UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`DIVISION OF JUDGES
`SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`and
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC;
`
`and
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`and
`
`FP HOLDINGS, L.P. d/b/a
`PALMS CASINO RESORT AND PALMS PLACE, and
`FIESTA PARENTCO, L.L.C., General Partner;
`
`and
`
`NP BOULDER LLC d/b/a
`BOULDER STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`NP FIESTA LLC d/b/a
`FIESTA RANCHO HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`NP LAKE MEAD LLC d/b/a
`FIESTA HENDERSON CASINO HOTEL;
`
`and
`
`NP PALACE LLC d/b/a
`PALACE STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`NP RED ROCK LLC d/b/a
`RED ROCK CASINO, RESORT & SPA;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`NP SANTA FE LLC d/b/a
`SANTA FE STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`NP SUNSET LLC d/b/a
`SUNSET STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`NP TEXAS LLC d/b/a
`TEXAS STATION GAMBLING HALL AND HOTEL;
`
`and
`
`STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a
`GREEN VALLEY RANCH RESORT SPA CASINO;
`collectively, a Single Employer and
`Single Integrated Enterprise
`
`and
`
`LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS a/w
`UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL UNION
`
`and
`
`THOMAS STALLINGS, an Individual
`Party in Interest
`
`2
`
`Cases 28-CA-228052
`28-CA-228944
`28-CA-247602
`28-CA-248464
`28-CA-249203
`28-CA-249576
`28-CA-251083
`28-CA-251254
`28-CA-251803
`28-CA-252404
`28-CA-252964
`28-CA-256630
`28-CA-257778
`28-CA-260167
`28-CA-260169
`28-CA-260187
`28-CA-260199
`28-CA-260207
`28-CA-260209
`28-CA-260216
`28-CA-261666
`28-CA-262465
`28-CA-262973
`
`

`

`28-CA-262977
`28-CA-262980
`28-CA-262982
`28-CA-262987
`28-CA-263582
`28-CA-264135
`28-CA-264297
`28-CA-264465
`28-CA-264469
`28-CA-264476
`28-CA-264612
`28-CA-264619
`28-CA-264626
`28-CA-264631
`28-CA-264638
`28-CA-266556
`28-CA-266987
`28-CA-267067
`28-CA-268930
`28-CA-268957
`28-CA-268958
`28-CA-268960
`28-CA-269516
`28-CA-269517
`28-CA-269519
`28-CA-269520
`28-CA-269959
`28-CA-269962
`28-CA-269965
`28-CA-271251
`28-CA-271608
`28-CA-273812
`28-CA-273936
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`and
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC;
`
`and
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`NP SUNSET LLC d/b/a
`SUNSET STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`FP HOLDINGS, L.P. d/b/a
`PALMS CASINO RESORT AND PALMS PLACE, and
`FIESTA PARENTCO, L.L.C., General Partner;
`collectively, a Single Employer and
`Single Integrated Enterprise
`
`and
`
`INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
`LOCAL 501, AFL-CIO
`
`and
`
`THOMAS STALLINGS, an Individual
`Party in Interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases 28-CA-239331
`28-CA-247230
`28-CA-260724
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`and
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC;
`
`and
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`and
`
`NP TEXAS STATION LLC d/b/a TEXAS STATION
`GAMBLING HALL AND HOTEL;
`collectively, a Single Employer and Single Integrated
`Enterprise
`
`and
`
`Case 28-CA-245467
`
`MARIA SANJUANA ORTIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`and
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC
`
`and
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`and
`
`NP PALACE LLC LLC d/b/a PALACE STATION HOTEL &
`CASINO
`collectively, a Single Employer and
`Single Integrated Enterprise
`
`and
`
`BLAKE SAARI, AN INDIVIDUAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 28-CA-239376
`
`ORDER GRANTING LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LA VEGAS’
`PETITION TO REVOKE RESPONDENTS’ SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM B-1-
`1CZW1YL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On August 19, 2021, Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas (LJEB) filed a petition to
`revoke Respondents’ subpoena duces tecum B-1-1CZW1YL. On August 25, 2021, Respondents
`filed an opposition to the petition to revoke. On August 26, 2021, LJEB filed a reply to
`Respondents’ opposition.
