Power Line Consultants, LLC d/b/a PLC, LLC; Hud Garrett, an Individual, Tonya Garrett, an Individual

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 10, 2011

14-CA-029332 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 10, 2011)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
POWERLINE CONSULTANTS, LLC
d/b/a PLC, LLC
HUD GARRETT and TONYA GARRETT
and Case 14-CA-29332
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 702
ORDER1
The petition to revoke subpoenas duces tecum B-614411, B-614410, B-614409,
and subpoenas ad testificandum A-859917 and A-859916 filed by the Employer and
Hud and Tonya Garrett is denied, except as discussed below. 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 Petitioners have failed to
establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. 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).
Although the petition to revoke presents little specific argument addressed to
particular documents covered by the subpoenas, because of the personal and
potentially sensitive nature of some of the materials covered by the subpoenas, we
direct that the Region communicate with the moving parties and attempt to reach an
accommodation concerning the following items requested in Subpoenas B-614409 and
B-614410: 1-13, 15-18, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26-28. We will hold the petition in

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2
abeyance for 30 days as it relates to those items to permit such discussions to take
place. If, after 30 days, the Region and the parties have not reached an agreement, the
Region is directed to file a supplemental opposition to the motion so informing us and
specifically setting forth why the requested items are reasonably necessary for the
limited purpose of investigating the liability of the two individuals in order to determine
whether to name them in the complaint.
The petition is denied in all other respects.2 In addition, the Petitioners’ request
for a protective order is denied. The Petitioners have failed to show good cause for
such an order.
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 10, 2011
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
CRAIG BECKER, MEMBER
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER

2 Although we deny the petition to revoke the subpoenas ad testificandum, the same
concerns expressed about the subpoenas duces tecum should inform the parties’
proceedings as to the appropriate scope of inquiry when deposing the Garretts on the
issue of their individual liability. We note as well that the subpoenas themselves
indicate that the Region is already in possession of a great deal of very specific
information as part of the investigation of whether to issue complaint alleging the
Garretts’ individual liability.