Court Opinion

ID: 9474599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:02:44.826853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:12.350523
License: Public Domain

SNEEDEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the panel on the facts of this case. However, I do not adopt certain broad language in the majority’s opinion which is unnecessary to decide the case before us.
Specifically, I object to language on page eight of the opinion that states “Maryland Cup next argues that the subpoena is burdensome in that it demands ‘a potentially unlimited number of documents.’ We find, however, that the EEOC is entitled to all documents relevant to the charge.” Similarly, I do not approve of language on page thirteen of the opinion that states “all relevant information within the company’s control is subject to the EEOC’s subpoena power.” Taken together, these statements may suggest an unlimited subpoena power for the EEOC and an invitation to conduct fishing expeditions. I am certain this result was not the intent of Congress.
Furthermore, the facts of this case indicate that it was not unduly burdensome for the employer to create evidence by interviewing present and former employees. *480However, I would limit this holding to the specific facts before us.