PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 09-2245
INTERBAKE FOODS, LLC,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-02081-RDB)
Argued: October 28, 2010
Decided: February 22, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges,
and Damon J. KEITH, Senior Circuit Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for further proceedings
by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Gregory and Senior Judge Keith joined.
2 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
OPINION
ARGUED: Kevin Patrick Flanagan, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Mark Keenan, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Ronald Meisburg, General Coun-
sel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H.
Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Margery E. Lieber,
Deputy Associate General Counsel, Eric G. Moskowitz,
Assistant General Counsel, Nancy E. Kessler Platt, Supervi-
sory Attorney, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Brennan W. Bolt,
MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Christopher M.
Michalik, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
In connection with an administrative hearing before the
National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") on
charges of unfair labor practices against Interbake Foods,
LLC, the Board issued a subpoena duces tecum to Interbake,
requiring it to appear, to testify, and to produce a broad array
of documents at the hearing. Interbake produced some docu-
ments and asserted attorney-client and attorney work-product
privileges as to others. Following the NLRB General Coun-
sel’s challenge to three of the allegedly privileged documents,
the administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued an order requir-
ing Interbake to produce the documents for in camera review.
When Interbake refused, the Board filed this application
under § 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"
or "the Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 161(2), for enforcement of the sub-
poena, requesting that the district court order Interbake to pro-
duce the three documents to the ALJ for in camera review so
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 3
that the ALJ could "fully consider [Interbake’s] claims of
privilege with respect to [the three] documents."
The district court denied the Board’s application by order
dated September 22, 2009. It concluded first that "only an
Article III court may determine whether subpoenaed docu-
ments are protected by the attorney-client or attorney work-
product privileges. As a result, the ALJ’s order requiring
Interbake to hand over certain privileged documents for in
camera review by him was improper." NLRB v. Interbake
Foods, LLC, No. RDB 09-2081, 2009 WL 3103819, at *4 (D.
Md. Sep. 22, 2009). It then concluded as to the three docu-
ments in question that it need not conduct an in camera
inspection because "Interbake ha[d] met its burden of estab-
lishing that the documents [were] privileged under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(5)(A), and the NLRB ha[d] not
articulated a good faith basis for doubting Interbake’s claim
of privilege." Id. at *4 n.1.
In this appeal from the district court’s order, the Board con-
tends that Congress authorized ALJs, in the first instance, to
evaluate privilege objections to subpoenaed documents—
through in camera review if necessary—and that "judicial
review [of an ALJ’s determination is] available only after
objections are considered and denied by the Board." The
Board also contends that the district court abused its discre-
tion in declining to conduct an in camera review of the three
documents in question.
We agree in large part with the Board’s position that Con-
gress conferred authority on the Board—and on ALJs as its
delegatees conducting administrative hearings on behalf of
the Board—to receive and evaluate evidence under the Fed-
eral Rules of Evidence and to rule on claims of privilege
made with respect to that evidence. But we also hold that an
ALJ’s order imposed in the course of an administrative hear-
ing, even when ruling on evidence, can only be enforced by
an Article III court. When refusal to comply with a subpoena
4 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
and the Board’s order to produce documents is based on the
attorney-client or work-product privilege, the Board’s
recourse is to apply to the district court for an order enforcing
the subpoena. In deciding whether to enforce the subpoena,
the court must then assess the legitimacy of the claimed privi-
lege. Thus, while we do not preclude any administrative
assessment of claims of privilege, we do conclude that when
an assessment of those claims is necessary to a court’s deter-
mination of whether to enforce the subpoena, the assessment
must be conducted by the court.
On the question of whether the district court abused its dis-
cretion in declining to conduct an in camera inspection of the
three documents, we affirm in part and remand in part, direct-
ing the court to review the privilege claim as to the "e-mail
string" attached to two e-mails that the court found privileged.
I
During the course of two unsuccessful organizing cam-
paigns by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and
Grain Millers International Union, Local 68 ("the Union") at
Interbake’s facility in Front Royal, Virginia, the Union filed
unfair labor practice charges against Interbake, and the NLRB
issued various complaints against Interbake on those charges.
