National Labor Relations Board v. Salvador Valadez

Filing 13

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiff National Labor Relations Board's application for an order requiring compliance with the subpoena 1 is hereby GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to give testimony and answer questions related to the matters to be covered in the attachment to Subpoena ad Testificandum No. D-198261. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-9280 CAS (SHx)

Title

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SALVADOR
VALADEZ

Present: The Honorable

Date

December 6, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(IN CHAMBERS): NLRB’S APPLICATION FOR ORDER
REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM (Docket #1, filed October
30, 2012)

INTRODUCTION

On October 30, 2012, plaintiff National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) filed an
application in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 161(2) for an order requiring
compliance with a subpoena ad testificandum issued to respondent Salvador Valadez
(“Valadez”). No opposition has been filed. Plaintiff’s application is before the Court.
II.

BACKGROUND

The subpoena that is the subject of this application was issued in connection with
the NLRB’s investigation of an unfair labor practice charge. The charge was filed on
April 10, 2012 by Teamsters Local 630 (“the Union”) against Marquez Brothers
Enterprises, Inc. (“Marquez”) with Region 21 of the NLRB. The charge alleged, among
other things, that Marquez retaliated against employees for engaging in protected activity.
The NLRB’s investigation seeks to determine, among other things, whether it should file
a complaint against Marquez. Respondent Valadez is an employee at Marquez.
The subpoena was issued to respondent on September 6, 2012, and requests that he
provide testimony about five separate points related to the investigation that led to the
suspension and termination of Luis Ramos, a former Marquez employee. See NLRB Ex.
CV-12-9280 (CAS) (SHx)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-9280 CAS (SHx)

Date

December 6, 2012

Title

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SALVADOR
VALADEZ

2. The subpoena required Valdez to appear to give testimony on September 26, 2012. Id.
Respondent did not appear, prompting the NLRB to file this application. NLRB Ex. 4.
III.

ANALYSIS

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[t]he scope of [a court’s] inquiry in an
agency subpoena enforcement proceeding is narrow.” NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing,
Inc., 102 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1996). In such a proceeding, the Court considers
three questions: “(1) whether Congress has granted the authority to investigate; (2)
whether procedural requirements have been followed; and (3) whether the evidence is
relevant and material to the investigation.” Id. If these three questions are answered in
the affirmative, the subpoena must be enforced unless the opposing party shows that the
subpoena is overbroad or unduly burdensome. Id.
Congress has granted the NLRB authority to investigate. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
161(1), the NLRB has broad authority to “issue subpoenas requiring both the production
of evidence and testimony during the investigatory stages of an unfair labor practice
proceeding.” North Bay Plumbing, 102 F.3d at 1008.
Additionally, the NLRB has not violated procedural requirements in this case. The
NLRB is granted broad authority to pursue an investigation in 29 U.S.C. § 161(1), which
states that the NLRB may pursue information that “relates to any matter under
investigation.” Furthermore, § 11770.2 of the NLRB’s Casehandling Manual Part One
Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings (“CHM”) states that a Regional Director has “full
discretion to issue precomplaint investigative subpoenas ad testificandum . . . seeking
evidence from parties and third party witnesses whenever the evidence sought would
materially aid” the decision whether to issue a complaint. See CHM §§ 11770, 11770.2.
Finally, the subpoena is relevant to the NLRB’s investigation. Here, the NLRB is
investigating a charge filed by the union that Marquez “has suspended and/or terminated
Luis Ramos, Jose Castillo, Omar Martinez and Brian Guzman in retaliation for their
engaging in union and/or protected concerted activity.” NLRB Ex. 1 (see section labeled
“basis of charge”). The information sought by the subpoena is plainly relevant to
investigating this charge: it seeks information regarding the investigation that led to the
termination of Ramos. NLRB Ex. 2.
CV-12-9280 (CAS) (SHx)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-9280 CAS (SHx)

Title

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SALVADOR
VALADEZ

IV.

Date

December 6, 2012

CONCLUSION

The NLRB’s application for an order requiring compliance with the subpoena is
hereby GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to give testimony and answer questions
related to the matters to be covered in the attachment to Subpoena ad Testificandum No.
D-198261.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-12-9280 (CAS) (SHx)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3