`
`This is a complex matter where the consolidated complaint and second consolidated
`complaint allege that Respondents committed numerous violations of the Act since March 2018
`when LJEB and the International Union of Operating Engineers (IOUE) sought to organize and
`represent employees at Respondents’ facilities, and in response to employees’ protected concerted
`activities, filing of unfair labor practice charges and participating in National Labor Relations
`Board (NLRB or the Board) proceedings, union activities and support. The hearing commenced
`on August 24, 2021 and will resume on September 20, 2021 via video technology. The hearing is
`expected to last for at least 60 days involving countless witnesses and exhibits
`
`
`Respondents’ subpoena request encompasses 35 requests for documents since January 1,
`
`2018. LJJEB seeks to revoke most and/or narrow the 35 requests.1 LJEB contends generally that
`the subpoena requests are protected from disclosure as these requests infringe upon employees’
`Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Section 102.31(b) of the
`NLRB’s Rules and Regulations provide that a subpoena may be revoked if the evidence sought
`“does not relate to any matter […] in question in the proceeding or the subpoena does not describe
`
`1 To the extent that the subpoena duces tecum was served improperly due to the lack of witness fees being tendered,
`Respondents convey that they have corrected or intend to correct this defect.
`5
`
`
`

`

`with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required […]”
`
`In ruling on the petition to revoke, I have applied the principles expressed above in
`
`determining relevancy and whether the requests are vague, overly broad or unduly burdensome. I
`also considered the fact that in managing this complex case, I need to be as efficient as possible in
`order to utilize the resources of the private parties and the government appropriately and issue a
`decision in as timely a manner as possible.
`
`
`Despite my below rulings, LJEB has offered to provide documents in response to certain
`requests of Respondents. My ruling does not preclude LJEB from providing such documents as
`offered.
`
`With the above in mind, I address the disputed requests as follows:
`
`1. Request 1: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ request is vague and
`unduly burdensome and does not provide sufficient particularity as to what is being
`sought except for any possible document that Respondent may consider responsive
`to the entire complaint. This request requires LJEB to determine whether specific
`documents would be responsive to this catchall provision.
`
`2. Requests 2 and 3: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Recently, the Board ruled in
`Logmet, LLC, 09-CA-247369, unpub. Board order issued April 26, 2021 (2021
`WL 1814994), that parties may not circumvent Section 102.118 of the Board’s
`Rules and Regulations by subpoenaing material from a party that it could not
`obtain from the General Counsel. Section 102.118 prohibits NLRB employees or
`agents from “produc[ing] or present[ing] any files, documents, reports,
`memoranda, or records of the Board or of the General Counsel, whether in
`response to a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, without the written consent …
`of the General Counsel if the document is in a Regional Office of the Board ….”
`Respondent’s requests 2 and 3 are clearly privileged against disclosure by Section
`102.118.
`
`
`
`3. Requests 4, 5 and 6: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested
`documents are not reasonably relevant to these proceedings. Generally, subpoenaed
`information is relevant if it relates to any matter in question, or if it can provide
`background information or lead to other evidence potentially relevant to the disputed
`allegations or defenses. See McDonald’s USA, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 15
`(2016). If the subpoenaed information is not reasonably relevant, the subpoena should
`be revoked. See, e.g., UPMC, 366 NLRB No. 185, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2018) (trial judge
`did not abuse his discretion in revoking respondent’s subpoenas to the extent they
`sought information regarding the charging party union’s motive for its organizing
`campaign, as such information was not relevant to whether respondent violated the Act
`as alleged).
`
`Moreover, Board law prohibits an employer from subpoenaing the identity of
`employees who engage in union activities. Respondents’ request at 6 certainly would
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`necessitate disclosing the identity of employees engaging in Section 7 activities;
`redaction of such names would not then provide any evidence regarding employee
`credibility. See National Telephone Directory Corp., 319 NLRB 420, 421–422 (1995)
`(judge erred in ordering production of the names of employees who signed
`authorization cards and attended union meetings, as the confidentiality interests of
`such employees outweighed respondent’s need to obtain their identity for cross-
`examination and credibility impeachment purposes and could only be waived by the
`employees themselves).
`
`4. Requests 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested
`documents are not reasonably relevant to these proceedings, and I rely upon my
`analysis at paragraph 3.
`
`Moreover, as indicated by LJEB, request 8 appears to be a classic “fishing expedition”
`without any objective basis. See, e.g., NLRB v. RadNet Mgt., Inc., 818 Fed. Appx. 663,
`667 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020); Powerback Rehabilitation, 365 NLRB No. 119, slip op.
`at 1 n. 2, and 15 (2017). See also Alvarado v. GC Dealer Services Inc., 2018 WL
`6322188, at *4 (E.D. N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018) (“[C]ourts have required parties to establish
`good cause where discovery is sought solely to unearth potential impeachment
`material, and have not found such cause where the request is speculative.”), and cases
`cited there.
`
`Furthermore, requests 8, 9, and 10 infringes upon employees’ Section 7 rights
`whereby the documents, if produced, could reveal protected employee conduct.
`See Sheraton Anchorage, 19-CA-32148, unpub. Board order issued January 21,
`2011 (granting the union’s special appeal and quashing a respondent subpoena that
`sought all forms indicating that employees wanted continued representation by the
`union, notwithstanding that the General Counsel had introduced a few of them for
`impeachment purposes); and Trump Ruffin Commercial, LLC, 28–RC–153650,
`unpub. Board order issued July 28, 2016 (2016 WL 4036983) (affirming hearing
`officer’s ruling revoking the employer’s subpoena that requested “any and all
`photographs or records” in the petitioning union’s possession relating to the
`employer’s election objections, as production of such materials “could expose
`employee conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act that the Employer could not
`lawfully have photographed itself,” and the material was “not probative of [the
`Employer’s] specific objections” to the election).
`
`5. Request 12: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ request is vague and
`unduly burdensome and does not provide sufficient particularity as to what is
`being sought except for any possible document that Respondent may consider
`responsive to the entire complaint. This request requires LJEB to determine
`whether specific documents would be responsive.
`
`6. Request 13: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested documents are
`not reasonably relevant to these proceedings, and I rely upon my analysis at paragraph
`3. In addition, this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome whereby the
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`documents sought likely contain employees’ identities and union activities, infringing
`on employees’ Section 7 rights.
`
`7. Request 14: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ request is overbroad and
`unduly burdensome as the requested information seeks recordings, transcriptions, or
`notes of any meetings held by Respondent about the Union or union activity, and
`Respondent has failed to show that such materials are reasonably relevant.
`
`8. Request 15: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested documents are
`not reasonably relevant to these proceedings, and I rely upon my analysis at paragraph
`3. In addition, this request seeks documents likely to contain employees’ identities
`and union activities, infringing on employees’ Section 7 rights.
`
`9. Request 16: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested documents are
`not reasonably relevant to these proceedings, and I rely upon my analysis at paragraph
`3. Furthermore, Board law bars an employer from subpoenaing the identity of
`employees who engage in union activities. See National Telephone Directory Corp.
`
`10. Request 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’
`request infringes upon employees’ Section 7 rights whereby the documents, if
`produced, could reveal protected employee conduct. Furthermore, request 21
`seeks union authorization card, petitions and summaries of cards. However, Board
`law bars an employer from subpoenaing the identity of employees who engage in
`union activities.
`
`11. Requests 22 and 23: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested
`documents are not reasonably relevant to these proceedings, and I rely upon my
`analysis at paragraph 3.
`
`12. Requests 24, 25, and 26: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ request is
`not reasonably relevant to these proceedings and amounts to a “fishing expedition”
`without any objective basis.
`
`13. Requests 27 and 28: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested
`documents are not reasonably relevant to these proceedings, and I rely upon my
`analysis at paragraph 3.
`
`14. Request 29, 30: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondent seeks information that
`concerns internal union deliberations and as such the requested documents should not
`be provided. See Berbiglia, Inc., 233 NLRB 1476, 1495 (1977).
`
`15. Request 31: LJEB has agreed to produce certain audio or video recordings as set forth
`in its petition to revoke. Any responsive requests shall not disclose employees’
`Section 7 activities or internal union deliberations.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`16. Request 32: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ requested documents are
`not reasonably relevant to these proceedings.
`
`17. Request 33: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ request infringes upon
`employees’ Section 7 rights whereby the documents, if produced, could reveal
`protected employee conduct.
`
`18. Request 34 and 35: I grant LJEB’s petition to revoke. Respondents’ request is
`vague and unduly burdensome and does not provide sufficient particularity as to
`what is being sought.
`
`SO ORDERED
`
`Dated at San Francisco, California, this 31st day of August 2021.
`
`Amita B. Tracy
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have this 31st day of August 2021, caused copies of the foregoing document
`entitled, ORDER GRANTING LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS
`PETITION TO REVOKE RESPONDENTS’ SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM B-1-1CZW1YL, to
`be delivered by electronic mail upon the following:
`
`For the NLRB Region 28,
`Sara Demirok, Field Attorney.,
`Email sara.demirok@nlrb.gov
`Nathan A. Higley, Field Attorney,
`Email: nathan.higley@nlrb.gov
`Kyler A. Scheid, Field Attorney
`Email: kyler.scheid@nlrb.gov
`
`For the Respondents (Station Casinos):
`Douglas R. Sullenberger, Attorney at Law
`Joshua H. Viau, Attorney at Law
`Email: dsullenberger@fisherphillips.com
`jviau@fisherphillips.com
`Timothy H. Scott, Esq.
`Email: tscott@fisherphillips.com
`(Fisher & Phillips, LLP)
`
`For Charging Party Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas
`a/w UNITE HERE International Union
`Eric B. Myers, Esq.,
`Email: ebm@msh.law
`A. Mirella Nieto, Esq.,
`Email: amnieto@msh.law
`Kimberly C. Weber, Esq.,
`Email: kweber@msh.law
`(McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry LLP)
`
`Charging Party IUOE, Local 5
`David A. Rosenfeld, Attorney at Law
`Email: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
`(Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld)
`
`Vanise J. Lee
`Designated NLRB Agent
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`DiCrocco, Brian
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Attachments:
`
`DiCrocco, Brian
`Tuesday, August 31, 2021 4:55 PM
`Demirok, Sara; Higley, Nathan A.; Scheid, Kyler A.; 'dsullenberger@fisherphillips.com';
`'jviau@fisherphillips.com'; 'tscott@fisherphillips.com'; 'Eric Myers'; 'amnieto@msh.law';
`'kweber@msh.law'; David Rosenfeld; 'KKline@unitehere.org'
`Vanise Lee; Moore, Dawn M.
`Station GVR Acquisition - 28-CA-228052 : ORDER GRANTING LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF
`LA VEGAS’ PETITION TO REVOKE RESPONDENTS’ SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM B-1-1CZW1YL
`Order granting PTR filed by LJEB re R SDT 083121.pdf
`
`Dear Counsel, 
` 
`Please see the attached document.  
` 
`Brian C. DiCrocco, Legal Tech. 
`NLRB Division of Judges San Francisco 
`628‐221‐8821 
` 
`
`1
`
`