At the hearing on those complaints before the NLRB, con-
ducted by ALJ John T. Clark, an Interbake employee, Missy
Jones, revealed that during the campaigns, she had secretly
recorded conversations with Interbake colleagues and supervi-
sors. Following an investigation into the matter, conducted by
Interbake’s Human Resources Manager, Jill Slaughter, Inter-
bake fired Jones for violating company policy in (1) smug-
gling the recorder into Interbake’s facility in violation of
Interbake’s electronic device policy, (2) violating company
policy by admittedly recording line team meetings, and (3)
violating Interbake’s work conduct provisions by the manner
in which she handled the recordings. The Union promptly
filed an additional unfair labor practice charge, alleging that
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 5
Jones’ firing was motivated by a desire to punish Jones for
her Union activities and for testifying against Interbake, and
the Board issued another complaint on that charge. That com-
plaint was also assigned to ALJ Clark, who consolidated the
hearing on that complaint with the hearing on the earlier filed
complaints.
At the request of the NLRB General Counsel, the Board
issued a subpoena to Jill Slaughter to appear before Judge
Clark, to testify at the hearing, and to bring with her a broad
array of documents. In the designation of documents, the sub-
poena demanded that, with respect to any document withheld
from production on a claim of privilege, Slaughter describe
the document’s author, recipient, date, and subject matter. In
response to the subpoena, Interbake produced approximately
320 pages of documents and withheld about 50 documents or
groups of documents, asserting that they were protected by
the attorney-client or work-product privilege. As requested by
the Board, Interbake provided a privilege log setting forth the
information requested about each document withheld. See
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5)(A). At the same time, Interbake
also filed a petition to revoke the subpoena as to the privi-
leged documents, pursuant to § 11(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C.
§ 161(1).
At the hearing, Slaughter testified that the earliest she had
communicated with anyone regarding Missy Jones’ termina-
tion was February 13, 2009. This testimony, however, con-
flicted with Interbake’s privilege log, which listed two e-mails
authored by Slaughter on February 9, 2009, regarding the
"Missy Jones investigation" (Bates Nos. IBF100113 and
IBF100427). Based on the inconsistency in dates, the General
Counsel requested that ALJ Clark conduct an in camera
inspection of those documents to determine whether they
were in fact privileged. The General Counsel also sought an
in camera inspection of handwritten notes of a telephone con-
versation taken by Angie Otto, a non-attorney, regarding the
Jones investigation (Bates No. IBF100179). Following the
6 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
arguments of counsel and the ALJ’s review of the Board’s
decision in CNN America, Inc., 352 N.L.R.B. 448 (2008), the
Judge concluded that the only proper exercise of his discre-
tion would be to take a look at the three documents in camera.
He said, "I feel I have to do it, I’m bound to do it, and so I
can’t argue against the Board because I have to follow what
I think is their direction, and I do. So I have to order you to
give me the [three] documents from the privilege log." After
Interbake stated that it was "not prepared" to comply with the
order, the Board filed this application for enforcement of the
subpoena and the ALJ’s order for in camera review.
In its application, the Board sought specifically an order
from the district court directing Interbake "to comply with
Judge Clark’s lawful order that it produce documents
IBF100113, IBF100427, and IBF100179 responsive to the
Board’s administrative subpoena duces tecum at such time
and place as Judge Clark may designate for an in camera
inspection so that Judge Clark may fully consider [Inter-
bake’s] claims of privilege with respect to those documents."
Following a hearing, the district court denied the application
by order dated September 22, 2009, and this appeal followed.
II
The Board contends that the district court erred in refusing
to issue an order directing Interbake to produce the three sub-
poenaed documents to ALJ Clark for in camera review. This
review, the Board argues, would enable the ALJ, in the first
instance, to determine whether the documents are protected
by a privilege. In refusing to issue the order, the district court
held that "only an Article III court may determine whether
subpoenaed documents are protected by the attorney-client or
attorney work-product privileges." Interbake Foods, 2009 WL
3103819, at *4. This impasse between the Board and the dis-
trict court raises the ultimate question about the division of
power between the NLRB and Article III courts. The NLRB
asserts that the answer will not only be important to the nar-
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 7
row focus of this case but will also have "far-reaching conse-
quences that might apply to any executive or independent
regulatory agency or department that relies on federal courts
for the enforcement of its administrative subpoenas."
