Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-mc-80009/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-mc-80009-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION., 

a Delaware corporation,

 Applicant,

 v.

ANNA'S LINENS COMPANY,

 Defendant.

_____________________________/

No. C 06-80009-Misc. MMC (WDB)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN THE

FORM OF AMENDED RULING ON

EEOC'S APPLICATION TO

ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUBPOENA

On April 5, 2006, the Court heard oral argument in connection with the

EEOC's Application to Enforce Administrative Subpoena. On April 6, 2006, the

Court issued an Order on this Application. At that time, however, the Court did not

appreciate that our ruling was to take the form of a Report and Recommendation to

the District Court. Appreciating that now, and because the parties did not consent to

jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to dispose of the matter, we now recast our earlier

ruling from an Order to a Report and Recommendation. Given this change, the

parties now have ten days to seek reconsideration of this ruling by the District Court. 

Other than the deadline for Anna's Linens to respond to the EEOC's subpoena (as set

forth below), the substance of the initial ruling has not been altered. 

Case 3:06-mc-80009-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/15/06 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

 Following a series of negotiations, the parties resolved all but two issues in enforcement

of the subpoena: (1) the scope of Request No. 1, which seeks information on applicants

nationwide not hired by Anna’s Linens for the period of January 1, 2002 to the present; and (2)

Anna’s Linens' right to a protective order for documents produced under Request Nos. 1, 2, and

16. 

2

Having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, and for the reasons

stated on the record, the Court issues the following report and RECOMMENDS as

follows:1

Jurisdiction

Preliminarily, Anna’s Linens contends that, under the Fifth Circuit case of

EEOC v. Hearst, 103 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 1997), the EEOC does not have jurisdiction

to enforce its subpoena, because the Commission lost its right to investigate charges

against Anna’s when it issued right-to-sue letters to the individual complainants in a

related class action. As an out-of-circuit case, however, Hearst is not binding on this

court, and, in any event, the case does not apply. There still exist administrative

charges pending against Anna's Linens for which the EEOC has not issued right-tosue letters. The court in Hearst was explicit that, “[n]othing in this opinion should be

construed as holding that the EEOC may not seek the same information that it seeks

in these subpoenas, so long as it is on the basis of a different individual charge or a

Commissioner Charge.” Hearst, 103 F.3d at 470. There is no jurisdictional

impediment to the EEOC’s enforcement of its subpoena against Anna’s Linens. 

Subpoena Request No. 1

It is RECOMMENDED that the District Court GRANT the EEOC's

Application for Enforcement of Administrative Subpoena as to Request No. 1 as

follows: 

Case 3:06-mc-80009-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/15/06 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

By June 19, 2006, Anna's Linens must produce to the EEOC the information

sought in the request for all applicants for Non-Management positions at all Anna's

Linens retail stores nationwide who were not hired by Anna's Linens. 

This nationwide production is appropriate in light of the charging documents

underlying the EEOC’s investigation, which alleged nationwide discriminatory

pattern and practices, as ordered by the Chief Executive Officer, against AfricanAmerican men in the initial hiring of sales associates and in the promotion of

employees to the “key-holder” position. See e.g., Declaration of Scott Doughtie at

Exs. 2 & 3; see also EEOC v. Shell Oil Company, 466 U.S. 54, 69-73 & fn. 26

(1984).

Protective Order 

 It is RECOMMENDED that the District Court DENY Anna’s request for a

protective order with respect to documents produced under Request Nos. 1, 2, and

16. The request is premature. 

During its initial investigatory stage, the EEOC is under a statutory mandate

not to disclose information. That is, under Title VII, it is “unlawful for any officer or

employee of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information

obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior to the

institution of any proceeding” under the Act. See Section 709(e) of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. 2000e-8(e). At this time, therefore, there is no danger anyone but the EEOC

will have access to the information Anna’s Linens seeks to protect. Should a third

party seek to subpoena information gathered during the investigation after the

investigation has concluded, Anna's will be notified of such an event, and at that time

may move to quash the subpoena or seek some other form of protection for

documents it has produced to the EEOC. 

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil

Dated: May 15, 2006 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mc-80009-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 3