PharMEDium Services, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 2016

15-CA-144416 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PHARMEDIUM SERVICES, LLC
and Case 15-CA-144416
SHEILA REED
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-LPP57X is denied.
The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters 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
Employer has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.2 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).3

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 To the extent that the Employer has provided some of the requested material, it is not
required to produce that information again, provided that the Employer accurately
describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided, states whether
those previously-provided documents constitute all of the requested documents, and
provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.
In addition, to the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the
Employer believes in good faith to be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the
attorney work product doctrine, this Order is without prejudice to the Employer’s prompt
submission of a privilege log to the Region identifying and describing each such
document, and providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment of the Employer’s
claim of privilege or protection. The Order also is without prejudice to the Employer’s
ability to seek a confidentiality agreement with respect to documents that involve privacy
concerns recognized under Board law.
3 In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated subpoena B-1-LPP57X as
clarified by the Region in its opposition brief; specifically, in response to the Employer’s
assertion in its petition that it is not aware of any documents that would be responsive to
pars. 5-9, 13-18, and 22-25 of the subpoena and would provide such documents if it
became aware of them, the Region stated that based on this assurance, it does not
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 18, 2016
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER

object to the Employer’s response to these paragraphs of the subpoena. We reject the
Employer’s alternative argument that pars. 7, 9, 22, 23, and 24 should be revoked.