Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01225/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01225-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331es Fed. Question: Enforcement of Administrative Subpoena

---

1

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of 

Labor, United States Department of 

Labor,

Petitioner,

v.

JY HARVESTING, INC., a suspended 

California corporation; JOSE JESUS 

PINEDO, an individual, as the Custodian 

of Records for JY HARVESTING, INC.,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

PETITION TO ENFORCE 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA 

DUCES TECUM

[ECF No. 1]

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Petitioner R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor,

United States Department of Labor’s (“Petitioner”), Petition to Enforce (“Petition”) an

administrative subpoena duces tecum served on Respondents JY Harvesting, Inc. and Jose

Jesus Pinedo as the Custodian of Records for JY Harvesting, Inc. (collectively

“Respondents”).

For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner began an administrative investigation of Respondents following a very

serious automobile accident that caused multiple seriousinjuries and the death of a seasonal

agricultural worker. (Rios Decl., ECF No. 1-4 at ¶ 5.) On March 15, 2017, a 2002 Chevy

Express Van, owned by Respondent Pinedo, was supplied to Fernando Pinedo Garcia,

doing business as Healthy Harvesting, to transport seasonal agricultural workers.1, 2(Id.)

While traveling, a tire catastrophically failed causing the van to roll numerous times. (Id.)

The California Highway Patrol referred the accident to the Wage and Hour Division of the

United States Department of Labor (“Wage and Hour”). (Id.)

On March 16, 2017, Steven Albert Rios, an investigator for Wage and Hour, was

assigned to and began investigation of the accident pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal

Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“MSPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq. (Rios Decl. at ¶

7.) On March 24, 2017, Ruben J. Rosalez, Regional Administrator of the Western Region

of Wage and Hour Division, issued an administrative subpoena duces tecum, directing

Respondents to provide requested documents on April 3, 2017.3(Rosalez Decl., ECF No.

1-3 at ¶ 2-3.) The subpoena was served on Respondents on March 28, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 4;

Rios Decl. at ¶ 9.) Production of documents was made by Respondents on April 14, 2017.

(Rosalez Decl. at ¶ 5; Hernandez Decl., ECF No. 7 at ¶ 4.) On April 24, 2017, Rios and

Hernandez engaged in a meet and confer regarding the completeness of Respondents’

production. (Rios Decl. at ¶ 14; Hernandez Decl., ECF No. 7 at ¶ 5.) Respondents

supplemented their production on May 31, 2017, provided seven additional documents in

response to Request No. 3 and asserted that Respondents had no documents responsive to

Request Nos. 4 and 6. (Rios Decl. at ¶ 15; Hernandez Decl. at ¶ 5.) This response also

 

1 Petitioner asserts that Respondent Jose Jesus Pinedo and Fernando Pinedo Garcia, owner of Healthy 

Harvesting, are related by marriage. (See Rios Decl. at ¶ 6.)

2 The Court notes the facts regarding the accident and vehicle ownership are asserted by Petitioner only. 

However, Respondents did not dispute the facts in their Response in Opposition.

3 The date that actually appears on the subpoena is April 3, 2016. Petitioner states this was merely a

typographical error and Respondents do not argue this amounts to a procedural error.

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

included an objection to Request No. 7 based on California Rule of Professional Conduct

2-100. (Hernandez Decl. ¶ 5.)

On June 16, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition to Enforce Administrative Duces

Tecum. (Petition, ECF No. 1.) Respondents filed a timely Response in Opposition on July

7, 2017. (Opposition, ECF No. 6.) Petitioner timely filed a Reply. (Reply, ECF No. 10.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “[t]he scope of the judicial

inquiry in [] any [] agency subpoena enforcement proceeding is quite narrow. The critical

questions are: (1) whether Congress has granted the authority to investigate; (2) whether

procedural requirements have been followed; and (3) whether the evidence is relevant and

material to the investigation.” E.E.O.C. v. Federal Exp. Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 848 (9th Cir.

