Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch

Citation866 F.3d 93
Decision Date02 August 2017
Docket NumberNo. 16-2514,16-2514
Parties EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a subpoena enforcement action against the City of Long Branch in furtherance of its efforts to obtain documents pertaining to a charge of discrimination. A Magistrate Judge issued an order to enforce the subpoena, in part, and the EEOC appealed the order to the District Court. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order. Before us is the EEOC's appeal from the District Court's order.

The EEOC raises two substantive issues on appeal, the first regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the second regarding the disclosure to the charging party of other employees' disciplinary and related records. However, our review of the record reveals a significant procedural defect pertaining to the treatment of the motion to enforce under the Federal Magistrates Act. This error, in light of the facts of this case, precludes us from reaching the merits of the EEOC's arguments. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the order of the District Court and remand.

I.

On or about February 7, 2013, Lieutenant Lyndon Johnson ("Lt. Johnson") of the Long Branch Police Department filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against the City of Long Branch ("Long Branch"). Lt. Johnson is an African-American man. He charged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), by subjecting him "to different and harsher disciplinary measures than similarly situated white colleagues who committed the same or similar ... infractions." Appendix ("App.") 32. On August 19, 2013, the EEOC served Long Branch with a notice to charge. On December 30, 2013, the EEOC requested "all disciplinary records" for Lt. Johnson and six Caucasian comparator officers. App. 19, 33. Long Branch responded by letter to the EEOC that it was preparing the requested materials but that it would not produce the materials unless the EEOC executed a confidentiality agreement wherein it would agree to not reveal "confidential" materials, including the personnel files of the comparators, to anyone, including Lt. Johnson. App. 54. The EEOC refused to execute such an agreement.

The EEOC served a subpoena on Long Branch by email and certified mail on July 23, 2014. The subpoena requested "a copy of any and all documents which refer to or address the disciplinary records" for Lt. Johnson and the six comparators. App. 63. Long Branch, in response, sent the EEOC a document titled "Notice of Motion to Quash Subpoena." App. 68. The document had a caption for the Superior Court of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division on Civil Rights. The EEOC received this document on August 7, 2014. The notice reiterated Long Branch's position that it would not disclose the requested documents without an executed confidentiality agreement. The document reads, in part:

7. The subpoena seeks confidential disciplinary records of various Officers, who have no involvement in the claimant's matter, and this is contrary to the Policy and Procedures of Internal Affairs which has strict requirements for release of such records.
8. As previously stated, the respondent is not in privy to disclose the subpoenaed records unless EEOC meets the criteria as set-forth in the Policy and Procedures, or in the alternative, guarantee[s] Confidential[ity] of these records.
9. Accordingly, the respondent object[s] to the subpoena of these disciplinary records and seek[s] to quash the subpoena.

App. 72.

Section 1601.16(b) of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that a person or entity intending not to comply with an EEOC subpoena submit a petition to modify or revoke the subpoena to the EEOC's Director or General Counsel within five days after service. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(b)(1). Long Branch never submitted such a petition.

On February 10, 2015, the EEOC filed a motion in federal district court seeking enforcement of its subpoena. The EEOC argued that because Long Branch failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by filing a timely petition to revoke or modify, it waived its right to object to the subpoena. In addition, the EEOC argued that even if Long Branch were not precluded from contesting the subpoena, its refusal to turn over the subpoenaed materials was improper.

A federal Magistrate Judge issued an order enforcing the subpoena, in part. The Magistrate Judge acknowledged the EEOC's exhaustion argument but did not consider whether the statute and regulations established an exhaustion requirement. Citing the EEOC's brief, the Magistrate Judge simply observed that "[h]ere, Respondent failed to file a timely petition to revoke or modify the EEOC subpoena in accordance with regulations, and instead remained steadfast in its refusal to produce the records." App. 12. The Magistrate Judge then compelled Long Branch to provide the requested documents, but required the EEOC to avoid disclosure of the comparators' employment and personnel records to Lt. Johnson, reasoning that under EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. , 449 U.S. 590, 101 S.Ct. 817, 66 L.Ed.2d 762 (1981), disclosure of the comparators' records to Lt. Johnson would be improper.

