Free Order Adopting Report and Recommendations - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00055-WQH-NLS

Document 13

Filed 05/22/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY Defendant. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, CASE NO. 08cv55WQH (NLS) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 12) filed on March 7, 2008. Plaintiff National Labor Relations Board filed an application for an order requiring Defendant Coca-Cola Bottling Company to comply with an administrative subpoena. On March 7, 2008, Magistrate Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this court grant the Plaintiff's application (Doc. # 12). No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. STANDARD OF REVIEW The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C.

-1-

06cv1855WQH

Case 3:08-cv-00055-WQH-NLS

Document 13

Filed 05/22/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). CONCLUSION This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that judicial notice of the Rules and Regulations published as 24 Fed. Reg. 9095 governing the Plaintiff's conduct is appropriate pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 1507; that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction; and that the subpoena is procedurally proper. The Report and Recommendation filed on March 7, 2008 (Doc. # 12) is adopted by this Court in its entirety. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's application for an order requiring Defendant to comply with an administrative subpoena is granted; and 2. The parties shall lodge a proposed joint protective order with the district court limited to affect only the Board's investigation, within seven days of this order; and 3. Defendant shall comply with all document production required by the subpoena within ten days of the date the protective order is signed by the district court; and 4. Defendant shall provide its custodian of records to appear before the Board to answer any and all questions relevant and material to the subpoenaed documents, under oath and before a court reporter, within thirty days of the document production. DATED: May 22, 2008 WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge

-2-

06cv1855WQH