finding no undue burden where employer failed to show “that the cost of gathering [responsive] information is unduly burdensome in the light of the company’s normal operating costs” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- finding no undue burden where employer failed to show “that the cost of gathering [responsive] information is unduly burdensome in the light of the company’s normal operating costs” (emphasis added)
- finding that the additional cost of $75,000 to comply with a subpoena was not unduly burdensome absent a showing that “gathering the information would threaten its normal business operations”
- rejecting challenge to subpoena where company had shown neither that cost of gathering information was "unduly burdensome in the light of the company’s normal operating costs,” nor that "gathering the information would threaten its normal business operations”
- holding EEOC’s request was not unduly burdensome where company was required to inspect photos and interview employees in order to ascertain the race of former employees, even though compliance would cost $75,000
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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. *480 However, I would limit this holding to the specific facts before us.