Reich v. Sturm

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 4, 1995
• Docket: CV-94-373-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Reich v . Sturm CV-94-373-M 10/04/95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert B . Reich, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. Civil N o . 94-373-M

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., Defendant.

O R D E R

By Order dated August 4 , 1995 (the "Order"), the court

granted the Secretary's Application for an Order Enforcing an

Administrative Subpoena. On August 1 6 , 1995, Sturm, Ruger &

Company, Inc. (the "Company") filed a Notice of Appeal to the

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Presently pending before

the court are the Company's motion to stay enforcement of the

Order pending appeal and a motion for reconsideration, which were

also filed on August 1 6 , 1995. For the reasons set forth below,

those motions are denied.

I. Motion for Reconsideration.

The Company submits its motion for reconsideration pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) (motion for new trial). However, it seems

more appropriate to consider the Company's motion in the context of Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment). See, e.g.,

Lopez v . Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510,

1513 (1st Cir. 1991) ("we subscribe to the majority view that `a

motion which asks the court to modify its earlier disposition of

a case because of an allegedly erroneous legal result is brought

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)'") (citations omitted). And, because

the Company has failed to point to any manifest error of law or

fact in the Order, the discovery of new and material evidence, or

an intervening change in the law, it has not demonstrated that it

is entitled to an amendment of the court's earlier judgment.

Jorge Rivera Surillo & C o . v . Falconer Glass Industries, Inc., 37

F.3d 2 5 , 29 (1st Cir. 1994); Hayes v . Douglas Dynamics, Inc., 8

F.3d 8 8 , 90-91 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2133

(1994); National Metal Finishing C o . v . BarclaysAmerican/

Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 124 n.2 (1st Cir. 1990).

Although not made clear previously, the parties agree that

the Company did properly pursue (and apparently continues to

pursue) administrative remedies available to challenge the

citation issued by the Secretary based on the Company's failure

2 to comply with his administrative subpoena.1 That fact does not,

however, affect the court's earlier conclusion that the validity

of the citation is not properly before it in this case.

Actually, it renders the need for collateral relief in this forum

entirely moot because the specific statutory procedure for

obtaining judicial review of the citation has been invoked.

Whether the citation is valid is a matter to be resolved

administratively in the first instance, and eventually by the

Court of Appeals. 29 U.S.C. §§659(c) and 660(a).

II. Motion for Stay.

The Company next argues that the court should stay

enforcement of the Order pending resolution of the Company's

appeal. The court disagrees. The Company has continuously

represented that it would have gladly turned over the subpoenaed

documents, provided the Secretary agreed not to use them in an

enforcement action against i t . Accordingly, no actual harm to

the Company will be occasioned by its compliance with the

subpoena that cannot be easily remedied should the Company

prevail on appeal. If the Court of Appeals resolves this matter

1 Because it was unclear from the record, the court noted that "the Company apparently failed to give timely notice of its intent to contest the citation . . .." Order, at 2 7 .

3 before the Secretary initiates an enforcement action, the

Secretary's decision in that respect will no doubt be consistent

with the established law. If the Secretary acts before the

appeal is resolved, the Court of Appeals will be in a position to

fashion an appropriate interim remedy, as needed. Moreover, as

discussed more completely in the Order, public policy

considerations weigh heavily against permitting further delay in

the production of the requested documents.

III. The Company's Request for a Hearing.

Although counsel for the Company requests a hearing, its

bases for that request are vague and general. The issues raised

by the Company in the pending motions appear to be almost

entirely legal ones which have been fully and adequately briefed

by both parties. Accordingly, the court has determined that oral

argument at this juncture would not be useful.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion to Stay

(document n o . 3 1 ) , its Motion for Reconsideration (document n o .

3 2 ) , and its Request for Hearing (document n o . 33) are denied.

4 SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge October 4 , 1995 cc: David L . Baskin, Esq. Gretchen Leah Witt, Esq. Jeremy Ritzenberg, Esq.