E.E.O.C. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Aero & Naval Systems

• Decision Date: 26 June 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-1853,96-1853
• Citation: 116 F.3d 110
• Parties: 74 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 202, 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,812, 38 Fed.R.Serv.3d 104 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, AERO & NAVAL SYSTEMS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 110

116 F.3d 110

74 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 202,

71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,812, 38 Fed.R.Serv.3d 104

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, AERO & NAVAL SYSTEMS Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-1853.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 3, 1997.

Decided June 26, 1997.

ARGUED: Russell Heuer Gardner, Piper & Marbury, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul D. Ramshaw, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William L. Reynolds, Gerard D. St. Ours, Piper & Marbury, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. C. Gregory Stewart, General Counsel, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Associate General Counsel, Vincent J. Blackwood, Assistant General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge DONALD S. RUSSELL and Judge MURNAGHAN joined.

OPINION

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:

Between 1992 and 1994, more than twenty former employees of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Aero and Naval Systems (Lockheed) contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to allege that Lockheed had selected them for lay off on the basis of age. Some of the former employees charged that Lockheed engaged in a pattern of discrimination against older workers. As part of the EEOC's investigation into the company's practices, the Commission requested that the company identify what computerized personnel files the company had maintained on Aero and Naval Systems employees from 1991 to 1995.

When Lockheed refused to turn over the information voluntarily, the EEOC issued a subpoena for the information. After the company still refused to produce the requested information, the EEOC filed with the district court an application for enforcement of the subpoena. Following a conference call with the parties, the district court issued an order denying enforcement of the subpoena on the ground that the EEOC had not adequately demonstrated that the material sought was relevant to its investigation.

Within ten days, the EEOC timely moved for reconsideration, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Attached to that motion were affidavits of eight EEOC employees located in various regional offices that clarified that the information the Commission sought would permit the EEOC to pursue "a faster, more efficient investigation." The district court granted the EEOC's motion for reconsideration and ordered enforcement of the subpoena.

The court reasoned that the EEOC, in its motion and supporting memorandum, had adequately explained "how a description of Lockheed's computer filing system would assist" the EEOC investigation--i.e., by permitting the agency to "perform its investigative function ... with greater efficiency." The court explained that "armed with the preliminary information it seeks" the EEOC would be able to "frame its subsequent requests with greater specificity and with a greater likelihood of obtaining all the personnel information to which it was entitled." The court found that "the ability to frame more precise requests will help limit the possibility that irrelevant or unnecessary material will be produced for the EEOC to review." The EEOC would then be "in a better position to obtain and analyze whatever information may be available in usable computer form, rather than being required to undertake the more laborious process of searching paper files." The court also noted that the EEOC had provided the court with "new evidence" in the form of affidavits, helping to demonstrate that the information sought was relevant.

Lockheed subsequently moved the district court to stay enforcement of the subpoena pending appeal. The company asserted that the order granting the EEOC's Rule 59(e) motion had been improperly based on newly discovered, previously unavailable evidence, when, in fact, the affidavits were not previously unavailable. The court denied the motion for a stay, finding "little likelihood" that Lockheed would prevail on appeal because enforcement of the subpoena was "virtually mandated by controlling law in the Fourth Circuit." The court recognized that the affidavits might not have constituted newly discovered evidence but found this unimportant because "[m]y ruling granting the EEOC's Rule 59 motion ... did not rest on the 'unavailability' of the evidence." Rather, the court explained that its original order denying enforcement of the subpoena had been "based on an erroneous understanding of the relevance" of the data requested and that permitting that ruling to stand would result in "manifest injustice."

On appeal, Lockheed challenges the district court's grant of the EEOC's Rule 59(e) motion and the court's decision on the merits granting enforcement of the subpoena. We address each argument in turn.

I.

We review an order granting a Rule 59(e) motion under an abuse of discretion standard. See Boryan v. United States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir.1989). Rule 59(e) permits a court to amend a judgment within ten days for three reasons:

(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.

Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.1993).

Lockheed asserts that the district court based its ruling on the second prong of the Hutchinson test--"new evidence"--and that under Boryan, 884 F.2d 767, the affidavits the EEOC submitted in support of its Rule 59(e) motion could not qualify as "new evidence." As the district court recognized, since the EEOC affidavits were available at the time the Commission originally sought enforcement of the subpoena, they may not have constituted newly discovered evidence, providing the proper basis for a Rule 59(e) motion. However, the district court specifically clarified in its order denying stay of the subpoena that "new evidence" was not the basis for its order granting the Rule 59(e) motion. The court explained:

The affidavits made it clear that the order denying enforcement was based on an erroneous understanding of the relevance of the information sought by the EEOC. In the context of a public agency attempting to fulfill its statutorily mandated purpose, manifest injustice would have been the result of allowing a ruling based on an erroneous and inadequate record to stand.

Thus, the court based its decision to grant the motion for reconsideration on the third prong of the Hutchinson test. That prong permits a court, in its discretion, to grant a Rule 59(e) motion "to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson, 994 F.2d at 1081. The district court did not in any way abuse its discretion in granting the Rule 59(e) motion on that basis. Indeed, if, as the district court further found, our precedent "virtually mandate[s]" enforcement of the subpoena in this case, the district court would likely have abused its discretion if it had failed to grant the Rule 59(e) motion.

II.

Having determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the EEOC's Rule 59(e) motion, we turn to the question of whether the district court's order enforcing the subpoena was clearly erroneous. See Reich v. National Eng'g & Contracting Co., 13 F.3d 93, 98 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that an order enforcing an administrative subpoena is reviewed for clear error).

Generally, a district court's role in enforcing administrative subpoenas is "sharply limited." EEOC v. City of Norfolk Police Dep't, 45 F.3d 80, 82 (4th Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted). In order to enforce such a subpoena, a court must be satisfied that the administrative agency has shown that:

(1) it is authorized to make such investigation; (2) it has complied with statutory requirements of due process; and (3) the materials requested are relevant.

Id. (quoting EEOC v. American and Efird Mills, Inc., 964 F.2d 300, 302-03 (4th Cir.1992)). See also NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507, 510 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that a court should enforce an NLRB subpoena "if the information sought is relevant" and "described with sufficient particularly"). Neither in the district court nor on appeal does Lockheed make any claim that the EEOC was not authorized to conduct this investigation or that the Commission failed to comply with statutory due process requirements. Lockheed's sole argument is that the requested information is not relevant.

The Supreme Court has characterized the relevancy requirement as "not especially constraining." EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 68, 104 S.Ct. 1621, 1631, 80 L.Ed.2d 41 (1983). Rather, "the term 'relevant' " will be "generously construed" to "afford[ ] the Commission access to virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer." Id. at 68-69, 104 S.Ct. at 1631. We determine relevancy "in terms of the investigation" rather...