GENESIS REALTY GROUP, REPUBLIC INVESTMENT COMPANY, EPIC PROPERTIES AND FOUR H. DEVELOPMENT, A SINGLE

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 2013

02-CA-101989 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GENESIS REALTY GROUP, REPUBLIC
INVESTMENT COMPANY, EPIC PROPERTIES,
and FOUR-H DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
a single integrated enterprise
and Case 02-CA-101989

JOHAN DE LOS SANTOS and
MODESTO DE LOS SANTOS
ORDER1
The Employers’ petition to revoke subpoenas duces tecum B-707266 and B-
707267 is denied. The subpoenas seek information relevant to the matter under
investigation and describe 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 Employers have failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the
subpoenas.2 See generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 In denying the Employers’ petition to revoke, we consider the subpoenas as modified
by the Region’s statement in its opposition to the petition to revoke, that (1) the
Regional Director will withdraw paragraphs 1 and 2 of subpoena duces tecum B-707266
if Genesis Realty Group stipulates that it derives revenues in excess of $500,000, and
purchases goods and services valued in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers
located outside the State of New York, and (2) the Regional Director will withdraw
paragraphs 1 and 2 of subpoena duces tecum B-707267 if Epic Properties LLC
stipulates that it derives revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchases goods and
services valued in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of
New York.
To the extent that the Employers may have provided some of the material
requested in the subpoenas duces tecum, they are not required to produce that
information again, provided that the Employers accurately describe which documents
under subpoena they have already provided, state whether those previously-supplied
documents constitute all of the requested documents, and provide all of the information
that was subpoenaed.
2
1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 11, 2013.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER