# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 18 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

R. Alex an de r Aco st a, Secr et ary of Labo r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

La Pie da d C or

po rat io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as El Mez cal Mex ic an Res ta ur an t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 18
Fil ed : J ul y

3, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

The Dep art m en t of Lab or (DOL) is in ve st ig at in g po ss ib le vi ol at io ns of th e Fai r
Lab or St an da rd s Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2 0 1 e t

. se q. (FLSA), by La Pi ed ad Co rp or at io n (La Pi ed ad ), do in g bu si ne ss in Harri so nv il le

, M is so ur i, as El Mez cal Mex ic an

Res ta ur an t (El Mez cal ). In Ju ne 20 16

, DOL is su ed an ad m in is tra t i v e su bp oe na

r e q u es ti ng do cu m en ts

. W he n La Pi ed ad di d no t res po nd

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an t e d

DOL’ s pe ti ti on to en fo rce th e su bp oe na an d or de red La Pi ed ad to co m pl y

. La Pi ed adpr od uc ed do cu m en ts in Decem be r 20 16 an d pr ov id ed ad d i t i o n a l in fo rm at io n in

Ja nu ary 20 17

. In Feb ru ary 20 17

, DOL fil ed a m ot io n to ho ld La Pi ed ad in ci vi l

co nt em pt fo r fai li ng to pr od uc e do cu m en ts id en ti fy in g ot he r bu si ne ss es own ed by La

Pi ed ad ’s sh areh ol de rs

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n an d to ll ed th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns fo r act io ns br ou gh t by DOL un ti l La Pi e d a d f u l l y co m pl ie s. La Pi ed ad

ap pe al s. Co nc lu di ng th at DOL fa i l e d to m eet it s bu rd en to in tro du ce ev id en ce th at

wou ld su pp or t a su bp oe na to pr od uc e do cu m en ts no t in La P i e d a d ’s po ss es si on ,

cu st od y , or c on tro l, we re ve rs e.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In Ja nu ary 20 16

, DOL’ s W ag e an d Hou r Div is io n op en ed an in ve st ig at io n in to

La Pi ed ad ’s co m

pl ia nc e wit h th e FLSA. DOL in ve st ig at or s in te rv ie wed em pl oyees

an d ex am in ed pa y ro ll reco rd s at th e res ta ur an t in earl y Feb ru ary. On Mar ch 14

, DOL

se nt La Pi ed ad ’s at to rn ey a le tt er req ue st in g, in te r al ia

, a li st of al l own ers an d th ei r

pe r c e nt ag e of own ers hi p, na m es an d ad dr es se s of an y ot he r lo cat io ns own ed or

pa rti al ly own ed by th e own ers , an d th e an nu al d o l l a r v o lu m e of sa le s fo r each

lo cat io n. W he n La Pi ed ad di d no t res po nd

, DOL se rv ed an ad m in is tra ti ve su bp oe na

on Ju ne 1, 20 16

, r e q u e st in g twen ty-two cat eg or ie s of do cu m en ts

. At is su e on th is

ap pe al is Req ue st No. 2 whi ch req ue st ed
-

All do cu m en ts sh owi ng th e na m es an d ad dr es se s of al l ot he r bu si ne ss es th at are pa rti al ly an d/ or fu ll y own ed by an y of th e own ers of La Pi ed ad
Co rp or at io n a nd th e p erce nt ag e o f own ers hi p.

La Pi ed ad di d no t pr od uc e do cu m en ts at th e ti m e an d pl ace de m an de d. DOL fil ed a

pe ti ti on to en fo rce th e su bp oe na ; La Pi ed ad res po nd ed wit h a m ot io n to di sm is s,

arg ui ng it is no t su bjec t to th e FLSA’s wag e an d ho ur req ui rem en ts be cau se it is “ an

en te rp ris e who se an nu al gr os s vo lu m e of sa le s” is le ss th an $5 00 ,00 0. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 20 3( s) (1 )(A)(i i). On Octo be r 20

, aft er a he ar i ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed La

-2

-Pi ed ad ’s m ot io n to di sm is s, pr op erl y co nc lu di ng “ th at a su bp oe na en fo rcem en t

p r o c e e d i n g is no t th e pr op er fo ru m in whi ch to li ti ga te th e qu es ti on of [FLSA ]

co ve rag e.” Don ov an v. Sh aw, 66 8 F.2 d 98 5, 98 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 ). The co ur t gr an te d

D O L’ s m ot io n to en fo rce th e su bp oe na an d or de red La Pi ed ad to pr ov id e t h e
do cu m en ts wit hi n s ix ty day s.

O n Decem

be r 20 , La Pi ed ad pr od uc ed it s in te rn al ta x ret ur ns , wh ic h sh owe d

th e pe rcen ta ge own ers hi p of it s “ m em be rs ,” pl us Data Ent ry W or ks he et s an d Payroll

Jo ur na ls

, ti m e card s, a li st of na m es an d ad dr es se s of em pl oyees, an d a writ te n

res po ns e th at an swe red Req ue st No. 2, “ N/A.” Thre e da y s la te r, DOL se nt an em ai l

req ue st in g “ m is si ng pa y ro ll do cu m en ts ” an d do cu m en ts res p o n s i v e to Req ue st No.

2. On Ja nu ary 11

, 20 17

, La Pi ed ad pr od uc ed ad di ti on al pa y ro ll reco rd s bu t no t

m is si ng ti m e card s, whic h had be en de st ro y ed

, or do cu m en ts res po ns iv e to Req ue st

No. 2. DOL ob

jecte d, th reat en in g fu rth er jud ic ia l act io n. On Ja nu ary 25

, La Pi ed ad ’s

at to rn ey res po nd ed

, “ No ad di ti on al do cu m en ts res po ns iv e to th e su bp oe na ex is t,” an d

ex pl ai ne d th at a m an ag er h ad th ro wn awa y th e m is si ng ti m e car ds

. DOL t he n fil ed

a m ot io n se ek in g a n o r d e r ho ld in g La Pi ed ad in ci vi l co nt em pt fo r vi ol at in g th e
di st ric t co ur t’s or de r to pr od uc e do cu m en ts res po ns iv e to Req ue st No. 2. W it ho ut a
he ari ng , th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt is su ed it s or de r fin di ng La Pi ed ad in co nt em pt of th e

Octo be r 20 16 en fo rcem en t ord er for fail in g to res po nd to Req ue st No. 2. The co ur t

or de red La Pie da d t o p ro vi de wit hi n t wen ty-on e d ay s -

co rp or at e reco rd s, s ecre ta ry of s ta te fil in gs , t ax reco rd s, pa rtn ers hi p or LLC ag reem en ts

, art ic le s of in co rp or at io n, li qu or li cen se s, ot he r bu si ne ss op erat io n li cen se s, or an y ot he r do cu m en ts th at sh ow bu si ne ss es ow ne d b

y a ny of th e o wn er

s o f La Pied ad Co rp or at io n

.

(Em ph as is in or ig in al .) The co ur t al so to ll ed th e FLSA s ta tu te of l im it at io ns “ fro m

Ju ne 1, 20 16 to th e da te th at [La Pi ed ad ] fu ll y res po nd s to th e su bp oe na .” La Pi ed ad

ap pe al s t he co ur t’s co nt em pt fin di ng an d t ol li ng de ci si on

.

-3

-II . Dis cus si on

W e de al wit h a na rro w qu es ti on , jud ic ia l en fo rceme nt of an ad m in is tra ti ve

su bp oe na

. Sect io n 11 (a) of th e FLSA gr an ts th e Adm in is tra to r of DOL’ s W ag e an d

Hou r Div is io n br oa d a u t h o rit y to in ve st ig at e wag es , ho ur s, an d co nd it io ns of

em pl oym en t in co ve red in du st rie s an d po ss ib le FLSA vi ol at io ns

. 29 U.S.C. § 21 1( a).

Sect io n 9 (2 9 U.S.C. § 20 9) gr an ts th e Adm in is tra to r th e in ve st ig at iv e po wers an d

du ti es pr ov id ed in se ct io ns 9 an d 10 of th e Fed eral Trad e Co m m is si on Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 49

, 50 . That Act g ran ts th e Fed eral Trad e Co m m is si on th e “ po wer to requ ire by

su bp oe na ” th e pr od uc ti on of do cu m en ts “ rel at in g to an y m at te r un de r in ve st ig at io n,”

an d th e po wer to “ in vo ke th e ai d of an y co ur t of t h e Uni te d St at es in req ui rin g

. . .
pr od uc ti on of do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce.” 15 U.S.C. § 49

. Dis tri ct co ur ts are au th or iz ed

,

“ in c a s e o f co nt um acy or refu sa l to ob ey a su bp oe na ,” to is su e an or de r to pr od uc e
do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce, an d fai lu re to ob ey “ m ay be pu ni sh ed by su ch co ur t a s a

co nt em pt th ereo f.” Id .; se e Cu da hy Pack in g Co

. of La. v. Hol la nd

, 31 5 U.S. 35 7, 36 3
(1 94 2) (in en fo rci ng an ad m in is tra ti ve a g e n c y su bp oe na , “ th ere can be no pe na lt y

in cu rred for co nt em

pt be fo re t he re i s a ju di ci al ord er o f en fo rcem en t” ).

The Fed eral Ru le s co nf

irm th at a di st ric t co ur t m ay ho ld a p a r t y i n c on te m pt

fo r fai lu re t o o be y

an ord er re la te d t o a n a dm in is tra ti ve ag en cy su bp oe na

. See F ed

. R. Ci v. P. 45 (g ), 81 (a)( 5)

. Howev er, “ th e co nt em pt po wer is a m os t po te nt weap on ,”

an d we rev ie w th e gr an t of a co nt em pt or de r “ m or e se arch in gl y ” th an a de ni al

. In de p.
Fed ’n of F li gh t At te nd an ts v. Coo pe r, 13 4 F.3d 91 7, 9 20 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) (qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. The pa rty se ek in g a ci vi l co nt em pt or de r “ be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g fact s

warra nt in g s uc h re li ef b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.” Ja ke ’s, Lt d., In c. v. Ci ty

of Co at es , 35 6 F.3 d 89 6, 89 9- 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). A pa rty can no t be he ld in co nt em pt

fo r vi ol at in g an am

bi gu ou s co ur t or de r. Im ag eware , In c. v. U.S. W

. Co m m c’ns

, 21 9

F.3 d 79 3, 79 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d

th e wro ng le ga l st an da rd

. U.S. In t’l Trad e Co m m ’n v. ASAT, In c., 41 1 F.3 d 24 5, 25 3
(D.C. Ci r. 20 05 ).

-4

-DOL ch os e to se ek in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e bu si ne ss act i v i t i e s of La Pi ed ad ’s

s h a r e h o l d er

s by is su in g to La Pied ad a su bp oe na to pr od uc e do cu m en ts

. The

su bp oe na is a ju d ic ia l pr oc es s, pu ni sh ab le by th e jud ic ia l rem ed y of co nt em pt

. Co ng re ss ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed DOL to is su e ad m in is tra ti ve su bp oe na s an d to se ek
ju di ci al en fo rcem en t by co nt em pt

. Bu t Co ng res s pr ov id ed th at th ere c a n b e n o

co nt em pt rem ed y ex cep t fo r vi ol a t i o n o f a jud ic ia l or de r en fo rci ng th e ag en cy ’s

su bp oe na

. Thi s ne ces sa ril y su bjec ts th e ag en cy ’s st at ut or y su bp oe na p o w e r t o th e

sa m e li m it at io ns th at res tri ct th e en fo rcem en t of jud ic ia l su bp oe na s by co nt em pt

. A

su bp oe na ed em

pl oyer m ay “ qu es ti on th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e su bp oe na , be fo re

su ffer in g an y pe na lt ie s fo r refu si ng to co m pl y wit h it

, by rai si ng ob jecti on s in an

act io n i n d is tri ct co ur t.” Do no va n v . Lon e St eer, In c., 46 4 U.S. 4 08 , 41 5 (1 98 4)

.

A jud ic ia l su bp oe na “ co m m an d[ s] each pe rs on to who m it is di re c t e d t o

. . .
pr od uc e de si gn at ed do cu m en ts

. . . in th at pe rs on ’s po ss es si on , cu st od y , or co nt ro l.”

Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 45 (a)( 1) (A)(i ii ). “ It is well se tt le d th at a pe rs on can no t be co m pe ll ed

to pr od uc e, un de r a su bp oe na , a do cu m en t whi ch is ne it he r in hi s po ss es si on no r

u n d e r h i s co nt ro l.” Trau b v. Uni te d St at es , 23 2 F.2 d 43

, 47 n.9 (D.C. Ci r. 1 9 5 5 )
(q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; acco rd In Re Gran d Ju ry , 82 1 F.2 d 94 6, 95 1 (3 d Ci r. 19 87 ) (“ A

pa rty’ s lack of po ss es si on or le ga l con tro l ov er do cu m en ts req ue st ed by a su bp oe na
is no rm al ly a va li d de fen se to a su bp oe na .”), cert

. de ni ed

, 48 4 U.S. 10 25 (1 98 8)

. The

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s m ad e cl ear th at a pa rty’ s ab il it y to pr od uc e do cu m en ts res po ns iv e

t o a va li d su bp oe na is an es se nt ia l pr ereq ui si te to ex erci se of th e jud ic ia ry ’s po te n t

co nt em pt po wers

. “Ord in ari ly, on e ch arg ed wit h co nt em pt of co ur t fo r fai lu re to

co m pl y wit h a co ur t or de r m ak es a co m pl et e de fen se by pr ov in g th at he is un ab le to

co m pl y

. A co ur t wil l no t im

pr is on a wit ne ss fo r fai lu re to pr od uc e do cu m en ts whi ch

he do es no t h av e u nl es s h e is res po ns ib le for th ei r un av ai la bi li ty.” U ni te d St at es v. Bryan, 33 9 U.S. 3 23 , 33 0- 31 (19 50 ).

In ou r vi ew, th is pr in ci pl e ap pl ie s to en fo rcem en t of an ad m in i s t r a t iv e

su bp oe na

. DOL ci te s no st at u t e o r r eg ul at io n au th or iz in g it to is su e a su bp oe na

-5

-co m

m an di ng a pa rty to pr od uc e do cu m en ts th at are no t wit hi n it s po ss es si on , cu st od y

or co nt ro l. In de ed , t he su bp oe na at is su e pr op erl y refl ect ed th is pr in ci pl e, de fin in g

th e te rm “ do cu m en ts ” as m ean in g m at eri al s “ in La Pi ed ad Co rp or at io n’s po ss es si on ,

c u s t o dy, or co nt ro l, or wit hi n th e cu st od y or co nt ro l of an y ag en t, em pl oyee

rep res en ta ti ve or ot he r pe r s o n s a c t i n g or pu rp or ti ng to act fo r or on be ha lf of La

Pi ed a d C o r po rat io n.” On ap pe al

, DOL po in ts ge ne ral ly to th e br oa d in ve st ig at or y

po wer gr an te d in 29 U.S.C. § 21 1( a). Bu t t he ex te nt of DOL’ s in ve st ig at iv e po wer
is no t at is su e. It “ i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e sa m e as

. . . th e co ur t’s in is su in g

. . . pr et ria l

or de rs fo r th e di sc ov ery of ev id en ce.

. . . The re is no ha ras sm en t whe n th e su bp oe na
is is su ed an d en

fo rc ed ac co rd in g to la w .” Okl ah om a Pres s Pu b. Co

. v. W al li ng , 32 7

U.S. 18 6, 2 16 -1 7 (1 94 6) (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Re q u es t No. 2 de m an de d th at La Pied ad pr od uc e do cu m en ts refl ect in g th e
bu si ne ss act iv it ie s of it s sh ar eh ol de rs , wit ho ut reg ard to whe re th os e do cu m en ts are
lo cat ed or whe th er th ey pe rta in to La Pi ed ad ’s bu si ne ss

. La Pi ed ad can be fau lt ed fo r

in it ia ll y res po nd in g “

N/A” to Req ue st No. 2. Bu t whe n pr es se d fo r a r e s p o n s e , La

Pi ed ad pl ai nl y st at ed in Ja nu ary 20 17 th at it ha s no do cu m en ts res po ns iv e to Req ue st

No. 2 in it s po ss es si on , cu st od y , or co nt ro l. W it ho ut ch al le ng in g th at st at em en t, DOL

mo v e d fo r an or de r fin di ng La Pi ed ad in co nt em pt

. DOL pr es en te d no cl ear an d

co nv in ci ng ev id en ce sh owi ng , as th e su bp oe na de fin it io n pro vi de d, th at do cu m en ts

ex is t whi ch are “ wit hi n th e cu st od y or co nt ro l of an y ag en t, em pl oyee rep res en ta ti ve

or ot he r pe rs on s a c ti ng or pu rp or ti ng to act fo r or on be ha lf of La Pi ed ad

Co rp or at io n.” Su ch an ag en cy sh owi ng m ig ht ha ve de feat ed La Pi ed ad ’s po ss es si on
de fen se , be cau se pe rs on s “ of fic ia ll y res po ns ib le fo r th e co nd uc t of [a co rp or at io n’s]

affa irs ” who “ pr ev en t co m pl ia nc e or fai l to ta ke ap pr op ria te act io n wit hi n th ei r po wer

fo r th e pe rfo rm an ce of th e co rp or at e du ty

. . . are gu il ty of di so be di en ce, an d m ay be

pu ni sh ed fo r co nt em

pt .” Uni te d St at es v. Fl ei sc hm an , 33 9 U.S. 34 9, 35 7- 58 (1 95 0)

.

An ag en cy th eo ry of cu st od y an d co nt ro l req ui res pr oo f
-- cl ear an d co nv in ci ng

pr oo f
-- to warra nt a fin di ng o f c o nt em pt

. Eve n whe n th e su bp oe na ed co rp or at io n

-6

-an d th e pa rty ha vi ng po ss es si on an d cu st od y of req ue st ed do cu m en ts are co rp or at e

affi li at es , t he ag en cy m

us t m ak e a sh owi n g t h a t t h e su bp oe na ed pa rty wo ul d “ ha ve

acce ss to th es e do cu m en ts an d th e a b i l i t y t o ob ta in th em fo r it s us ua l bu si ne ss .”
ASAT, 41 1 F.3 d at 25 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; acco rd Uni te d St at es v. In t’l Uni on of

P e t r o le um & In d. W or ke rs , 8 70 F.2 d 14 50 , 1 45 2 (9 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (in te rn at io n a l a n d

lo cal un io n affi li at es ). In m os t ci rcu m st an ces , a co rp or at io n do e s no t ha ve co nt ro l

ov er do cu m en ts in th e po ss es si on of it s sh areh ol de rs

. “ Gen eral ly, a sh areh ol de r is no t

an ag en t or rep res en ta ti ve of th e co rp or at io n un le ss ex pr es sl y or im pl ie dl y au th or iz ed

as su ch .” 1 W

. Fl et ch er, Cy cl op ed ia o f t h e La w of Co rp or at io ns § 30 (2 01 5)

. Of

co ur se , “ sh areh ol de rs m ay in vo lv e th e co rp or at io n in th ei r ow n b us in es s affa irs to

su ch an ex te nt as to co ns ti tu te it th ei r ag en t.” Id

. The re i s n o f a c t u a l b a s is in th e

reco rd on ap pe al for in ferr in g s uc h a n a ge nc y rel at io ns hi p i n t hi s ca se

.