With its enactment of the NLRA, Congress created the
Board and empowered it to prevent any person from engaging
in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce. 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(a). And to that end, Congress authorized the Board to
file complaints charging violators with unfair labor practices
and to conduct hearings on those charges. Id. § 160(b). Tradi-
tionally, such hearings are conducted before ALJs as dele-
gatees of the Board, who are subject to Board review. See 29
C.F.R. §§ 102.31(b), 102.26. The Act provides that the hear-
ings "shall, so far as practicable, be conducted in accordance
with the rules of evidence applicable in the district courts." 29
U.S.C. § 160(b). Following a hearing, the Board is empow-
ered to issue cease and desist orders, orders reinstating
employees, and orders requiring reports. Such orders are sub-
ject to judicial review and enforcement. Id. § 160(e), (f).
To implement this charter, the Board is given investigatory
power with the authority to conduct hearings, subpoena testi-
mony and evidence, administer oaths, examine witnesses, and
receive evidence, 29 U.S.C. § 161(1), all of which are gener-
ally carried out in the first instance by ALJs.
Specifically, as relevant here, § 11(1) of the NLRA, 29
U.S.C. § 161(1), states that "[t]he Board, or any member
thereof, shall upon application of any party to [an NLRB] pro-
ceeding[ ], forthwith issue to such party subpenas requiring
the . . . production of any evidence in such proceeding[ ] or
investigation requested in such application." The Board is also
authorized, upon the motion of a party, to revoke the sub-
poena, in whole or in part, "if in its opinion the evidence
whose production is required does not relate to any matter
under investigation, or any matter in question in such pro-
ceedings, or if in its opinion such subpena does not describe
8 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is
required." Id. The bases for revocation stated in § 161(1) are
not, however, exclusive. See NLRB v. Interstate Builders,
Inc., 351 F.3d 1020, 1029 (10th Cir. 2003); Drukker
Commc’ns, Inc. v. NLRB, 700 F.2d 727, 730 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Even when a subpoena targets relevant and well-defined
material, it may nonetheless be revoked if it is invalid "for
any other reason sufficient in law." 29 C.F.R. § 102.31(b). In
keeping with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when
practicable to do so, see 29 U.S.C. § 160(b); NLRB v. Consol.
Bus Transit, Inc., 577 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2009), the Board
has relied on Rules 26 and 45 in determining which "other
reason[s]" are sufficient to revoke or quash a subpoena, see
Brinks, Inc., 281 N.L.R.B. 468, 468-69 (1986); see also
EEOC v. Md. Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 477-78 (4th Cir.
1986) (noting the relationship between § 160(1) and Rule 45).
These reasons include not only those that are immediately
apparent on a subpoena’s face but also those that can be deter-
mined through reference to authority, for instance the eviden-
tiary rules of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii).
But when all is said, the NLRA carefully recognizes the
appropriate divide between the administrative authority to
conduct hearings and issue orders and the exclusively judicial
power of Article III judges to enforce such orders. The line of
division tracks Supreme Court’s observations in Interstate
Commerce Comm’n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 485 (1894),
abrogated on other grounds by Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S.
194, 198-200 (1968), where the Court stated:
The inquiry whether a witness before [an agency] is
bound to answer a particular question propounded to
him, or to produce books, papers, etc., in his posses-
sion and called for by that body, is one that cannot
be committed to a subordinate administrative or
executive tribunal for final determination. Such a
body could not, under our system of government,
and consistently with due process of law, be invested
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 9
with authority to compel obedience to its orders by
a judgment of fine or imprisonment.
Section 11(2) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 161(2), providing
specifically for court enforcement of subpoenas, manifests
this division of authority. It provides:
In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena
issued to any person, any district court of the United
States . . . within the jurisdiction of which the
inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of
which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to
obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon
application by the Board shall have jurisdiction to
issue to such person an order requiring such person
to appear before the Board, its member, agent, or
agency, there to produce evidence if so ordered . . .
.
29 U.S.C. § 161(2). This structural limitation on the NLRB’s
authority, emanating from the Constitution’s separation of
powers and due process requirements, "protect[s] against
abuse of subpoena power." United States v. Bell, 564 F.2d
953, 959 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1977).
Inherent in the Board’s authority to issue subpoenas, to
revoke subpoenas, to examine witnesses, and to receive evi-
dence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence is the
authority to make substantive rulings on the grounds for
objection to subpoenas and to the admissibility of evidence at
the administrative hearing. See NLRB v. Duval Jewelry Co.,
357 U.S. 1, 8 (1958) ("Certainly preliminary rulings on sub-
poena questions are as much in the purview of a hearing offi-
cer as are rulings on evidence and the myriad of questions
daily presented to him"). And within this scope, Board adjudi-
cators are authorized to make rulings on questions of privi-
lege, as they have been doing for decades. See, e.g., In re
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 339 N.L.R.B. 829, 829
10 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
(2003); Taylor Lumber and Treating, Inc., 326 N.L.R.B.
1298, 1299-1300 (1998); Feld & Sons, Inc., 263 N.L.R.B.
332, 332 (1982); Jackson Sportswear Corp., 211 N.L.R.B.
891, 899 n.33 (1974); Elias Bros. Big Boy, Inc., 137 N.L.R.B.
1057, 1066 n.4 (1962).
In most cases, an ALJ’s rulings on privilege do not require
court enforcement, because the parties either comply volun-
tarily with the ALJ’s rulings, see, e.g., Patrick Cudahy, Inc.,
288 N.L.R.B. 968, 968-69 (1988); see also Horizon Corp. v.
FTC, No. 76-2031, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12222, at *2-7
(D.D.C. Nov. 18, 1976), or the ALJ’s rulings are made with-
out the need for inspection of the underlying documents, see,
e.g., Taylor Lumber, 326 N.L.R.B. at 1299-1300. If enforce-
ment becomes necessary, however, the parties must then turn
to the district courts to obtain it. At that time, only the district
court determines whether to enforce the subpoena and, in
making that determination, evaluates the claims of privilege
and, if necessary, conducts an in camera review. Moreover,
in carrying out this judicial function, the court cannot delegate
its task of conducting an in camera review to an ALJ.
This reservation of authority to Article III courts protects
against abuse of the subpoena power. While judicial scrutiny
of administrative subpoenas is, to be sure, limited, see EEOC
v. City of Norfolk Police Dept., 45 F.3d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1995),
courts do not simply order the enforcement of subpoenas as
a matter of course, and certainly not blindly, see Penfield Co.
v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 604 (1947) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Citing Brimson, Justice Frankfurter articulated the established
principle:
Instead of authorizing agencies to enforce their sub-
poenas, Congress has required them to resort to the
courts for enforcement. In the discharge of that duty
courts act as courts and not as administrative
adjuncts. The power of Congress to impose on courts
the duty of enforcing obedience to an administrative
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 11
subpoena was sustained precisely because courts
were not to be automata in carrying out the wishes
of the administrative. They were discharging judicial
power with all of the implications of the judicial
function in our constitutional scheme.
Id. at 604 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, before a court commands a party to comply
with a subpoena, it must first determine that the subpoena "is
within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too
indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant."
United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950).
