Amazon.com Services LLC v. United States Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 11, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01815
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, CASE NO. C22-1815-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 13 Respondent, 14 15 and 16 MARTIN J. WALSH, SECRETARY OF THE 17 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 18 LABOR, 19 Intervenor. 20

21 This matter comes before the Court on Martin J. Walsh’s, Secretary of the United States 22 Department of Labor (“DOL”), motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 14). Having thoroughly considered 23 the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the 24 reasons explained herein. 25 Petitioner filed a petition to modify subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney’s 26 Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). (Dkt. No. 1.) These subpoenas were 1 issued as part of an ongoing investigation by SDNY and the United States Department of Labor 2 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). (Dkt. No. 7 at 5–6.) Petitioner asserts 3 it has tried to diligently respond to SDNY and OSHA’s subpoena requests, but that the timelines 4 SDNY and OSHA have requested are unreasonable. (Id. at 6–7.) Petitioner asks the Court to 5 issue a protective order and to set a “reasonable schedule” for it to comply with the SDNY’s 6 subpoenas. (Id. at 7.) 7 DOL requests permission to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.) 8 Petitioner consents to DOL’s request to intervene. (Id.) Permissive intervention requires “(1) an 9 independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law or 10 fact between the movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus. v. Int’l Ins. 11 Co., 966 F.2d 470,473 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 777 12 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Court must also consider whether the intervention “will unduly delay or 13 prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). 14 Each of these requirements is satisfied. First, the Court has independent jurisdiction to 15 require individuals to produce evidence and provide testimony related to an ongoing 16 investigation by DOL. 29 U.S.C. § 657(b). Here, DOL seeks to intervene to obtain an order 17 compelling Petitioner to comply with subpoenas issued by OSHA. (Dkt. No. 14 at 4.) Second, 18 DOL’s motion is timely; it is filed only two weeks after Petitioner’s motion and Petition does not 19 object. Third, common questions of fact exist between DOL’s claim and Petitioner’s request for 20 a protective order. Although the protective order Petitioner requests is related to SDNY’s 21 subpoena requests, there is substantial overlap between the records and testimony requested by 22 SDNY and those requested by OSHA. (Dkt. No. 14 at 5.) This means any ruling this Court 23 makes regarding Petitioner’s obligation to produce certain documents and witness testimony will 24 also impact OSHA’s ongoing investigation and subpoenas. 25 Therefore, the Court finds that permissive intervention of DOL is appropriate, and the 26 motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED. 1 DATED this 11th day of January 2023. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26