Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kronos Inc.
694 F.3d 351
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- EEOC seeks to enforce an administrative subpoena on Kronos (a non-party) during its ADA investigation of Kroger's hiring of a disabled applicant; Kronos objected claiming overbreadth and trade-secret risk.
- This is Kronos I’s remand context: we previously reversed geographic/time/position limits but allowed racial-discrimination discovery to be limited, and required a good-cause confidentiality balancing.
- On remand the District Court expanded some limits but added disability-focused restrictions and ordered 50/50 costs of production.
- The Kronos II order added new confidentiality provisions (limits to disclosures and FOIA-related notice) and cost-sharing adjustments, and further restricted use of confidential data.
- We reverse and remand to align with Kronos I, eliminating the “relied upon” limitation, removing disability-only caps, striking overly broad confidentiality provisions, and directing individualized cost allocation.
- We address whether confidentiality, scope, and cost orders violated Kronos I, and whether the EEOC may use the Kronos data beyond the Sandy charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand order complied with Kronos I mandate on relevance and scope | Kronos argues district court erred by adding ‘relied upon’ and disability-only limits | EEOC contends limits were appropriate to protect interests | Remand required removal of ‘relied upon’ limit; scope must be broader |
| Whether confidentiality provisions were proper and narrowly tailored | Kronos contends strong trade-secret and privacy interests justify protection | EEOC argues confidentiality necessary to prevent harm | Confidentiality warranted but must be narrowed and tailored to protect Kronos while preserving information access under FRDA/FOIA concerns |
| Whether use restrictions limiting data to the Sandy charge were proper | Kronos says EEOC can use data for other charges if leads arise | EEOC maintains limited use to Sandy charge prevents fishing | Restrictions on use were improper; EEOC may pursue leads in other charges |
| Whether cost-sharing of production was appropriate | Kronos argues cost-shifting to non-parties is improper; issue not waived | EEOC argues cannot be wholly reimbursed by statute, but fairest approach is individualized | Remand to reconsider cost allocation with evidence of actual costs; individualized assessment required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Friedman, 532 F.2d 928 (3d Cir. 1976) (establishes cost-shifting considerations for subpoenas)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 761 F.2d 943 (3d Cir. 1985) (mandate compliance and proceedings remanded when necessary)
- Kronos Inc. v. EEOC, 620 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2010) (reversed district court on scope/relevance, remanded for good cause balancing and confidentiality)