In short, on an application of an administrative agency for the
enforcement of a subpoena in court, the respondent is guaran-
teed an opportunity to contest the subpoena’s validity through
any appropriate defense. See Penfield, 330 U.S. at 604 (enum-
erating several grounds on which "[a]n administrative sub-
poena may be contested"); NLRB v. Cable Car Advertisers,
Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 991, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ("[A] party
[to] . . . a subpoena enforcement proceeding may raise appro-
priate defenses once in district court"). In addition to guarding
against over breadth or a lack of specificity, the right to raise
appropriate defenses includes the right to vindicate claims that
a subpoena improperly calls for records protected by the
attorney-client or work-product privileges. See, e.g., Director,
Office of Thrift Supervision v. Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 124
F.3d 1304, 1306-07 (D.C. Cir. 1997); NLRB v. Harvey, 349
F.2d 900, 907 (4th Cir. 1965). Because a respondent’s claim
of privilege is the basis for its refusing to produce documents
in response to a subpoena, it is inherent in carrying out the
judicial function of deciding whether to enforce the subpoena
to resolve the respondent’s challenge to the subpoena. See
NLRB v. Int’l Medication Sys., Ltd., 640 F.2d 1110, 1115-16
(9th Cir. 1981); Harvey, 349 F.2d at 907 (holding that the dis-
trict court was required to conduct "a full evidentiary hearing"
before enforcing a Board subpoena challenged on privilege
grounds).
12 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
Thus, in this case, ALJ Clark had authority, on the basis of
the privilege log and the Board’s response to it, to sustain the
claim of privilege or to order the production of documents for
in camera review. But when Interbake refused to comply with
that order, the ALJ lacked the power to enforce it. To obtain
enforcement, the Board had to apply to the district court for
a judicial order of enforcement, in accordance with the estab-
lished division of powers between agencies and courts.
We do not say that an ALJ does not have authority to rule
on a claim of privilege. He can make such a ruling just as he
could rule on any issue of evidence presented to him during
the course of a hearing. But the ALJ has no power to require
the production of documents for in camera review or for
admission into evidence when a person or party refuses to
produce them. That would require Article III power, which
the ALJ does not have.
Once the Board files an application for judicial enforce-
ment, the district court is given the authority to evaluate the
parties’ positions and to take any action it believes appropri-
ate for determining whether the subpoena should be enforced.
See, e.g., NLRB v. Silver Spur Casino, 623 F.2d 571, 579-80
(9th Cir. 1980); NLRB v. Indep. Ass’n of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., 582 F.2d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 1978) (overruled on other
grounds by Charles D. Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v. NLRB,
454 U.S. 404 (1982)). It can make its ruling on the basis of
the privilege log and the Board’s response to it, or it can order
in camera review. But what it cannot do is order production
of documents to the ALJ to conduct in camera review. Rather,
the district court must satisfy itself whether, under appropriate
legal standards, it should enforce the subpoena and thus over-
rule Interbake’s claim of privilege.
The Board argues that Congress intended that the Board
evaluate privilege objections made with respect to subpoe-
naed documents during the course of administrative hearings,
with judicial review available only after objections are consid-
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 13
ered and denied by the Board. We agree with that articulation
to the extent the Board is able to make those determinations,
because rulings on privilege are inherent in conducting a hear-
ing and ruling on evidence. But if, in carrying out that func-
tion, it becomes necessary for the ALJ to order the production
of documents and the responding party chooses not to obey,
the ALJ and the respondent reach an impasse, which only an
Article III court can resolve. See Brimson, 154 U.S. at 486-87
(holding that compelling a witness to testify before an agency
and to produce documents "cannot be directly enforced except
by judicial process").
We also agree with the Board’s more particular claim that
the ALJ can order and conduct the in camera review of docu-
ments. But again, if the respondent refuses to comply with the
order, the issue can only be enforced by an Article III court.
Finally, we agree with the Board’s argument that in camera
review by an ALJ is not in conflict with its role as factfinder.
The agency’s structure ensures sufficient independence of
ALJs to conduct hearings fairly, especially when they are sub-
ject to Board review and judicial review. We note that district
judges sitting without a jury are permitted to review docu-
ments in camera, and we see no reason to conclude that ALJs
are not likewise permitted to do so.
In view of this division of authority between the Board and
the courts, we disagree with the district court’s broad state-
ment that an ALJ may not "determine" whether documents
are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, ALJs are
often able to make that determination in the first instance. But
we do agree with the court that when a respondent, on the
basis of a claim of privilege, refuses to comply with an order
that would enable the ALJ to conduct an in camera review,
then only an Article III court may resolve the privilege claim
as part of its decision whether to enforce the subpoena.
