Leslie v. Starbucks Corporation

District Court, W.D. New York·Decided September 23, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-00478·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEDI WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KD StAl ICT es = 3 PX LINDA M. LESLIE, Regional SEP 2 8 2022 Director of the Third Region of the perc oo National Labor Relations Board for &S TERN CT □□ and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, Vv. 22-CV-478 (JLS) STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Respondent. sep a eS EE ORDER

In its September 7, 2022 order, the Court allowed Respondent to serve

document subpoenas and set deadlines for any motions to quash. Dkt. 39. The Court

received the following motions: (1) a motion to quash from non-party Workers United,

on behalf of Workers United representatives and current and former Starbucks

employees served with subpoenas (Dkt. 42); (2) a motion to quash from Workers

United, on behalf of the Workers United custodian of records served with a subpoena

(Dkt. 43); and (3) a motion to quash or, in the alternative, for a protective order, from

Petitioner, on behalf of all subpoenaed individuals (Dkt. 44). Respondent opposed

each motion. Dkt. 45; Dkt. 46; Dkt. 47.

After studying the papers and hearing argument from the parties and movants

on September 23, 2022, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part the motions

from the bench. This order memorializes those rulings and sets a schedule for future filings and proceedings.

I. Standing

Petitioner has standing to move against the subpoenas because it has legitimate interests in objecting to the subpoena requests. Petitioner may object to the subpoenas on privilege grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A). See Langford v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2d Cir. 1975). And Petitioner

may object to the subpoenas on undue burden grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). See Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distribut. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304, 307 (S.D. Ind. 2016) ( “[A] party’s objection that the time required of the non- party to comply with the subpoena would extend the period of production of documents

beyond the court’s discovery deadline might be accorded substantial weight in a particular case.” ).

Il. Motions to Quash and for a Protective Order

The Court must quash a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies,” or that “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A) (iii), (iv). And the Court may issue a protective order, for good cause, “to protect a party... from... undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

Petitioner and Workers United objected to the subpoenas on privilege/protected matter grounds, arguing that the subpoenas requested documents protected by a union-employee privilege, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the attorney-

client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the deliberative process privilege. The Court rejected the motions on privilege grounds, as raised in the motions—i.e., the blanket claims of privilege to entire topics. See Hernandez v. Office of the Comm’r of Baseball, 331 F.R.D. 474, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (union-employee privilege); United States v. Electro-Voice, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 919, 923-24 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, and deliberative process privilege); D’Amico v. Cox Creek Refin. Co., 126 F.R.D. 501, 506 (D. Md. 1989) (NLRA protection). Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 216, 239-40 (1978) (analyzing NLRA protection in context of pre-administrative hearing FOIA request).

If anyone in the possession of responsive documents objects, in good faith, to the production of specific documents on a specific, articulable privilege ground—other than the union-employee-privilege!—they may do so following the proper procedure, including providing a particularized privilege log.

Petitioner and Workers United also objected to the subpoenas on undue burden grounds, arguing both that the requests impose an undue burden on the subpoenaed individuals, and that the requests are unduly burdensome in light of the administrative record, affidavits, and other evidence submitted in this case.

In the context of a Section 10(j) proceeding, the Court “may limit discovery to avoid unnecessary delay in this action’s resolution.” See Electro-Voice, 879 F. Supp. at 923. The Court exercised its discretion to do so here, and granted the motions to

1 The Second Circuit does not recognize a union-employee privilege—at least not in this context. See Hernandez, 331 F.R.D. at 477.

quash and for a protective order as to certain requests or portions of requests. In

exercising this discretion, the Court balanced Respondent’s need for the requested documents with Petitioner’s need to proceed expeditiously (and the burden of subpoena compliance generally), in the context of the interim relief requested in this Section 10(j) proceeding. The Court’s undue burden rulings are limited to Respondent’s requests for documents and are without prejudice to Respondent asking

any hearing witnesses questions about the topics covered by the requests, as appropriate.

For the above reasons, and for those stated more fully on the record on September 23, 2022, the Court GRANTED the motions to quash and for a protective order as to:

e Request l(e); e Request 1(g); e Request 2; e The portions of Request 4 that ask for:

o “All Documents relating in any way to Communications the Union has had had or agents of the Union have had with Partners regarding information to be provided by Partners to any digital, print, radio, TV, internet-based or other media outlet concerning ... any other matter relating to union organizing at, or alleged unfair labor practices by, Starbucks’; e The portions of Request 5 that ask for: o “All Documents relating in any way to Communications the Union has had, including interviews, information provided to, and articles published by, any digital, print, radio, TV, internet-based or other media outlet concerning .. . union organizing, union elections and other union related matters at Starbucks stores around the country”; and o “All Documents relating in any way to Communications the Union has had, including interviews, information provided to, and articles published by, any digital, print, radio, TV, internet-based or other media outlet concerning ... and any other matter relating to union organizing at, or alleged unfair labor practices by, Starbucks”; e Request 6; e Request 7; e Request 8; e Request 9; e Request 10;

e Request 11; e Request 12 to the individuals/Request 10 to the Workers United custodian of records; e Request 14 to the individuals/Request 12 to the Workers United custodian of records; e Request 18; e Request 19; e Request 20; and e Request 21.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI