Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02546/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02546-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:160(1) National Labor Relations Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD, 

Applicant, 

vs.

CEMEX, INC., 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:09-cv-2546-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondent CEMEX, Inc.'s Motion to Confirm Validity

of the Court's Protective Order (Doc. 45). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies

CEMEX's motion.

On June 30, 2009, the National Labor Relation Board’s ("NLRB") General Counsel

issued and served on CEMEX a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint and a notice of

hearing charging CEMEX with violating various statutes for, inter alia, diverting work from

its union-represented employees to its non-unionized workforce and closing two of its

unionized facilities. On September 4, 2009, the NLRB issued a subpoena duces tecum to

CEMEX’s Custodian of Records. Upon CEMEX’s refusal to produce documents the NLRB

took action in this Court on October 5, 2009 for the enforcement of the September 4, 2009

subpoena duces tecum against CEMEX. On February 1, 2010, this Court entered an

Amended Order granting CEMEX's request for a protective order as to Items 23 and 28 of

Case 2:09-cv-02546-JAT Document 54 Filed 09/03/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 For a review of the Court's particular orders regarding the September 4 subpoena,

see Doc. 33.

- 2 -

the September 4 subpoena, which related to competitively and financially sensitive

information and customer information. During a January 22, 2010 hearing, the Court denied

the majority of the NLRB's requests relating to the September 4 subpoena.1

On July 6, 2010, the NLRB issued a new subpoena in order to cure the defects

contained in the September 4 subpoena as outlined during the January 22 hearing. CEMEX

now urges this Court to apply language contained in the February 1 Order to limit the July

6 subpoena.

The NLRB argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider

CEMEX's request. The Court agrees. Congress vested the ability to enforce or otherwise

initiate actions involving the NLRB subpoenas solely with the NLRB. 29 U.S.C. § 161(2).

CEMEX is given the ability to oppose any subpoena issued by the NLRB. However, as was

the case with the initial September 4 subpoena, CEMEX must await the NLRB's decision

to seek enforcement of the subpoena. CEMEX is not free to initiate a proceeding in this

Court relating to a subpoena issued by the NLRB. While such a procedural framework may

not be ideal or always necessarily efficient, the Court is bound by this framework as

established by Congress.

Moreover, it appears that CEMEX has also failed to exhaust its administrative

remedies. Based upon the record currently before the Court, it does not appear that CEMEX

attempted to seek special leave to appeal to the NLRB, a procedure expressly provided for

under the NLRB's Rules and Regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 102.26.

In any event, even if the Court properly has subject matter jurisdiction and CEMEX

properly exhausted its administrative remedies, the Court disagrees with CEMEX's

interpretation of the Court's February 1 Order. The Court granted the protective order with

regards to Items 23 and 28 of the September 4 subpoena. The Court did not make any

general sweeping statements that the February 1 Order applied to all future subpoenas, or any

Case 2:09-cv-02546-JAT Document 54 Filed 09/03/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

and all information that might be considered as competitively and financially sensitive

information. While the Court did state that its February 1 Order "will continue to be binding

throughout and after the final disposition of this action," (Doc. 32 at p. 7) it is clear from the

context of the Order that the Court was referring to those documents produced under Items

23 and 28 of the September 4 subpoena–not all possible future subpoenas that might be

issued in the case. As such, the Court finds that the protective order issued as part of the

February 1 Order is only applicable to the September 4 subpoena, and not all future

subpoenas that might arise during the course of this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent CEMEX, Inc.'s Motion to Confirm Validity of the

Court's Protective Order (Doc. 45) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02546-JAT Document 54 Filed 09/03/10 Page 3 of 3