The Board argues, even so, that the district court should
defer on assessing the privilege claim and issue an order
14 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
directing Interbake to produce the questioned documents to
the ALJ to permit him in the first instance to conduct an in
camera review and make the privilege ruling. It argues that
§ 161(1) contemplates Board action on a motion to revoke a
subpoena before court action. As it states, "by insisting that
a federal district court be the first—and essentially exclusive
—forum to rule on privilege objections, Interbake and the
court below reverse[d] this statutory procedure." This posi-
tion, however, would require the district court to use its judi-
cial power to enforce subpoenas blindly, without determining
itself whether the subpoena was subject to enforcement. This
type of deferral and blind ruling would amount to no less than
an improper delegation of Article III power to the ALJ. See
Penfield Co., 330 U.S. at 604 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
(noting that courts, when enforcing agency subpoenas, are not
to be "automata carrying out the wishes of the administrative
[agency]").
Moreover, the scheme suggested by the Board would also
devolve into a piecemeal enforcement process such that the
district court would be called upon to review each incremental
step, resulting in an overly fragmented administrative pro-
ceeding. Moving in that direction would either interfere
unduly with the administrative process or tend ultimately
toward an improper delegation of Article III power to ALJs.
At bottom, we recognize that the Board has authority in
connection with its role in investigating charges and conduct-
ing hearings to subpoena documents; to revoke subpoenas in
whole or in part; to receive evidence in accordance with the
Rules of Evidence in the district courts, to the extent practica-
ble; to rule on evidence, including rulings on claims of privi-
lege; and to order and conduct in camera review of
documents, as required to make evidentiary determinations.
But recognizing the division of power between the adminis-
trative authority of the NLRB and the judicial power of Arti-
cle III courts, we hold that only an Article III court may
enforce the orders and subpoenas of the Board or an ALJ as
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 15
the delegatee of the Board. Thus, when, on the Board’s appli-
cation, an Article III judge is called on to determine whether
to enforce a Board subpoena, the court must exercise its full
judicial function and decide for itself the validity of the sub-
poena and the validity of the reason given for not complying
with it.
In this case, we affirm the district court’s order insofar as
it refused to delegate to the ALJ its responsibility to decide
the issue of privilege, even though we take exception to the
court’s unqualified statement that only an Article III judge has
authority to determine an issue of privilege.
III
This now brings us to the question of whether the district
court erred in handling and deciding Interbake’s privilege
claim with respect to the three documents in question. In a
two-sentence footnote at the end of its opinion, the district
court concluded that Interbake made a prima facie showing of
privilege as to these documents and that the Board failed to
present evidence sufficient to call that showing into question.
The Board contends that both of these conclusions were
unjustified.
We review the district court’s privilege determination for
abuse of discretion. See NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors,
81 F.3d 507, 510 (4th Cir. 1996). Under this standard of
review, we will reverse the district court’s ruling "only in the
most extraordinary of circumstances." Id. (quoting NLRB v.
G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982)).
A party asserting privilege has the burden of demonstrating
its applicability. See United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069,
1072 (4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). In claiming the attorney-
client privilege, a party must satisfy procedural and substan-
tive criteria. Procedurally, the party must "expressly make the
claim" and "describe the nature of the documents . . . in a
16 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or
protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5)(A). Substantively, a party must show that:
(1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought
to become a client; (2) the person to whom the com-
munication was made (a) is a member of the bar of
a court, or is his subordinate and (b) in connection
with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3)
the communication relates to a fact of which the
attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without
the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of
securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii)
legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal pro-
ceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing
a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a)
claimed and (b) not waived by the client.
Jones, 696 F.2d at 1072 (quoting United States v. United Shoe
Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950)).
And in claiming the work-product privilege, the party must
demonstrate that the documents in question were created "in
preparation for litigation." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33
F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329
U.S. 495, 509-14 (1947)). When a party relies on a privilege
log to assert these privileges, the log must "as to each docu-
ment . . . set[ ] forth specific facts that, if credited, would suf-
fice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity
that is claimed." Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D.
465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
In this case, Interbake provided a privilege log in which it
identified the nature of each document, the date of its trans-
mission or creation, the author and recipients, the subject, and
the privilege asserted. Although the log is not detailed, if the
assertions contained in it are credited, a court could reason-
ably conclude that all of the elements described in Rule
26(a)(5) and the test set forth in Jones had been met. While
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 17
it is true, as the Board argues, that the attorney-client privilege
does not apply simply because documents were sent to an
attorney, see Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397, 403
(8th Cir. 1987), Interbake’s log does more than that. It also
shows that the communications concerned an investigation
closely linked to the ongoing NLRB adjudication. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in concluding that the privilege log had made a prima
facie showing that the three documents in question were pro-
tected from production by the attorney-client privilege.
Likewise, we conclude that the district court was within its
discretion to reject the Board’s proffered reasons for doubting
Interbake’s preliminary showing of privilege. Once a prima
facie showing of a privilege has been made, an opposing party
can justify in camera inspection of the documents by advanc-
ing "a factual basis sufficient to support a reasonable, good
faith belief that in camera inspection may reveal evidence that
information in the materials is not privileged." In re Grand
Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 1992); see
also G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, 239 F.R.D. 641, 650
(D. Kan. 2007) (requiring a "cogent basis" to justify in cam-
era review). The Board claims that it met this standard by
showing a conflict between Jill Slaughter’s testimony that the
earliest she communicated with anyone about the Missy Jones
investigation was "around February 13," 2009, and Inter-
bake’s privilege log, which identifies two e-mails that Slaugh-
ter sent on February 9, 2009 regarding the "Missy Jones
Investigation." The fact that Slaughter may have testified
incorrectly regarding the dates of her communications (inten-
tionally or otherwise) does not compel an inference that her
February 9 e-mails were not privileged. Especially in light of
the heightened standard of review on such matters, we find
this argument insufficient to justify reversal.
The Board notes additionally that even if the privilege log
and the Board’s response failed to justify an in camera
inspection of the three documents in question, the privilege
18 NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS
log failed to disclose that the two e-mails authored by Jill
Slaughter on February 9, 2009 (Bates Nos. IBF100113 and
IBF100427) in fact prompted replies, forming an "e-mail
string" that was not identified in the privilege log. Interbake
disclosed the existence of these replies for the first time in its
response before the district court. The Board notes that
because two of the e-mail recipients were lawyers and two
were non-lawyers, the fact that there were replies would
require an independent assessment of each of the reply e-
mails to determine whether the replies and any other e-mails
in the string were properly protected by a claim of privilege.
Generally, each e-mail within a particular line of discussion
must be analyzed separately for privilege purposes. See In re
Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 232 F.R.D.
669, 672-74 (D. Kan. 2005); Muro v. Target Corp., 243
F.R.D. 301, 306-07 (N.D. Ill. 2007). To the extent that the
replies to Jill Slaughter’s February 9, 2009 e-mails were writ-
ten by non-lawyers, the work-product privilege might not
apply. Similarly, if the e-mails failed any of the Jones criteria,
the attorney-client privilege might also be inapplicable.
Because Interbake has not presented a document-by-
document privilege analysis of the reply e-mails or offered a
specific reason why the e-mail string should be treated as a
group, see In re Universal Serv. Fund Litig., 232 F.R.D. at
673, we conclude that the district court must assess the privi-
lege claim with respect to each e-mail in the string to deter-
mine whether Interbake has carried its burden, see Jones, 696
F.2d at 1072.
In sum, we affirm the district court’s privilege ruling as to
the three documents identified in Interbake’s privilege log but
remand for further review as to any replies to Slaughter’s two
e-mails of February 9, 2009. On remand, the district court
should determine whether these documents are privileged and,
if necessary, conduct an in camera review for making that
determination.
NLRB v. INTERBAKE FOODS 19
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED
IN PART FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS