U.S.C. § 662 (OSHA injunctive relief); 29 U.SC. § 666 (OSHA civil and criminal penalties). Failure to comply with sanitary standards may force government regulators to slow down or stop production.

.............................................. 3 United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994) ................................................................................................................ 13 United States v. Millis, 621 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 13 United States v. Miranda-Lopez, 532 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 12 United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) .............................................................................................................. 12 United States v. Yuri Sidorenko, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52452 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) ...................................................... 3 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 1519 ........................................................................................................................... 3 29 U.S.C. § 666(e) ...................................................................................................................... 11 29 U.S.C. § 667(b)-(c) ................................................................................................................ 11 29 U.S.C. § 667(e) ...................................................................................................................... 11 Case3:14-cr-00175-TEH Document123 Filed09/07/15 Page4 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO iii DEF.’S MOT.

’ In particular, the State should be able to consider the significant impact on California jobs of allowing such pile-on actions; comparable claims are not permitted elsewhere. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 666 (setting maximum federal civil penalties at $7,000, and up to $70,000 for a willful violation, which apply in the 28 states without an OSHA-approvedState Plan). Manufacturing is vital to California’s economy, particularly in the inland portions of the state. Statewide, manufacturers account for more than 10% of the total economic output and employ approximately 8% of the workforce.