The EEOC appealed the Magistrate Judge's order to the District Court, requesting that the District Court "reverse that part of the Order ... that restricts EEOC's ability to disclose records obtain[ed] during its investigation to the charging party or his counsel." App. 108. The EEOC did not object to the part of the Magistrate Judge's order referencing exhaustion, and the District Court did not address the issue. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order that Long Branch turn over the comparators' employment and personnel records and that the EEOC not disclose those files to Lt. Johnson. Like the Magistrate Judge, the District Court relied on Associated Dry Goods , holding that " [w]ith respect to all files other than his own, [the charging party] is a stranger.’ Accordingly, the Order's restriction on the disclosure of the comparator's personnel and employment records was not contrary to law." App. 8 (alterations in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Assoc. Dry Goods , 449 U.S. at 603, 101 S.Ct. 817 ). The EEOC timely appealed.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and 2000e-9 and 29 U.S.C. § 161(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court's decision to enforce an administrative subpoena. McLane Co. v. EEOC , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1159, 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 500 (2017), as revised , (Apr. 3, 2017). "Abuse of discretion occurs when ‘the district court's decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.’ " Chao v. Cmty. Tr. Co. , 474 F.3d 75, 79 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting NLRB v. Frazier , 966 F.2d 812, 815 (3d Cir. 1992) ).

III.

The EEOC raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether Long Branch is precluded from contesting the motion to enforce because it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (hereinafter, the "exhaustion issue"), and (2) whether the EEOC may disclose information from the non-charging parties' employment and personnel records to Lt. Johnson (hereinafter, the "disclosure issue"). Despite the compelling nature of these issues, we will not reach them because of a procedural error committed by the District Court: the District Court erroneously treated the motion to enforce that the Magistrate Judge had reviewed as a nondispositive motion instead of a dispositive motion. This is a meaningful distinction under the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631, et seq. , as the categorization of motion dictates, inter alia , the level of authority with which a magistrate judge may act on a motion and the availability and standard of review afforded by the District Court and our Court. We will first review the differing treatment of nondispositive and dispositive motions under the Act and as developed by our jurisprudence. We will then turn to the facts of the instant case.

A.

The office of magistrate judge was created by the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631, et seq. (the "Act") to "relieve courts of unnecessary work and to improve access to the courts." Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D'Andrea, Inc. , 150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Niehaus v. Kan. Bar Ass'n , 793 F.2d 1159, 1165 (10th Cir. 1986) ). In this Circuit, magistrate judges are highly valued and are vital to the just and efficient resolution of cases filed in the federal courts. See Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif , –––U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1938–39, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) ("[I]t is no exaggeration to say that without the distinguished service of [magistrate and bankruptcy judges], the work of the federal court system would grind nearly to a halt."); Peretz v. United States , 501 U.S. 923, 928, 111 S.Ct. 2661, 115 L.Ed.2d 808 (1991) ("Given the bloated dockets that district courts have now come to expect as ordinary, the role of the magistrate in today's federal judicial system is nothing less than indispensable." (quoting Gov't of the V.I. v. Williams , 892 F.2d 305, 308 (3d Cir. 1989) )).

In furtherance of this purpose, the Act authorizes district court judges to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
661 cases
  • Luna Music, LLC v. Exec. Ins. Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...... removal, as long as the defendant claims in its petition that. ... opportunity to avoid the costs of litigation and encourage. ... non-dispositive matters. Equal Employment Opportunity. Comm'n v. City of ong Branch , 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d. Cir. 2017) (for a ......
  • Khrapunov v. Prosyankin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 24 Julio 2019
    ...addressed the issue agree that a ruling on a motion to enforce an administrative subpoena is dispositive. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch , 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding that the district court erroneously treated the agency’s motion to enforce a subpoena as a non-dispositive mat......
  • Speakman v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 21 Febrero 2020
    ...P. 72(b)(3).3 The Court has also afforded reasoned consideration to any unobjected-to portions of the Report. EEOC v. City of Long Branch , 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Objections of Plaintiffs are OVERRULED-in-PART, the Objections of Pr......
  • Dietrich v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 19 Noviembre 2020
    ...filed a response (Doc. 19) thereto, and following de novo review of the contested portions of the report, see E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ), and affording "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions, see id. (quotin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT