Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00213/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00213-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:151 Labor: Review of Agency Action

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The four motions at issue are the hospitals' motion to compel: (1) further responses to

discovery requests propounded to Local 751; (2) responses to discovery subpoena propounded to

UHW; (3) responses to subpoena propounded to Local 521; and (4) depositions of Smith,

Sermersheim, and Escamilla. 

1

*E-FILED 10/8/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS et al., 

Petitioners,

 v.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL 

UNION, LOCAL 715. et al.,

Respondent. /

AND ALL RELATED CASES

 /

NO. C 07-5158 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO

COMPEL: (1) DISCOVERY

RESPONSES, AND (2)

DEPOSITIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioners Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

(collectively "the hospitals") move to compel discovery responses from Service Employees

International Union, Local 715 ("Local 715") and non-parties Service Employees International

Union, Local 521 ("Local 521"), Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare

Workers – West ("UHW") (collectively "the unions"), and to compel the depositions of Bruce W.

"Rusty" Smith, and non-parties Kristy Sermersheim, and Myriam Escamilla.1

 Local 715 opposes the

motions. At the hearing on September 24, 2008 on these motions, the Court instructed the parties to

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 The hospitals filed a fifth motion to compel seeking the deposition of non-party Greg

Pullman, an employee of Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"). As indicated at the

hearing, because the hospitals have made significant progress toward securing voluntary compliance

from SEIU, the Court indicated it was inclined to dismiss this motion without prejudice. In their

supplemental report, the hospitals do not oppose such a disposition. That motion, therefore, is

dismissed without prejudice. The remaining four motions to compel still are in dispute. 

2

meet and confer further to attempt to resolve the discovery disputes at issue. Both parties were

ordered to file a separate supplemental report addressing the remaining issues. Each party filed a

separate report that reflects some narrowing of disputed issues but with certain disputes remaining

unresolved.2 As to those matters, as set forth below, the hospitals' motions to compel will be granted

in part and denied in part.

II. DISCUSSION

Despite narrowing the issues in dispute, outstanding issues remain regarding: (1) the

temporal scope of the document requests; (2) the production of the unions' budgets; (3) the

production of documents relating to the unions' websites; (4) production of documents relating to

legal representation provided by the law firm of Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld ("WRR"); (5) and

production of documents relating to Local 715's relationships with other union locals and employers. 

A. Temporal Scope of Document Requests

The hospitals seek a number of documents from June 30 or July 1, 2005 (request numbers 2-

8, 28-33, 37, 39), or January 2006 (request numbers 10, 14, 17, 20, 40-42, 48-55), or January 2007

(request numbers 9, 11-13, 15-16, 21, 34-36, 38). Local 715 argues that the time frame of the

discovery requests should be limited to after October 9, 2007, because it was on that date that

Stanford Hospital filed a petition before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations

Board allegedly conceding that Local 715 was a labor organization. Local 715 also suggests January

20, 2006, as an alternative limiting date, which is the effective date of the collective bargaining

agreement. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged matter that

is relevant to any party's claims or defenses, or "for good cause," discovery of any matter relevant to

the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because the collective

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

bargaining agreement presumably developed over time, the extra six month window going back to

July 1, 2005, is reasonably calculated to cover relevant time periods and is not unduly burdensome. 

The remaining dates requested by the hospitals similarly cover a time period reasonably expected to

lead to relevant evidence and the unions therefore shall respond to the document requests in the time

frame designated therein unless modified below. 

B. Budgetary Document Requests

The hospitals seek documents in response to request numbers 34-36, which pertain to the

annual or other budgets prepared by the unions, and request number 40, which relates to bank

records for Local 715. At the hearing the unions suggested it would produce documents related to

any portion of the budget that references either Local 715 or Stanford Hospital. The unions'

limitation, however, could exclude responsive documents that do not specifically name Stanford

Hospital or Local 715 but are otherwise responsive. The unions, therefore, will produce documents

reflecting those portions of the budgets that pertain or relate to the hospitals or the representation of

employees of the hospitals. The unions further request that UHW's budget for 2008 be excluded

because UHW recently won a secret ballot election and therefore the production of such information

could unfairly impact the bargaining relationship between the parties. While such material may

relate to sensitive issues of representation, they appear to be relevant to the matters in controversy,

and should be produced. Finally, the unions seek to limit request number 40 to dues payments

received by employers such as Stanford Hospital, Stanford University, and Santa Clara University,

instead of every single financial transaction. As opposed to request numbers 34-36, where a

limitation to specific names could result in the exclusion of responsive documents, such a limitation

here is warranted because relevant dues payments presumably would carry the name of the particular

involved entity. Accordingly, production of documents in response to number 40 shall be modified

as requested by the unions.

C. Website Document Requests

The hospitals seek documents in response to request numbers 12-14, which request

documents relating to UHW's website. The unions maintain that complying with this request is

burdensome because the website frequently changes. At the hearing, the Court expressed concern

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

that frequent changes to the website possibly could be burdensome and instructed the unions to

report how frequently such changes were made. In their supplemental report, the unions still had no

clear answer, but declared that it would inform the Court by October 1, 2008. That date has passed,

and without a clear picture of how often the website was changed or updated, the hospitals' request is

granted as it is currently written. 

D. WRR Document Requests

The hospitals seek documents in response to request number 20 relating to WRR's

representation of Local 715. The hospitals acknowledge that they are not seeking documents or

portions of documents containing legal advice, but rather are seeking documents pertaining to

whether Local 715 retained WRR or whether UHW retained the firm pursuant to a servicing

agreement. The unions insist that it would be extremely burdensome for its single trustee to compile

every document that relates to anything WRR did for Local 715 from January 2006 to the present,

including WRR's representation on behalf of Local 715 in any litigation, grievance proceeding,

arbitration, or administrative hearing whether related to the hospitals or not. Instead, the unions are

willing to produce all documents and writings related to the grievances at issue in this matter. 

Despite the unions' arguments to the contrary, limiting the hospitals to the few grievances at issue

would fail to provide the hospitals with an overall picture of what persons or organization was

retaining WRR in its provision of legal services to Local 715 relating to the its operational status. 

Therefore, the unions shall respond to request number 20. 

E. Documents Relating to Relationships with Union Locals and Employers

The hospitals seek documents in response to request numbers 48-55 that pertain to the

relationships between Local 715 and Stanford University and Santa Clara University — two

employers whose employees Local 715 allegedly represented. Again, the unions contend that for

their single trustee to compile every responsive document would be extremely burdensome. A bare

allegation of burden without more information as to the number of documents that exist or estimated

to exist does not suffice to exempt the unions from their discovery obligations. These documents

may be relevant because they may reflect the status of Local 715. Finally, the assertion that these

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

requests should be denied because they do not contain a timeline is without merit. Each request has

a specific time period beginning in January 2006. 

F. Depositions of Smith, Sermersheim, and Escamilla

The unions do not oppose the hospitals' plan to take the depositions of Smith, Sermersheim,

and Escamilla. The unions note that the parties will meet and confer to schedule the depositions to

take place before October 31, 2008. The hospitals seek a date certain for the deposition to occur no

later than October 31, 2008. Consequently, the motion is granted, and the depositions of Smith,

Sermersheim, and Escamilla shall be noticed and held within twenty days of the date of this order.

III. CONCLUSION

The hospitals' motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part as follows:

(1) The unions shall produce documents covering the time periods commencing on July 1,

2005, for request numbers 2-8, 28-33, 37, 39, January 2006 for request numbers 10, 14, 17, 20, 40-

42, 48-55, and January 2007 for request numbers 9, 11-13, 15-16, 21, 34-36, 38, unless modified

below.

(2) In response to request numbers 34-36, the unions shall produce information on those

portions of their budgets that pertain or relate to the hospitals or the representation of employees of

the hospitals. The unions shall produce budget information for the time period including 2008. 

(3) Request number 40 is granted in part and denied in part, in that it is limited to dues

payments designated from members employed by Stanford Hospital, Stanford University, and Santa

Clara University. 

(4) Request numbers 12-14, which request documents relating to UHW's website, is granted

as presented. 

(5) In response to request number 20 relating to WRR's representation of Local 715, the

unions shall compile documents related to anything WRR did for Local 715 from January 2006 to

the present which includes WRR's representation on behalf of Local 715 in any litigation, grievance

proceeding, arbitration, and/or administrative hearing whether specifically related to the hospitals or

not. 

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL: (1)

DISCOVERY RESPONSES, AND (2) DEPOSITIONS

C 07-5158 JF (RS)

6

(6) Request numbers 48-55, which seek documents that pertain to the relationships between

Local 715 and Stanford University and Santa Clara University are granted. 

(7) The unions shall make their supplemental responses within ten days of the date of this

order. 

(8) The depositions of Smith, Sermersheim, and Escamilla shall be noticed and held within

twenty days of the date of this order.

(9) The deposition of Pullman is dismissed without prejudice as described in footnote two.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2008 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL: (1)

DISCOVERY RESPONSES, AND (2) DEPOSITIONS

C 07-5158 JF (RS)

7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Bruce A. Harland courtnotices@unioncounsel.net, bharland@unioncounsel.net

Eileen Regina Ridley eridley@foley.com, tschuman@foley.com, wdelvalle@foley.com

Laurence R. Arnold larnold@foley.com

Scott Powers Inciardi sinciardi@foley.com, kkunisaki@foley.com, syardley@foley.com

Vincent A. Harrington , Jr courtnotices@unioncounsel.net

W. Daniel Boone courtnotices@unioncounsel.net

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 10/8/08 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF Document 86 Filed 10/08/08 Page 7 of 7