Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-mc-80336/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-mc-80336-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LIUNA Local 261
Respondent
Thomas E. Perez
Petitioner

Document Text:

ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

THOMAS E. PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIUNA LOCAL 261,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-mc-80336-LB 

ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA

Re: ECF Nos. 1, 17

INTRODUCTION

This is a petition to enforce an administrative subpoena duces tecum under the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act (―LMRDA‖), 29 U.S.C. § 521. (ECF No. 1.)1

The 

court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. §§ 49, 50, 29 U.S.C. § 1331, and 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1345. The Secretary of Labor issued the subpoena to respondent Local 261 of the Laborers‘ 

International Union of North America (―LIUNA‖). The subpoena seeks contact information for 

Local 261‘s members to aid the Secretary‘s investigation of the union‘s June 2014 election of 

officers. Citing the subpoena‘s possible effect on the First Amendment rights of the union and its 

members, Local 261 has refused to comply with the subpoena. For the reasons given below, the 

court enforces the subpoena to the degree indicated — a revision that reflects the governing law 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and incorporates the parties‘ proposed compromise positions. The court also holds that the 

LMRDA‘s statute of limitation (29 U.S.C. § 482(b)) is tolled until Local 261 complies with the 

subpoena.

STATEMENT

The subpoena at issue arises from the Secretary‘s investigation of a complaint about Local 

261‘s June 2014 election of union officials. That complaint was made by a union member, Ignacio 

Castillo, who unsuccessfully challenged incumbent candidates to become a Local 261 official. Mr. 

Castillo made two grievances under the LMRDA. He first claimed that, by holding the election as 

a walk-in ballot at the union‘s San Francisco hall — and not providing for absentee balloting by 

mail — the union depressed voting by members living outside San Francisco, in Marin and San 

Mateo counties. He also charged that certain of Local 261‘s members, employees of the City and 

County of San Francisco, unlawfully used municipal vehicles to drive supporters of Local 261 

incumbents to the polls.

Some background will aid the discussion. In 2012, the LIUNA locals that had previously 

represented Marin County and San Mateo County members (Local 291 in Marin, and Local 389 in 

San Mateo), merged into Local 261. (ECF No. 9 at 5-6.) Following this merger, the expanded 

Local 261 continued to use its San Francisco meeting hall as its headquarters. (Id. at 6.) More to 

the present point, Local 261 claims that the Marin and San Mateo facilities of former Locals 291 

and 389 were inadequate to the holding of elections. (See ECF No. 9 at 6.) The Local 261 hall in 

San Francisco, by contrast, was sufficiently outfitted to host the balloting and is centrally located 

in the union‘s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9 at 19.) It is also accessible from public transit. (Id.) 

According to Local 261, to reach the San Francisco hall and vote by walk-in ballot, former Local 

389 members would have to travel an additional 19 miles from their former voting location; Local 

291 members, an additional 22 miles from theirs. (Id. at 7.)

The unsuccessful candidate, Mr. Castillo, at bottom complains that, by holding the ballot in 

San Francisco, members of the former Marin and San Mateo locals were discouraged from voting. 

The Secretary claims that 17% of the total union voted in the election. (ECF No. 15 at 7.) From 

the former Marin and San Mateo regions of Locals 291 and 389, however, the respective 

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

participation rates were 2% and 8%. (Id.)

On November 21, 2014, in the course of investigating Mr. Castillo‘s complaint, the Secretary 

issued Local 261 the subject subpoena. The subpoena directed Local 261 to produce: ―Any and all 

contact information for all LIUNA Local 261 members who were active as of June 18-19, 2014, 

including, but not limited to: personal telephone numbers, street mailing addresses, and email 

addresses.‖ (ECF No. 3 at 12.) The subpoena directed Local 261 to comply by November 21, 

2014. (Id.) The Secretary sought this information, as ―material and relevant to [the Department‘s] 

investigation,‖ to enable the Department ―to locate and interview members to determine whether 

Local 261violated or is violating the LMRDA in connection with the June 2014 officers‘ election.‖ 

(Sorrento Decl. – Id. at 2-3, ¶ 6.)

Local 261 has refused to comply. Turning over its members‘ personal contact information, the 

union argues, is unnecessary to the Department‘s determining whether anyone was discouraged 

from voting by the increased distance to the San Francisco polling location. More fundamentally, 

Local 261 argues that the subpoena infringes upon the First Amendment speech and associational 

rights of the union and its members. (See generally, ECF No. 9 at 11-24.)

The union has submitted two declarations to support its claim of First Amendment 

infringement. The first declaration is from its Business Manager, Mr. Ramón Hernandez. 

