Court Opinion

ID: 9454383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:45:05.480459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:05.919298
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for a rehearing with respect to our order of reference dated February 19, 1969. We there granted pre-hearing discovery of statements in the Board’s possession made by persons whom the Board intends to use as witnesses at respondent’s contempt hearing provided that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ. Pp. 26-34 are otherwise met. We noted that the Board’s own rules effectively incorporate the Jencks Act1 by requiring that these statements be turned over after a witness testifies at a Board hearing. 29 C.F.R. § 102.118.
In the petition here the Board asserts that the prospect of pre-hearing discovery is somehow more intimidating than the prospect of discovery under the Jencks Act because it will give the employer more time to confront the informing employee. Given that the name of an informer will be revealed, we confess that we are unable to see the connection between added time and substantially greater coercion.
*808The Board further asserts that pre-trial discovery will force the disclosure of matters not germane to the immediate hearing. Again, however, the problem is none the more serious simply because statements are discovered before, rather than during, the hearing.
The Board also calls our attention to the supposed discrepancy between the holding in this case and the holding in NLRB v. Clement Bros. Co., Inc., 5 Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 1027. In Clement Bros, the respondent sought to discover all pre-hearing statements in the Board’s possession, not just those made by witnesses from whom the Board intended to adduce testimony. This request, if granted, would have created opportunities for reprisal clearly beyond those present under the Jencks Act. To repeat, only items covered by the Jencks Act are subject to discovery under our order in this case. Clement Bros., moreover, involved proceedings before the Board, while in this case we were asked to determine the scope of discovery in our own Court.2
The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied.

. 18 U.S.C. § 3500.

. Although this proceeding will not occur before the Board, the Board is nonetheless willing to comply with its § 102.-118, i.e. acquiesce in discovery during the contempt hearing.