National Labor Relations Board SubRegion 24 v. Quality Health Services, Inc.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., d/b/a/
HOSPITAL SAN CRISTOBAL,
Respondent.
Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are two motions. First is an application (“Application”) for an
Order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum B-1-1P71YLH (“Subpoena”) properly served on
respondent Quality Health Services, Inc. d/b/a/ Hospital San Cristobal (“Quality Health” or
“respondent”) 	by 	petitioner 	National 	Labor 	Relations 	Board 	(“NLRB” 	or 	“petitioner”).
ECF No. 1. Second, a supplemental motion requesting a protective order and an order to
reschedule a witness’ testimony during the upcoming administrative hearing. ECF No. 15. For
the reasons explained below, the application to enforce the Subpoena is GRANTED and the
supplemental motion is DENIED.
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 2
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
This is not the first time during the ongoing consolidated administrative proceedings
between the Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la Salud and Hospital Menonita
Ponce, Inc. that the NLRB has required the intervention of the District Court to compel Quality
Health Service’s compliance with a subpoena. The first such instance was on October 13, 2023,
where 	the 	NLRB 	requested 	enforcement 	of 	subpoena 	duces 	tecum 	B-l-U8G26T 	(“Prior
Subpoena”). NLRB v. Quality Health Servs., Case No. 23-mc-00504-PAD (“Prior Case”), ECF No.
1. In the Prior Case, the respondent similarly sought a protective order, alleging that the Prior
Subpoena demonstrated “a pattern of harassment and undue burden.” Id., ECF No. 32, at 5. The
Honorable Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández granted the NLRB’s application to enforce,
ordering that “Quality Health Services, Inc., shall provide to the Board all responsive
documents, books, papers, records and other data on or before required by Subpoena B-1-
1J8G26T. . . .” Id., ECF No. 12. In the Prior Case, Judge Delgado-Hernández denied respondent’s
request for a protective order. Id., ECF No. 34.
As the underlying administrative proceedings have continued, applicant issued the
instant Subpoena to “obtain testimony and evidence for trial,” specifically for an upcoming
hearing commencing on February 17, 2026. ECF No. 1, at 3. In the Subpoena, applicant indicated
that “Respondent did not have to produce any documents it may have previously produced
pursuant to [the Prior Subpoena], if it reached stipulations as to the authenticity of said
documents,” and extended respondent invitations to discuss document production and
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 3
authentication, which applicant alleges “[r]espondent has rebuffed” Id., at 8-9. After service of
the Subpoena, respondent filed a petition to revoke the Subpoena before the administrative law
judge, which was denied. Id., at 9-10. The respondent did not attend either a hearing on
September 30, 2025, or a hearing on November 19, 2025, discuss matters concerning the
Subpoena and production. Id., at 10-11. Following the hearing, the administrative law judge
ordered documents responsive to the Subpoena to be produced by December 10, 2025. Id., at 11.
Respondent failed to comply. Id.
The NLRB filed the instant Application on January 7, 2026, requesting that the Court
compel Quality Health’s compliance with the Subpoena. ECF No. 1. In the Application, the
NLRB claims that “[t]o date, and despite Applicant’s several attempts to seek compliance or an
amicable resolution, Respondent has failed to comply with [the Subpoena].” Id., at 11. Applicant
alleges that, even after the order in the Prior Case, respondent “produced improperly redacted
and incomplete payroll records, as well as no personnel files. . . .” Id., at 3.1 Applicant requests
that the Court issue an ”order requiring Respondent to appear before an agent of the Board, at
a date, time and place to be set by the Court; to produce subpoena documents relevant to the
matters in question in the investigation before the Board” and “such other and further relief as
may be necessary and appropriate.” Id., at 12.
On January 15, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directed at respondent,
1 The Prior Subpoena sought production of many similar – and some identical – categories of documents of
documents from Quality Health as the Subpoena. Compare NLRB v. Quality Health Servs., Case No. 23-mc-00504-
PAD, ECF No. 1, at 3 (requests 2, 3, 4, and 5) with ECF No. 1, at 4-6 (requests 1, 12, and 13).
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 4
requiring that it file a response to the Application by no later than January 29, 2026. ECF No. 3.
On January 29, 2026, Attorney Feldstein filed a motion for an extension of time on behalf of
respondent, requesting until February 19, 2026, to fully respond to the Application. ECF No. 5.
On February 5, 2026, the Court granted respondent’s request in part, ECF No. 10, and on
February 9, 2026, respondent filed its full response to the Application. ECF No. 14.
