USA v. SEALED

Filing 12

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Quash. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 11/22/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

USA,

Case No. 3:24-cv-270
Plaintiff,

7
8

v.

9

SEALED,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PARTIALLY QUASH (ECF NO. 7)

Defendant.

10
11
12

This case involves a U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division

13

(“WHD”) investigation of RayCo Drywall for violations of the Fair Labor Standards

14

Act (FLSA). In June 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Baldwin signed a warrant for

15

the inspection of the establishment, which WHD executed a few days later. (ECF

16

Nos. 4; 7.) RayCo filed a motion requesting that the Court partially quash the

17

warrant or, in the alternative, suppress and return WHD’s review of RayCo’s

18

privileged documents. (ECF No. 7.) WHD opposed the motion. (ECF No. 9.) For

19

the following reasons, the Court denies RayCo’s motion to quash.

20

I.

Facts

21

In September 2023, WHD began investigating RayCo for FLSA violations.

22

(ECF No. 9 at 3.) Between September 2023 and February 2024, WHD requested

23

records from RayCo related to the investigation. (Id.) RayCo withheld some of

24

these records and provided redacted or incomplete versions of others. (Id.) In part

25

because of RayCo’s failure to produce documents, WHD applied for a warrant in

26

June 2024, which this Court granted. (Id. at 4; ECF Nos. 3, 4.)

27

The warrant provided that WHD could enter RayCo’s premises to inspect

28

and investigate the workplace for violations of the overtime and recordkeeping

1

1

sections of the FLSA. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The warrant provided that methods of

2

inspection would include “transcribing, copying, transferring, recording, and

3

downloading (including removing for all such purposes) all relevant records and

4

data in whatever form maintained” and listed the types of records that would be

5

included as relevant. (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, the warrant provided that the inspection

6

would be completed within five working days. (Id. at 4.)

7
8

II.

Discussion
A. The Warrant is Sufficiently Particular.

9

RayCo argues that the warrant should be quashed as overbroad and

10

lacking particularity because it is not sufficiently limited to any date range. (ECF

11

No. 7 at 6.) In its motion, RayCo relies on a single case from the Eastern District

12

of Michigan to support its argument. In re Search of Recs., Info., & Data

13

Associated with 14 Email Addresses Controlled by Google, LLC, 438 F. Supp. 3d

14

771 (E.D. Mich. 2020). But as WHD points out, this case involved a criminal

15

warrant and therefore is not instructive to the Court’s analysis of the

16

administrative warrant in this case. (ECF No. 9 at 8-9.)

17

In its reply, RayCo points to more cases that involved criminal search

18

warrants and fails to explain why these should be persuasive in a case involving

19

an administrative warrant. (ECF No. 10 at 5-8 (discussing United States v. SDI

20

Future Health, Inc., 568 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Smith, 424 F.3d

21

992 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 1995)). In United

22

States v. SDI Future Health, the Ninth Circuit specifically noted that a doctrine

23

applicable to administrative searches did not apply to the criminal search at issue

24

in that case. 568 F.3d at 695.

25

The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to “particularly describe the

26

place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend

27

IV. Administrative search warrants generally fall within the purview of the Fourth

28

Amendment. Camara v. Mun. Ct. of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523,

2

1

534 (1967). However, administrative warrants do not require the same showing

2

of probable cause as criminal search warrants. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton,

3

608 F.2d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1979); Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307,

4

320 (1978). “For purposes of an administrative search [], probable cause

5

justifying the issuance of a warrant may be based not only on specific evidence

6

of an existing violation but also on a showing that ‘reasonable or administrative

7

standards for conducting an . . . inspection are satisfied with respect to a

8

particular [establishment]’”. Marshall, 436 U.S. at 320 (quoting Camara v.

9

Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 538 (1967)).

10

The warrant here is sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth

11

Amendment. The warrant was made pursuant to Section 111(a) of the Fair Labor

12

Standards Act, which gives the Department of Labor broad authority to

13

“investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions

14

and practices of employment in any industry subject to this chapter” and

15

authority to “enter and inspect such places and such records (and make such

16

transcriptions thereof), question such employees, and investigate such facts,

17

conditions, practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to

18

determine whether any person has violated any provision of this chapter, or

19

which may aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.” 29 U.S.C.

20

§ 211(a). The warrant in this case specified the premises to be searched, the types

21

of records to be searched, and the methods of inspection. (ECF No. 4 at 2.)

22

RayCo’s assertions of overbreadth and particularity are insufficient to render the

23

administrative warrant invalid.

24

B. Privilege claims

25

RayCo also claims that the warrant contains insufficient protections to

26

prevent the review of privileged documents, and requests that the Court order

27

WHD to permit RayCo to review the documents and prepare a privilege log of the

28

document seized. (ECF No. 7 at 7-8.) RayCo fails to provide any authority or

3

1

caselaw in its motion supporting this argument. (Id.)

2

WHD argues that RayCo’s vague claims of attorney-client privilege fail to

3

show that heightened protections beyond those contained in the rules of

4

professional conduct are necessary. (ECF No. 9 at 9.) WHD explains that it gave

5

RayCo the opportunity to provide WHD with a privilege log for the seized

6

electronic records, but RayCo refused to do so. (Id. at 10.) RayCo contends that

7

many of the documents seized were paper documents which it no longer has

8

access to, and that WHD has not provided a link to review those documents. (ECF

9

No. 10 at 8.)

10

The party asserting the privilege is obliged by federal law to establish the

11

privileged nature of the communications, and, if necessary, to segregate the

12

privileged information from the non-privileged information. United States v.

13

Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 609 (9th Cir. 2009). “Under federal law, the attorney-client

14

privilege is strictly construed.” Id. RayCo has not identified with particularity

15

which of the documents in WHD’s possession are within his claim of privilege.

16

Furthermore, WHD has submitted declarations explaining that they gave RayCo

17

multiple opportunities to identify the privileged information and provide a

18

privilege log for the seized records during and after the execution of the search

19

warrant. (ECF Nos. 9 at 10; 9-2 at 5; 9-3 at 2-4.) WHD has agreed to forgo

20

reviewing the evidence obtained during the search warrant while the parties

21

resolve their concerns over privileged information. (ECF No. 9-4 at 2.) The Court

22

therefore finds that RayCo’s concerns over possibly privileged communications

23

may be resolved by the parties and are not sufficient to warrant the relief

24

requested in this motion.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

4

1
2
3

III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES RayCo’s motion to partially
quash (ECF No. 7).

4
5
6

Dated this 22nd day of November 2024.

7
8
9
10

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5