(Hernandez Decl. – ECF No. 12 at 1.) Mr. Hernandez is the incumbent who defeated Mr. Castillo 

in the challenged election. (ECF No. 9 at 7.) Mr. Hernandez asserts that complying with the 

subpoena would negatively impact the union‘s, and its members‘, First Amendment rights to free 

speech and free association. (See generally ECF No. 12.)2 He explains, for example, that 

workplace visits to union members from federal investigators are ―very disruptive.‖ (Id. at 7, 

¶¶ 35-36.) He continues:

Depending on the particular circumstances of each member, a visit from a 

government official can scare members and co-workers. Other members, nonmembers and potential members will always wonder what kind of trouble the 

member or the union is in if a federal investigator is interviewing him or her. 

 

2 Mr. Hernandez‘s declaration is also the primary evidentiary basis for much of the background 

discussion regarding the merger of the LIUNA locals, the condition of their facilities, and the 

logistical details of the June 2014 election. (ECF No. 12 at 1-7, ¶¶ 1-32.)

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Employers will also wonder why members are being visited by governmental 

agents. . . . This investigation has already resulted in our members becoming scared 

and suspicious of Local 261.

(Id. at 7, ¶ 36.) Further:

Local 261 has members who have served time in jail, are involved in 

whistleblower actions, including complaints to OSHA, are parties in pending 

actions among themselves, have pending Workers Compensation actions, pending 

personal injury actions, and other litigation, members who have immigration issues, 

or have friends or relatives who have immigration issues, have non-traditional 

family relationships, amongst many other concerns. Any investigation by a federal 

agent will raise serious concerns with our members, about themselves, their 

families, other Union members, and the Union itself. This will be particularly 

heightened if they believe that the Union gave their contact information to the 

federal government. Members will blame the Union for any contact by a federal 

agent. No matter how much explanation a federal government employee of the 

DOL would provide, rumors would spread as to who had done what wrong, who 

was not a lawful resident citizen, who may be involved with some unlawful 

activity, and so on.

(Id. at 8-9, ¶ 41.) Mr. Hernandez offers more in this vein, projecting the likely consequences of 

Local 261‘s complying with the subpoena, but this last excerpt gives the flavor of the whole:

[I]f we provide this contact information it will create grave associational concerns 

amongst our members. There is no way for the DOL to simply contact members 

without creating an adverse impact to our members, many of whom have concerns 

about retribution and retaliation for themselves, their families and friends.

(Id. at 10, ¶ 44.)

The second declaration that Local 261 has submitted is from Ms. DeShelia Mixon, a union 

member whom the Department contacted in investigating Mr. Castillo‘s complaint — or, rather, 

whom the Department attempted to contact. (Mixon Decl. – ECF No. 11.) Department investigator 

Regina Diaz visited Ms. Mixon‘s workplace on November 3, 2014. (Id. at 2, ¶ 5.) Unable to find 

Ms. Mixon, Ms. Diaz taped her business card to the door of Ms. Mixon‘s office, with the 

handwritten note, ―Pl[ea]s[e] call.‖ (Id. at 3, ¶¶ 5-6; ECF No. 11-1 at 2-3; Diaz Decl. – ECF No. 

15-3.) Mrs. Diaz returned to the site a couple of days later, this time joined by Department 

investigator Jeff Sorrento. (ECF No. 15-3 at 2, ¶ 5.) Ms. Mixon was not at the job site. Ms. Diaz 

and Mr. Sorrento spoke with Ms. Mixon‘s supervisor, explaining that they wished to speak with 

Ms. Mixon and any other Local 261 member regarding the union‘s recent election. (Id.) Ms. Diaz 

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

showed her business card to the supervisor, and perhaps left a card with him. (See id.; ECF No. 11 

at 2, ¶¶ 9-10.) Ms. Mixon says: 

Ms. Diaz‘s visit and her leaving a business card taped on the door of my office 

made me very nervous. As an African-American female, I am w[]ary of law 

enforcement officers and their visit to my workplace made me very nervous.

. . . .

 I am nervous about being interviewed by government officials just because I am 

in a union. I was offended by the Investigator‘s card being left at my workplace. 

My boss and coworkers all were able to see the card. I believe it implies that I did 

something wrong.

 When DOL investigators came to my workplace to investigate, it made me feel 

like my participation in the union was being watched. I became suspicious of what 

my union was doing that was resulting in government officers visiting my 

workplace . . . . It makes me nervous to be in a union and it makes me fearful about 

what it means to be a member of Local 261 . . . . It also makes me second-guess 

being involved in the union.

(ECF No. 11 at 2-3, ¶¶ 8, 14-15.) Ms. Mixon was elected to be a Local 261 officer in the June 

2014 polling. (ECF No. 15-3 at 3.)

The parties have both proposed compromises to break this impasse. These proposals embody 

each side‘s view on what is necessary for, or in any case appropriate to, the Department‘s 

investigating both issues: (1) whether former members of Locals 291 and 389 were discouraged 

from voting because that would have required their traveling into San Francisco; and (2) whether 

municipal-employee members of Local 261 used official vehicles to transport to the polls voter 

who were likely to support incumbents. With that recalled, the Department has offered

to limit the subpoena‘s request to contact information for (1) former members of 

Locals 291 and 389 who were eligible to vote in Local 261‘s June 18-19, 2014 

election; and (2) Local 261 members employed by the City and County of San 

Francisco who were eligible to vote in Local 261‘s June 18-19, 2014 election. The 

contact information shall include information sufficient for the Secretary‘s 

investigators to communicate directly with members, for example, including but 

not limited to full names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and/or email 

addresses.

(ECF No. 17 at 5.) For its part, Local 261

is willing to provide the contact information of any members identified by Mr. 

Castillo, and/or others, as not having been able to vote due to access issues. In 

addition, Local 261 is willing to provide dispatches for Local 261 members in a 

period preceding the election to allow the Secretary to see where members who 

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

were working worked around the time of the election.

 With regard to public sector members, Local 261 is willing to provide contact 

information for the two members who drove a van to the election and the contact 

information of anyone who rode in the van.

(Id. at 5-6.) Local 261 has given the Department a list of all members who voted in the election, as 

well as a list of all members who were active at the time of the June 2014 election, which list 

indicates the cities in which the respective union members reside. (E.g., id. at 6.)

GOVERNING LAW

The parties do not disagree on the governing legal rules. ―It is evident from the LMRDA that 

Congress intended that the Secretary exercise broad authority in investigating labor unions.‖ 

McLaughlin v. Serv. Employees Union, AFL-CIO, 880 F.2d 170, 174 (9th Cir. 1989). To issue a 

prima facie enforceable subpoena, the Department must show the following: 1) Congress has 

granted it the authority to investigate the alleged violation; 2) the Department followed appropriate 

procedures in issuing the subpoena; and 3) the information sought is ―relevant and material to the 

investigation.‖ See, e.g., EEOC v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 719 F.2d 1426, 1428 (9th Cir. 1983). 

―[C]ourts must enforce administrative subpoenas unless the evidence sought by the subpoena is 

plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose of the Agency.‖ EEOC v. Karuk Tribe 

Housing Auth., 260 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001).

Courts may interfere with an administrative subpoena where the subpoena would infringe 

constitutional rights. See, e.g., McLaughlin, 880 F.2d at 174-75. ―Nevertheless a district court may 

not intervene in an investigation, notwithstanding an allegation of interference with speech and 

associational rights, in the absence of a prima facie showing of actual past or threatened 

infringement.‖ Id. at 175. To make out a prima facie First Amendment challenge in this area, 

Local 261 must ―demonstrate:  ̳(1) harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of 

new members, or (2) other consequences which objectively suggest an impact on, or  ̳chilling‘ of, 

the members‘ associational rights.‘‖ Id. The union moreover must produce ―objective and 

articulable facts, which go beyond broad allegations or subjective fears.‖ E.g., id.

If the union establishes this prima facie First Amendment challenge, the burden then shifts to 

the Secretary to show (1) ―that the information sought . . . is rationally related to a compelling 

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 6 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

governmental interest,‖ and (2) that ―the government‘s disclosure requirements are the  ̳least 

restrictive means‘ of obtaining the desired information.‖ Dole v. Serv. Employees Union, AFLCIO, Local 280, 950 F.2d 1456, 1461-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting and citing cases).

ANALYSIS

Two points are dispositive. First, Local 261 has not made out a prima facie case that the 

subpoenas will unduly ―chill‖ the speech or associational rights of their members or of the union 

itself. Second, even if the union had shown a prima facie constitutional problem, the Department 

has shown that the information it seeks is rationally related to a compelling governmental interest, 

and is the ―least restrictive means‖ of obtaining the information it needs to investigate whether the 

June 2014 election violated the LMRDA.

I. THE UNION HAS NOT SHOWN A PRIMA FACIE FIRST AMENDMENT 

INFRACTION

Under governing Ninth Circuit law, the two declarations that Local 261 has submitted do not 

make out a prima facie First Amendment challenge to the Department‘s subpoena. Consider first 

the declaration of Ramón Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez raises serious concerns — but in an entirely 

speculative mode. He invokes his own experience but offers no concrete examples in which an 

investigation of this type, seeking the information that it does, has negatively impacted anyone‘s 

speech or decision to associate within Local 261. Mr. Hernandez speaks only in terms of what 

could happen based on the general characteristics of Local 261‘s membership. (See generally ECF 

No. 12.)

