Walling v. American Rolbal Corporation
| Decision Date | 06 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 190.,190. |
| Citation | 135 F.2d 1003 |
| Parties | WALLING, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. AMERICAN ROLBAL CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Gustave B. Garfield, of New York City, for appellant.
Irving J. Levy, Acting Sol., and Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., both of Washington, D. C., Arthur E. Reyman, Regional Atty., of New York City, and Morton Liftin and Morton H. Rowen, Attys., U. S. Department of Labor, both of Washington, D. C., for administrator.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of ball and roller precision bearings and is admittedly subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.
Some time early in November of 1941 a representative of the Wages and Hours Division of the United States Department of Labor visited appellant's plant and requested permission to inspect its records. This permission was refused. Thereafter, in the same month, an examination was made pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the administrator and appellant was informed that there appeared to have been certain violations in connection with the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was asked to correct these, but did not do so at least to the satisfaction of the administrator and a request for the production of records for a more complete examination was made. This was refused and on August 8, 1942, the administrator issued another subpoena duces tecum which called for the production of books, papers and documents from December 1, 1941 to date, a period not covered by the first subpoena. More specifically the subpoena required the appellant to produce the time cards and records of all employees, the names and addresses of these employees, pay roll records, the production and cost account records of the corporation, and the accounts payable records, including the gross sales records. On the failure of the appellant to produce in accordance with the subpoena the administrator, pursuant to § 9 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 209, and §§ 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 49, 50, petitioned the District Court for an order compelling compliance.
In this petition there was an allegation that §§ 7(a) (1) (2) and (3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act relating to hours of work and overtime pay, and 15(a) (1) (2) and (5), relating to the prohibition of the transportation in interstate commerce of any goods produced in violation of the provisions of §§ 6, 7 or 11(c) covering the keeping of records, had, with the regulations issued pursuant thereto, been violated. Appellant denied this allegation in its answer. The parties were heard on the pleadings and the affidavits submitted. The District Court then ordered the production of the records described in the subpoena and this appeal followed. The appellant now concedes that it was lawfully required to produce the time cards, the payroll records and the names and addresses of all the employees in the plant. It does contend, however, that the order was erroneous in requiring the production of all accounts payable records, including gross sales records from December 1, 1941, to the date of the subpoena.
It is true, of course, that the data sought by subpoena duces tecum must be relevant to the inquiry at hand and that the use of this power must at all times be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling News Printing Co v. Same
...Martin Typewriter Co. v. Walling, 1 Cir., 135 F.2d 918; Walling v. Standard Dredging Corp., 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 322; Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 2 Cir., 135 F.2d 1003; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 209, reversed on other grounds, 315 U.S. 357, 788, 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed......
-
FCC v. Schreiber
...Board, 5 Cir., 209 F.2d 557, 560; cf. Chapman v. Maren Elwood College, 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 230, supra; Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 2 Cir., 135 F.2d 1003 at page 1005, supra. These matters are in the court\'s In Delno v. Market St. Ry. Co., 9th Cir., 1942, 124 F.2d 965, at Page 967, this ......
-
F. T. C. v. Texaco, Inc.
...Stipulation (filed 19 May 1976) at 3-4.178 353 U.S. 322, 323, 77 S.Ct. 804, 805, 1 L.Ed.2d 852 (1957).179 Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 135 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1943).180 The Trade Commission's and the majority's arguments notwithstanding, it is common for a district court to requir......
-
BRIXEN & CHRISTOPHER ARCH. v. State
...of the United States Constitution in that it allows the attorney general to conduct general searches. Cf. Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 135 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir.1943) ("It is true, of course, that the data sought by subpoena duces tecum must be relevant to the inquiry at hand and tha......