In its response, Quality Health argues that it “has already complied” with the Subpoena,
based on its production responsive to the Prior Subpoena in the Prior Case. ECF No 14, at 2.
Respondent alleges that it “has certified through counsel that it has produced all materials in its
possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the Subpoena, and that documents which
have not been produced do not exist.” Id., at 3. Additionally, respondent argues that it has
“produced the substantive content of every responsive document in its possession,” although
qualifying that it produced them with redactions “limited to information concerning non-party
individuals, information that implicates legitimate privacy interests, and information that is not
necessary for the Board to prove its case.” Id., at 4. Moreover, respondent claims that it “is willing
to engage in bilateral discussions with the Board to address” any “specific, identified categories”
of documents that were not covered by the previous production. Id., at 5 (emphasis in original).
Respondent requests that the Court deny the Application or in the alternative, declare that
respondent’s prior electronic production was sufficient. Id., at 2, 4.2
2 Specifically, respondent states that it is willing to “confer with the Board as to whether any of those items seek
documents beyond what was already produced and, if so, to produce any additional responsive materials in
Respondent’s possession,” but requests that the Court decline to issue “a blanket enforcement order that requires
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 5
The NLRB filed replies in response to the motion for extension of time and respondent’s
opposition on February 4, 2026, and February 12, 2026, respectively. ECF Nos. 6, 16. In its reply,
applicant reiterates that “the production of documents Respondent refers to pursuant to the
[Prior Subpoena] . . . was incomplete and improperly redacted,” and that, even after “Applicant
made Respondent aware of the specific deficiencies of its production, in a detailed letter
addressing each item for which the documentation was incomplete and pointing out that the
produced material has relevant and necessary information redacted,” that “no response was
provided” from the respondent. ECF No. 6, at 3. Applicant maintains that it has:
[M]ade multiple attempts to contact Respondent’s Counsel to discuss potential
stipulations and attempt to facilitate Respondent’s compliance with the Subpoena;
however, Respondent’s counsel has not been responsive to Applicant’s continued
requests, showing no interest in reaching stipulations or engaging in discussions
with the Board. . . . At no time since the issuance of the Subpoena has Respondent
offered to engage in discussions for stipulations nor depicted any interest in
cooperating to resolve the issues pending with the Subpoena, despite Applicant’s
expressed willingness.
Id., at 3-4. Applicant also states that it “is not requesting duplicate production of material, but a
complete and unredacted production in usable format of relevant and necessary documents”
and that “any document that has already been completely produced, and in unredacted format,
and as to which Respondent is willing to bring its custodian of records to stipulate to its
authenticity during the administrative proceeding, shall not be required to be re-produced.”
Respondent to re-produce everything from scratch.” ECF No. 14, at 5. Additionally, respondent requests that any
order by the Court “permit any supplemental production to be made electronically, in the same format as the prior
production, and that Respondent not be required to produce hard copies or undertake format conversions that
would impose additional cost and burden on a non-party.” Id.
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 6
ECF No. 16, at 5.
II. 	Legal Standard
The United States District Court is authorized under 29 U.S.C.A. § 161 to order compliance
with a subpoena from the NLRB “[i]n case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena” issued
in an administrative proceeding. “A subpoena is not a suggestion to appear when mutually
convenient, nor is it ‘an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must
testify only if cornered at the end of the chase.’” Hedison Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 643 F.2d 32, 34 (1st
Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. at 331 (1950)).
Accordingly, in proceedings where the NLRB seeks judicial enforcement of a subpoena, the
court should undertake a limited inquiry. Although the First Circuit has not specifically
addressed the standard of review for subpoena requests by the NLRB, other circuits’ guidance
is instructive. For example, the Second Circuit has stated that “[t]he law is clear that a district
judge passing upon a request for enforcement of a subpoena pursuant to section 161(2) may
undertake only an extremely limited inquiry.” N.L.R.B. v. Frederick Cowan & Co., 522 F.2d 26, 28
(2d Cir. 1975). In determining whether to grant enforcement of a subpoena, the Court should
consider primarily whether the subpoena is unreasonable because it is overly broad or unduly
burdensome. The standard the Tenth and Fourth Circuits have employed to determine whether
a subpoena is unduly burdensome is whether “compliance would unduly disrupt and seriously
hinder normal operations of the business.” E.E.O.C. v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 985 F.2d 1036,
1039 (10th Cir. 1993); see E.E.O.C. v. Maryland Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 479 (4th Cir. 1986). Thus,
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 7
where the NLRB has established that it properly issued a non-burdensome, relevant subpoena
that is not overly broad, the court should enforce the subpoena.
