Jackson v. Allen Industries, 13231.

• Citation: 250 F.2d 629
• Decision Date: 02 January 1958
• Docket Number: No. 13231.,13231.
• Parties: Simon E. JACKSON, Appellant, v. ALLEN INDUSTRIES, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

250 F.2d 629 (1958)

Simon E. JACKSON, Appellant, v. ALLEN INDUSTRIES, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Appellee.

No. 13231.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

January 2, 1958.

Dee Edwards, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Howard M. Lubbers, Detroit, Mich. (Freud, Markus, Gilbert & Lubbers, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.

Geo. E. Woods, Detroit, Mich. (George E. Woods, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States as amicus curiae.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The principal question presented in this appeal is whether the District Court erred in refusing to compel obedience to a subpoena duces tecum served in behalf of plaintiff,¹ who had filed an action for wrongful discharge and interference with employment. The subpoena was served upon the special agent in charge of the Detroit Field Office of the FBI to compel production in court of certain FBI documents and records. The special agent, Charles W. Brown, a subordinate agent of the FBI, declined to produce the documents and records subpoenaed upon the ground that the Attorney General of the United States had determined under Executive Order 3229 of the Department of Justice to claim privilege as to the papers, etc. covered by the subpoena. The United States attorney was instructed by the Attorney General to present the claim of privilege to the United States District Court which thereupon refused to compel compliance with the subpoena. Under the applicable law this action of the District Court was correct. Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 20 S.Ct. 701, 44 L.Ed. 846; United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 S.Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417; Appeal of United States Securities & Exchange Commission, 6 Cir., 226 F.2d 501.

The complaint presented three counts, the first and second of which were abandoned by plaintiff and dismissed with prejudice. The third count prayed for damages alleged to have been caused by defendant's interference with plaintiff's employment and attempts to secure employment. Upon this feature of the case proof was offered to the effect that plaintiff was employed by defendant from January 6, 1947, until September 12, 1950. Plaintiff was later employed at the Ordnance Tank Automotive Center. He took a civil service examination in order to qualify for employment at the Ordnance Center. On October 24, 1952, after a hearing before the Regional Loyalty Board at Detroit, plaintiff's suspension from work at the...