2009) (internal quotation omitted). “If these factors are shown by the agency, the subpoena

should be enforced unless the party being investigated proves the inquiry is unreasonable

because it is overbroad or unduly burdensome.” E.E.O.C. v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of

N. Cal., 719 F.2d 1426, 1428 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (overruled on other grounds); see

also U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Ayala AG Services, 2013 WL 5670901, at *2 (2013 E.D. Cal.).

IV. DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that Respondents’ responses to Requests Nos. 3, 4, and 6 are

deficient. Petitioner also claims that Respondents have lodged an improper objection to

Request No. 7.

Respondents do not dispute that Congress has granted Wage and Hour authority to

investigate nor do they contend that Petitioner failed to follow the procedural requirements.

Respondents also do not claim the evidence sought is irrelevant, overboard, or unduly

burdensome. Instead, Respondents argue they have provided all documents responsive to

Request No. 3, and have no documents responsive to Request Nos. 4 and 6. Lastly,

Respondents argue that Petitioner must agree to comply with California Rule of

Professional Conduct 2-100 before responding to Request No. 7 completely.

The Court will discuss each in turn.

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

A. Petition’s Enforcement

It is undisputed that Congress has granted the Secretary of the Department of Labor

the authority to “investigate” compliance with the MSPA. 29 U.S.C. § 1862(a). In doing

so, “[t]he Secretary may issue subpoenas requiring the ... production of any evidence in

connection with such investigations.” 29 U.S.C. § 1862(b). The subpoena was properly

issued by a Regional Administrator by delegation of authority from the Secretary, see

Secretary’s Order 5-2010 5(C), 75. Fed. Reg. 55352-55354 (2010), and served on

Respondents, (Rosalez Decl. at ¶ 4.) Lastly, Petitioner claims the information sought is

highly relevant and material to the investigation. (Pet. at ¶ 19.) Respondent does not dispute

this claim. Given this, Petitioner has shown the subpoena should be enforced unless

Respondents can show the inquiry is overly broad or unduly burdensome.

B. Request No. 3

Request No. 3 seeks:

All documents regarding all vehicles owned, leased or rented

since November 1, 2015 used to transport agricultural workers

including registration documents, smog certificates, repair

records.”

(Rosalez Decl., Ex. 1 at 7.)

Petitioner claims the initial production of documents contained “no documents”

responsive to Request No. 3. (Petition, ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ 14.) Petitioner also claims that

Respondents’ supplemental production on May 31, 2017, which contained seven invoices,

was also deficient. (Id. at ¶ 16.) In support of this argument, Petitioner includes invoices

received from Fernando Pinedo Garcia, doing business as Healthy Harvesting. (See Supp.

Garcia Decl., Ex. 8, ECF No. 10-1 at 4-12.) Petitioner claims that because the invoices

received from Fernando Pinedo Garcia are different than the invoices received from

Respondents, Respondents are either withholding documents or not being diligent in their

search for responsive documents. (Reply at 4:1-2.)

Respondents claim they have produced all documents responsive to Request No. 3.

(Hernandez Decl. at ¶ 5.) Respondents’ counsel indicated to Petitioner via email that, as of

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

the supplemental production, they “have produced all documents responsive to this request

[...].” (Hernandez Decl., Ex. C at 2.) Additionally, Respondents have represented to the

Court in their Opposition they “have already produced all documents within its custody

and possession responsive to [Request No. 3].” (Opp’n. at 2:13-16.) In support of this

claim, Respondents attached as an exhibit the documents produced to Petitioner in the

initial production, (see Hernandez Decl., Ex. B,) and also attached their supplemental

response to Request No. 3, (see Id., Ex. C).

At the outset, a review of the documents supplied by Respondents shows that

Petitioner’s claim that there were no documents responsive to Request No. 3 in the initial

production is inaccurate. The documents provided in the initial production included

numerous vehicle documents, including copies of Certificates of Titlesfor various vehicles,

dozens of pages of insurance documents for various vehicles, one of which is proof of

insurance for a 2002 Chevy Express van. (See Hernandez Decl., Ex. B at 82.)

Petitioner’s assertion that because production from Healthy Harvesting differs from

the production made by Respondents, a presumption of incomplete production exists. This

argument is unpersuasive. First, Petitioner provides no authority supporting such a

presumption. Second, while it is possible that Respondents have the same invoices that

were produced by Healthy Harvesting, it is equally possible that Respondents simply no

longer have the invoices in question. Perhaps Respondents sent the only copy of the

invoices to Healthy Harvesting or perhaps Respondents simply do not maintain complete

records due to the alleged familial relationship between the companies’ respective owners.

Respondents have plainly asserted to Petitioner and to the Court that no further

documents exist that are responsive to Request No. 3. The Court cannot compel production

of that which does not exist or is not in the possession and control of Respondents.

Numerous federal courts dealing with various cases in discovery or discovery-like

proceedings have held as much. See, e.g., Lamon v. Adams, 2015 WL 1879606, at * 3 (E.D.

Cal. 2015) (pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court cannot compel

production of documents that do not exist); Cormack v. United States, 117 Fed Cl. 392,

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

408 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (court of federal claims “cannot compel [a party] to produce documents

that it insists do not exist”); Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.D.C. 2010) (same);

In re Wright, 2005 WL 6488101, at *6 (Bnkr. N.D. Ga. (2005) (a bankruptcy court may

only compel the production of things in existence); see also 8A CHARLES A. WRIGHT,

ARTHUR R. MILLER, & RICHARD L. MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE § 2210 (2d ed. 1994) (“[A] party can not be required to permit inspection

of documents or things that it does not have and does not control.”). While the Court is

aware these cases deal with issues outside the purview of an administrative subpoena, the

logic is equally applicable here and Petitioner offers no authority to the contrary.

Notwithstanding the above analysis, the Court must grant the Petition in light of the

minimal requirements for the enforcement of administrative subpoenas and Respondents’

failure to satisfy their burden.

C. Request Nos. 4 and 6

Request No. 4 seeks:

All communications including text messages, emails, letters, and

other writings with Healthy Harvest, Fernando Pinedo Garcia or

his family regarding transportation of Healthy Harvest workers

since November 1, 2015.

(Rosalez Decl., Ex. 1 at 7.)

Request No. 6 seeks:

All communications, including emails, texts and documents,

referencing any lease, rental agreement or understanding

between you and Healthy Harvesting regarding vehicles used to

transport workers to Fisher Ranch since November 1, 2015,

including the transport of workers in the 2002 Chevy Express

Van on March 15, 2017.

(Id.)

Petitioner claims no responsive documents were received for these requests during

the initial production, which occurred on April 14, 2017. (Pet. at ¶ 14.) Petitioner asserts

the records responsive to Request Nos. 4 and 6 are “relevant and necessary” to the

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

investigation, (id. at ¶ 19,) and “will aid and assist” the on-going investigation of

Respondents, (id. at ¶ 20.) Without the records and documents, Wage and Hour “cannot

complete a thorough investigation” of Respondents, the incident at issue, and other possible

violations of MSPA. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Additionally, Petitioner claims it is simply “not credible”

that Respondents have no documents responsive to Request Nos. 4 and 6 because of

evidence showing $671,126 in transactions between Respondents and Healthy Harvesting.

(Reply at 4:7-22.)

Respondents “unambiguously” represent that no documents exist that are responsive

to Request Nos. 4 and 6. (Opp’n. at 2:14-16.)

The analysis to these Requests is nearly identical to Request No. 3: the Court cannot

compel that which a party asserts it does not possess. Moreover, Petitioner’s claim that it

is “not credible” that Respondents do not possess any responsive documents despite the

reporting of nearly $700,000 worth of transactions between Respondents and Healthy

Harvesting is, again, unpersuasive. Petitioner’s assertion rests solely on the invoices

provided by Respondents and those provided by Healthy Harvesting. As an example, an

invoice provided by Petitioner shows Respondent JY Harvesting billed Healthy Harvesting

for 11 trailers, 10 buses, 5 dollies, 9 tractors, and 650 gallons of diesel. (Supp. Garcia Decl.,

Ex. 8 at 5.) However, nowhere on this invoice does it indicate any of the items billed were

“regarding transportation of Healthy Harvest workers” as requested in Request No. 4.

Additionally, nowhere on this invoice does it indicate any of the items billed were

“regarding vehicles used to transport workers to Fisher Ranch” as requested by Request

No. 6. Each invoice provided by Petitioner and Respondents lacks the same critical

information of which Petitioner relies. Given this, these invoices provide little evidence at

best. At worst, the invoices provide no evidence supporting the assertion that documents

exist that are responsive to Request Nos. 4 and 6.

Notwithstanding the above analysis, the Court must grant the Petition in light of the

minimal requirements for the enforcement of administrative subpoenas and Respondents’

failure to satisfy their burden.

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

D. Request No. 7

Request No. 7 seeks:

Documents sufficient to identify all persons who work as crew

leaders, foremen or supervisors by name, address, telephone

number and job duties.

(Rosalez Decl., Ex. 1 at 7.)

Petitioner asserts that Respondents would only produce documents responsive to this

request on the condition that “DOL, or any of its agents, agree to refrain from having any

communication with its supervisory personnel without the presence of counsel.” (Pet. at ¶

17.) Petitioner argues this is an improper objection to an administrative subpoena.

Respondents objected to the production of contact information of its supervisors and

foreman, during a meet and confer that occurred on April 24, 2017. (Opp’n. at 4:21-24; see

also Hernandez Decl. ¶ 5.) Respondents concede they have “yet to produce any documents

responsive to” Request No. 7 with the exception of a list of foreman and supervisors

employed during the 2016 season. (Opp’n at 2:19-22.) Respondents contend they are

willing to produce responsive documents on the condition that Petitioner comply with

California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100. (Id. at 2:23-25.)

California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 states that, absent consent from

opposing counsel, “[w]hile representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly

or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be

represented by another lawyer in the matter []. Cal. Prof. Conduct R. 2-100(A). A

“member” is a “member[] of the State Bar...” Cal. Prof. Conduct R. 1-100(A).

Respondents’ reliance on California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 is

misplaced. First, and most importantly, Respondents’ objection to production based on the

Conduct Rule does not fall within the narrow scope of objections permitted for

administrative subpoenas. For this reason alone, the Court would overrule Respondents’

objection.

However, Respondent’s objection is also overruled on ripeness grounds. Petitioner’s

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

Request No. 7 seeks only identification and contact information for crew leaders, foremen,

or supervisors, and not to depose or otherwise interview those listed. While such contact

may be a logical step in the future, it is not an issue at the present time. Given this, the

Court would also overrule Respondents’ objection as it is not yet ripe.

For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ objection to Request No. 7 is

OVERRULED.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10

17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG

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

V. CONCLUSION

Since Respondents do not contest the authority of Petitioner, do not claim Petitioner

failed to follow the procedural requirements, do not claim the evidence sought is irrelevant,

overboard, or unduly burdensome, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Respondents’ objection to Request No. 7 is OVERRULED.

2. Petitioner’s application for an order to enforce the subpoena issued is 

GRANTED.

3. Respondents are ORDERED to produce any outstanding documents requested in 

Petitioner’s subpoena duces tecum at the Wage and Hour Division, United States 

Department of Labor, 550 West C Street, Suite 990, San Diego, California, on or 

before August 25, 2017.

4. If Respondents are unable to provide any of the documents and information set 

forth in the subpoena, Respondents shall submit a declaration under penalty of 

perjury that: (1) such documents and information do not exist or are not within 

respondent's custody, possession or control; (2) a diligent search was conducted, and 

describe in sufficient detail the processes that were taken, in an attempt to locate 

responsive documents; and (3) that no documents were destroyed in anticipation of 

the present investigation.

5. Respondents are cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in the 

issuance of sanctions including contempt sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01225-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10