Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00055/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:151 Labor: Review of Agency Action

---

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 - 06cv1855WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv55WQH (NLS)

ORDER

vs.

BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

12) filed on March 7, 2008. 

Plaintiff National Labor Relations Board filed an application for an order requiring

Defendant Coca-Cola Bottling Company to comply with an administrative subpoena. On

March 7, 2008, Magistrate Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this court grant the Plaintiff’s application (Doc. # 12). No party has filed

an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:08-cv-00055-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 06cv1855WQH

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the

[district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the

Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

CONCLUSION

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that judicial notice of the Rules and

Regulations published as 24 Fed. Reg. 9095 governing the Plaintiff’s conduct is appropriate

pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 1507; that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction; and that the

subpoena is procedurally proper. The Report and Recommendation filed on March 7, 2008

(Doc. # 12) is adopted by this Court in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s application for an order requiring Defendant to comply with an

administrative subpoena is granted; and

2. The parties shall lodge a proposed joint protective order with the district court

limited to affect only the Board’s investigation, within seven days of this order; and

3. Defendant shall comply with all document production required by the subpoena

within ten days of the date the protective order is signed by the district court; and

4. Defendant shall provide its custodian of records to appear before the Board to

answer any and all questions relevant and material to the subpoenaed documents, under oath

and before a court reporter, within thirty days of the document production.

DATED: May 22, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00055-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2