Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry v. Maniglia Landscape, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

July 25, 2019

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMAN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY, UNDERGROUND UTILITY/LANDSCAPE LOCAL UNION NO. 355, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MANIGLIA LANDSCAPE, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE LABORERS TRUSTEES, (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FURTHER MEET AND CONFER REGARDING NCDCL'S SEARCHES, AND (3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE LABORERS FUNDS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE'S MOTION TO QUASH RE: ECF NO. 254, 258, 267, 276

          LAUREL BEELER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         The court assumes the reader's familiarity with the subject matter and procedural history of this case. The parties raise three disputes. First, the plaintiffs renew their request for certain audit files from the trustees of the Laborers Trust Funds for Northern California (“Laborers Trustees”).[1]The Laborers Trustees filed a motion for a protective order to limit discovery.[2] Second, the plaintiffs ask the court to order the Northern California District Council of Laborers (“NCDCL”) to describe the searches it conducted in response to the plaintiffs' document requests.[3] Third, the Laborers Funds Administrative Office of Northern California, Inc. (“Administrative Office”) moves to quash subpoenas that the plaintiffs issued for documents and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and moves for a protective order.[4]

         The court held a hearing and now (1) denies the plaintiffs' request for documents from the Laborers Trustees and denies without prejudice the Laborers Trustees' motion for a protective order, (2) provides guidance with respect to the plaintiffs' request regarding NCDCL's searches and directs the parties to further meet and confer as necessary, and (3) denies without prejudice the Administrative Office's motion to quash and motion for a protective order.

         ANALYSIS

         1. Documents From the Laborers Trustees

         The plaintiffs want documents relating to the Laborers Trustees' audits of nine employers who are not defendants in this case.[5] The plaintiffs had wanted to add those nine employers as new defendants and had filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint adding those employers as defendants.[6]

         Several developments have arisen since the parties originally filed their letter brief. First, Judge Seeborg granted the Laborers Trustees' motion for partial summary judgment.[7] The Laborers Trustees thus are no longer parties in this case.[8] Second, Judge Seeborg denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend to add the nine employers as new defendants.[9] In denying the plaintiffs' motion, Judge Seeborg wrote that, among other things:

The fact that this request for leave to amend was made shortly before fact discovery was set to close is also concerning. . . . [T]here is a serious question as to whether Plaintiffs' attempt to reshape the litigation shortly before the close of fact discovery is a litigation tactic designed to prolong the case and extend fact discovery with respect to the current defendants. Accordingly, given the circumstances of this request and the likely prejudice to the current defendants, Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is denied.[10]

         In light of the fact that the Laborers Trustees are no longer parties and the nine employers are not defendants and will not be added as defendants, the court denies the plaintiffs' request for documents from the Laborers Trustees.[11] The court denies without prejudice the Laborers Trustees' motion for a protective order as moot and because the Laborers Trustees' motion for a protective order did not comply with the court's standing order, which require the parties to file joint letter briefs instead of individual discovery motions.[12]

         2. Searches by NCDCL

         The plaintiffs raise disputes with five document requests:

• Request No. 34: All documents reflecting union dues, hiring hall fees, or any other contributions received for employees represented by you or any of your affiliated unions who were formerly members of Local 355 from 2010 through the present.
• Request No. 35: All documents reflecting hours reported, hourly wages received, or fringe benefit contributions made for employees represented by you or any of your affiliated unions performing ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.