III. 	Discussion
a. 	Subpoena Duces Tecum
In keeping with the nature of the limited inquiry a district court should perform when
determining whether to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by the NLRB, the Court will not
delve into the respondent’s quibbles regarding certification of document production by counsel,
see ECF No. 5, at 4; ECF No. 14, at 3-4, abuse of judicial resources, see ECF No. 14, at 6-8, or
“efforts” regarding stipulation, see id., at 9. Each of these arguments merely attempts to distract
the Court from respondent’s complete noncompliance with the ordered production, and each
ultimately is inapposite to whether the Subpoena should be enforced.
The Court will enforce the Subpoena if it is relevant to the administrative proceedings,
not unduly burdensome to respondent, and not overly broad in its requests. Here, the
respondent does not dispute the relevance of the Subpoena to the proceedings. It is clear to the
Court that the requests regarding whether Quality Health’s employees and employment
practices are relevant to the administrative hearing regarding Quality Health’s successor,
Hospital Menonita Ponce, Inc. engaged in unfair labor practices with its employees. ECF No. 1,
at 2.
As to whether the Subpoena is unduly burdensome, respondent argues that it would be,
explaining that it already “produced documents to the Board electronically on May 10, 2024” in
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 8
response to the Prior Subpoena, and those “documents were responsive to the same categories
of information sought in the trial Subpoena,” and therefore “[r]equiring Respondent to re-
produce the same materials, in the same or a different format, serves no legitimate purpose and
imposes an unnecessary burden on a non-party to the underlying administrative proceeding.”
ECF No. 14, at 5. Yet the NLRB has alleged that respondent’s prior-produced documents were
improperly redacted and incomplete. ECF No. 1, at 3. It is, therefore, not unduly burdensome
for respondent to produce properly redacted and complete versions of the documents that were
already electronically produced to the NLRB. Moreover, this halfhearted undue burden
argument hardly rises to the threshold of “unduly disrupt[ing] and seriously hinder[ing] normal
operations of [respondent’s] business.” E.E.O.C., 985 F.2d at 1039.
Finally, respondent implies that the Subpoena is overly broad, arguing that the NLRB
should seek “specific, identified categories” of documents that were not already produced. ECF
No. 14, at 5. Yet the Court has identified only three of the NLRB’s eight Subpoena requests that
would be duplicative of the Prior Subpoena. See supra, at 3 n. 1. And because the documents that
were produced in response to the Prior Subpoena need updated, more narrowly tailored
redactions, they will likely need to be produced again. ECF No. 1, at 3. Moreover, applicant has
“clarifie[d] that any document that has already been completely produced, and in unredacted
format, and as to which Respondent is willing to bring its custodian of records to stipulate to its
authenticity during the administrative proceeding, shall not be required to be re-produced.”
ECF No. 16, at 5. The Court does not find that the Subpoena’s eight requests are overly broad.
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 9
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	applicant’s 	motion 	to 	enforce 	the
Subpoena at ECF No. 1.
b. 	Motion Requesting Protective Order and Order Rescheduling Testimony
29 U.S.C.A. § 161, grants the district court jurisdiction, upon application of the NLRB, to
compel the production of evidence or the production of witnesses. This grant of statutory
authority is clearly not one to provide protective orders to parties opposing the enforcement of
subpoenas nor is it one to micromanage the administrative proceeding’s scheduling.
Accordingly, the Court declines to do either. Respondent’s request for a protective order and
rescheduling at ECF No. 15 is DENIED.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS applicant’s request to enforce the
subpoena duces tecum at ECF No. 1 and DENIES Respondent’s request for a protective order
and testimony rescheduling at ECF No. 15.3
Quality Health shall provide to the Board in electronic format all responsive documents,
books, papers, records and other data on or before required by the Subpoena B-1-1P71YLH by
no later than February 23, 2026, or at such other date as the parties mutually agree.4 Respondent
shall limit any redactions to those permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
3 For the sake of clarity, the Court notes that this order should not be construed as, in any way, pre-judging the
merits of the pending motions in Hospital Menonita Ponce, Inc. v. NLRB, et al., 3:25-cv-01584-ADC, which also is
pending before this Court.
4 The Court is cognizant that this production deadline will impact the date on which Ms. Ana C. Muñoz must be
available for testimony, and the Court leaves this issue to the sound discretion of the administrative law judge.
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 10

Misc. No. 26-00005 (ADC) 	Page 10
The Board may, upon properly supported motion, have such other and further relief as
this Court deems necessary and appropriate.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 13th day of January 2026.
S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-mc-00005-ADC Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of 10