the question of subject matter jurisdiction does not involve the merits of whether A & M must in fact produce documents. Rather, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerns only whether federal courts, as opposed to state courts, may require A & M to comply with the subpoena. Cf. Musson Theatrical Inc. v. Federal Express, 89 F.3d 1244, 1252 (6th Cir.1996) (recognizing that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and that powers not given to federal courts by Congress are left to the state courts). 5 . This characterization of Pierce's case does not necessarily make it federal. We have recognized that a claim of tortious interference with a collective bargaining agreement generally lies in state law. See Dougherty v. Parsec, Inc., 872 F.2d 766, 769-70 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). 6 .Accordingly, I question whether WJBK is a
holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement holding that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached holding that  301 only preempts a state law cause of action based on tortious interference with a labor agreement where courts must interpret the contract to resolve the claim holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law holding plaintiffs state law claims of inter alia tortious interference with contract are preempted by section 301 of lmra