W it ho ut ho ld in g a he aring, an d w ith out co nsi de ring th is un iv ers al ly reco gn iz ed

de fen se to a ci vi l co nt em

pt or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed th e br oa de st po ss ib le or de r,

req ui rin g La Pi ed ad to ob ta in an d pr od uc e al l do cu m en ts rel at in g to th e sh areh ol de rs ’

bu si ne ss act iv it ie s, whe th er rel at ed or un rel at ed to th ei r El Mez cal in ve st m en t, ev en

in cl u d in g th ei r co nf

id en ti al “ ta x reco rd s.” The co ur t refe ren ced no st at ut or y or ju d i ci al au th or it y fo r or de rin g pr od uc ti on of sh areh ol de r do cu m en ts no t in La

Pi ed ad ’s po ss es si on or co nt ro l, and no t in th e sh areh ol de rs ’ po ss es si on as age nt s of

La Pie da d. Th is was a m is us e o f th e ci vi l co nt em pt po wer.

DOL as se rts th at th e do cu m en ts at is su e a r e n e ed ed to de te rm in e whe th er El

Mez cal em

pl oyees are su bjec t to FLSA wag e an d ho ur req ui rem en ts be cau se La

Pi ed ad an d it s own ers ar e e n g a g e d in a co m m on en te rp ris e who se co m bi ne d sa le s

ex ceed $5 00 ,00 0. Sep arat el y own ed bu si ne ss es are co ns id ered a si ng le “ en te rp ris e”

su bjec t to th e FLSA if th ey en ga ge in “ rel at ed act iv it ie s” an d ha ve “ un ifi ed op erat io n

or co m m on co nt ro l” an d a “ co m

m on bu si ne ss pu rp os e.” Don ov an v. W eb er, 72 3 F.2 d

13 88

, 13 91 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ), ap pl y in g 29 U.S.C. § 20 3( r)(1 ). W e do no t qu es ti on

DOL’ s au th or it y to in ve st ig at e w he th er La Pi ed ad an d it s em pl oyees are pa rt of a

-7

-si ng le en te rp ris e th at is su bjec t to th e FLSA’s req ui rem en ts

. Thi s wou ld no do ub t

au th or iz e DOL to s u b p o e n a rel ev an t in fo rm at io n an d do cu m en ts di rect ly fro m La

P ie da d’s sh areh ol de rs , in whi ch cas e an y di sp ut e ov er th e reas on ab le ne ss o f t h e

ag en cy’s d e man ds wou ld be res ol ve d wit h th e affe ct ed pr iv at e pa rti es be fo re th e
di st ric t co ur t. W ha t DOL’ s st at ut or y au th or it y an d pe rti ne nt co nt em pt pr eced en ts do 1

no t pe rm it is a fis hi ng ex pe di ti on in whi ch th e ag en cy us es a jud ic ia l co nt em pt or de r

to co m pe l La Pi ed ad to pl ay

th e ro le of i nv ol un ta ry

fis he rm an

.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t or de r ho ld in g La Pi ed ad in ci vi l

c o n t e mp t f

or fai li ng to pr od uc e do cu m en ts in res po ns e to Req ue st No. 2. Thi s
el im in at es th e ba si s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to to ll th e st at ut e of li m it a t i on s

un ti l La Pi ed ad “ fu ll y res po nd s to th e su bp oe na ,” an d th at or de r is li ke wis e rev ers ed

. How ev er , w e do not ot he rwis e di st ur b th e co ur t’s earl ie r su bp oe na en fo rcem en t or de r.

Nor

, gi ve n La Pi ed ad ’s un reas on ab le de la y in pr od uc in g do cu m en ts in res po ns e to

ot he r su bp oe na req ue st s, do we pr ecl ud e th e co ur t fro m co ns id eri ng a req ue st by DOL

to to ll th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns fro m Ju ne 13 , 20 16 , to Jan ua ry 25 , 20 17

.

The Orde r of

th e d is tri ct co ur t d at ed Marc h 2 9, 2 01 7, i s re ve rs ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

As wor de d, Req ue st No. 2 if in cl ud ed in an ad m in is tra ti ve su bp oe na is su ed to 1

an in di vi du al La Pi ed ad sh areh ol de r wou ld do ub tl es s no t be en fo rced as unr easo na bl y br oa d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Lehm an , 88 7 F .2d 13 28 , 13 35 (7t h C ir. 1 98 9)

.

-8

-