CNN America, Inc., 891 (2008)

National Labor Relations Board

Linked as:

Extract


CNN America, Inc., 891 (2008)

CNN America, Inc. and Team Video Services, LLC, Joint Employers and National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, Communications Workers of America, Local 31, AFL–CIO and National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, Communications Workers of America, Local 11, AFL–CIO. Cases 5–CA–31828 and 5–CA–33125 (formerly 2-CA-36129)

February 13, 2009

ORDER[1]

By Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber

On September 24, 2007, in connection with the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding, the General Counsel served a 243-paragraph subpoena duces tecum on Respondent CNN America, Inc. (CNN), and Charging Party NABET,[2] Local 31 (the Union) served CNN with a similar subpoena. Thereafter, an unfair labor practice hearing opened before Administrative Law Judge Arthur Amchan of the National Labor Relations Board on November 7, 2007. On December 3, 2007, the judge denied the Respondent’s petition to revoke the subpoenas, ruling that the subpoenas were enforceable except to the extent that he specifically ruled otherwise or deferred making a decision on particular issues. On December 7, 2007, CNN filed a request for special permission to appeal this ruling to the Board.[3]

On May 30, 2008, the Board issued a Decision and Order granting CNN’s request for special permission to appeal with regard to the issue of the burdensomeness of producing certain types of information requested in electronic form.[4] The Board found that “the documents requested by the subpoenas are plainly related to the matters under litigation” and “that CNN makes a plausible argument that production of certain types of information in electronic form could be disruptive of its business operations.”[5] Thus, in the particular circumstances of this complex proceeding, the Board found it “necessary to strike a balance between the competing interests of the parties in the relevancy and necessity of the information and the potential cost and burdensomeness of its production in the form requested.”[6] Accordingly, the Board remanded the issues raised in the appeal, except as noted, to the chief administrative law judge for the assignment of another administrative law judge to act as a special master to resolve those issues.[7] The Board further directed that the special master should conduct this balancing test by applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and using The Sedona Principles[8] as a framework for analysis.[9] The Board also instructed the special master to make recommendations to the Board concerning issues that cannot be resolved, if necessary.[10] For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Special Master’s Report and Recommendations.

i. special master’s report and recommendations

On December 1, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Paul Buxbaum issued the attached Special Master’s Report and Recommendations,[11] in which he recommended that the Board accept the withdrawal by the General Counsel and the Union of significant portions of the subpoenas and find that CNN has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that any of the information being sought pursuant to the General Counsel’s revised subpoena would be unduly burdensome to produce. On December 11, 2008, the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause why the Board should not accept in its entirety the Special Master’s Report and Recommendations. Charging Party NABET, Local 11 filed “comments” urging the Board to adopt the Special Master’s findings and recommendations, CNN filed a brief urging the Board to reject the Special Master’s Report and Recommendations in its entirety, and the General Counsel and the Union filed reply briefs in opposition to CNN’s brief.

Pursuant to the Board’s instructions, Judge Buxbaum assisted the parties in trying to resolve the remaining subpoena issues raised in CNN’s special appeal. As a result of Judge Buxbaum’s efforts, the General Counsel withdrew all of his outstanding subpoena requests except for portions of four paragraphs and now seeks only those documents identified in CNN’s second revised privilege a...

See the full content of this document

Sponsored links




ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company