United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Petitioner,
TIMOTHY SCHULTZ, an individual, And SUSAN GALBREATH, an individual, Respondents.
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS\SECRETARY OF LABOR'S PETITION TO ENFORCE
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM [ECF No.
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
Schultz (“Schultz”) and Susan Galbreath
“Respondents”) move to dismiss administrative
subpoenas duces tecum ordered by R. Alexander Acosta,
Secretary of Labor. Respondents object to the Court's
Order granting enforcement of the subpoenas.
present a detailed timeline in their motion.
the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”)
opened a wage and hours investigation into Procorp, LLC
(“Procorp”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”). Schultz was Procorp's sole owner
and member. Galbreath was its employee. Procorp has since
ceased doing business.
cooperated with the investigation until the Secretary issued
administrative subpoenas duces tecum. The subpoenas ordered
them to appear at depositions and bring nine categories of
objected to the ninth category: “A list of all entities
for which [Respondents] served or serves as a Resident Agent
and a description of the work performed by each such
entity.” [ECF No. 4-18, PageID.180; ECF No. 4-19,
did not provide the lists and descriptions. Nor did they
answer deposition questions concerning other business
Secretary petitioned the Court for enforcement of the
subpoenas. [ECF No. 1] There was no response to this
Court granted it and ordered Respondents to comply with the
subpoenas or show cause for noncompliance. [ECF No. 3] They
then filed this “response and motion.” [ECF No.
ask the Court to “dismiss” the subpoenas duces
tecum for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). They say that the Secretary fails to meet the
requirements for administrative subpoenas duces tecum.
Court DENIES Respondents' motion.
subpoena duces tecum is not a cognizable “claim,
” and therefore Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) does not apply.
The proper procedural route for the relief Respondents ...