Opinion ID: 595945
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Foundation.

Text: 14 New Life asserts that Board Agent Shelley Coppock's testimony, which laid a foundation for the admission of the affidavits, should be struck because New Life was not provided with Coppock's statements which related to the taking of Thigpen's affidavits. New Life contends it was entitled to such statements under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The Jencks Act is applicable to proceedings before the Board. Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. NLRB, 335 F.2d 749, 754 (9th Cir.1964); 29 C.F.R. § 102.118. The Jencks Act requires the disclosure of statements adopted by witnesses testifying for the government that relate to their testimony. Blackfoot Livestock Comm'n Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture, 810 F.2d 916, 922 (9th Cir.1987). Jencks Act determinations made by an ALJ are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Blackfoot, 810 F.2d at 923. 15 The ALJ reviewed in camera all of the investigative files of the Board to determine which material should be produced pursuant to the Jencks Act. He found [n]othing dealing with the taking of the affidavits or Shelley Coppock's testimony. 16 Because New Life failed to request that the documents reviewed by the ALJ be placed under seal and preserved in the record, we are unable to make an independent determination whether the ALJ correctly found that the agency's files did not contain material required to be produced under the Jencks Act. If petitioners wished review of the trial examiner's determination as to the nature of the report, it was incumbent upon them to see that a record was presented upon which review could be had, by requesting that the memorandum be submitted to the court under seal. NLRB v. Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro, 374 F.2d 974, 982 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 913 (1967) (quoting Harvey Aluminum, 335 F.2d at 756). Since New Life failed to preserve the record for our review, we cannot say that the ruling was prejudicial even if we assume it was erroneous. Id. (quoting Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943)). 17