The Ninth Circuit has said: ―Bare allegations of possible first amendment infringement are 

insufficient to justify judicial intervention into a pending investigation.‖ McLaughlin, 880 F.2d at 

175. This alone captures the fatal deficiency in Mr. Hernandez‘s declaration. He does not offer, as 

he must offer, ―objective and articulable facts, which go beyond broad allegations or subjective 

fears.‖ Id. (citing, inter alia, Brock v. Local 375, Plumbers Int’l Union of America, AFL-CIO, 860 

F.2d 346, 349 (9th Cir.1988)).

The declaration of DeShelia Mixon is different. Hers is a concrete example: two Department 

investigators dropped a business card off at her workplace and spoke with her supervisor. (ECF 

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 7 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 11.) The court acknowledges that her concerns are genuine and serious. Nonetheless, Ms. 

Mixon does not make out a First Amendment threat that will defeat the Department‘s subpoena, or 

impede its investigation into the June 2014 election. First, what Ms. Mixon describes is not so 

much an infringement on her right to free speech and association; instead, she mainly describes 

being made ―nervous‖ by her relatively mild contact with Department investigators. See id. at 2, 

¶ 8.) She has not claimed that this has somehow trammeled her ability to speak freely. When she 

touches upon associational rights, Ms. Mixon does claim that her experience made her 

―suspicious‖ of the union, ―fearful‖ of being a union member, and that she has ―second-guess[ed] 

being involved in the union.‖ (Id. at 3, ¶ 15.) Yet the court cannot ignore other concrete facts. Ms. 

Mixon is apparently an officer of Local 261 who gained her seat through the challenged election. 

Whatever doubts may have been occasioned by the Department‘s visit to her workplace seem to 

have been limited. Finally, of the roughly 5000 members embraced in the Department‘s initial 

subpoena, or even the approximately 1500 subject to the compromise subpoena that the 

Department has proposed (see ECF No. 17 at 1, 3), Ms. Mixon is the only Local 261 member who 

has testified to any specific First Amendment harm. 

The Ninth Circuit has said: ―We are willing to tolerate some chilling effect if it is necessary to 

do so in order to protect a compelling governmental interest.‖ Dole, 950 F.2d at 1461. (There is no 

real question that the subpoena seeks information that is rationally related to the Department‘s 

compelling interest in enforcing the LMRDA. See id. at 1461-62 (―[T]here is little doubt that the 

Department‘s purpose of investigating possible criminal violations of the LMRDA serves a 

compelling governmental interest.‖ (citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 700 (1972)). The 

declarations of Mr. Hernandez and Ms. Mixon do not raise a ―reasonable probability‖ that 

complying with the subpoena will subject anyone to ―threats, harassment, or reprisals from either 

Government officials or private parties.‖ See Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010). The union 

consequently has not shown a prima facie First Amendment challenge to block the subpoena.

///

///

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 8 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. COMPELLING INTEREST & LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS

Even if Local 261 had made out a prima facie First Amendment problem, the Department has 

shown that the information it seeks is ―rationally related to a compelling governmental interest‖ 

and that the subpoena — especially in the revised form that the Department has proposed as a 

compromise solution (see ECF No. 17 at 5) — is the ―least restrictive means‖ of obtaining the 

information that the Department needs to investigate the challenged election.

The relationship to a compelling governmental interest is conclusively established by the 

language quoted earlier from the Ninth Circuit‘s decision in Dole, 950 F.2d at 1461-62 (―[T]here is 

little doubt that the Department‘s purpose of investigating possible criminal violations of the 

LMRDA serves a compelling governmental interest.‖). Here, the Department‘s investigation is 

into whether the union‘s refusal to provide alternative methods to in-person voting in San 

Francisco unreasonably deprived members of their right to vote and, if so, whether that violation 

may have affected the election.

The inquiry into ―least restrictive means‖ is perhaps unavoidably a question of practical 

balance. Conducting this assessment in Dole, supra, the Ninth Circuit explained that, if a district 

court restricts an administrative subpoena, and that restriction ―would unduly burden the 

Secretary‘s efforts to conduct an adequate investigation, that restriction would be inconsistent with 

the requirement that the Secretary be afforded the necessary means of obtaining the information 

she seeks and we would be required to strike it.‖ Dole, 950 F.2d at 1462 (citing Brock v. Local 

Union 375, Plumbers Int’l Union of America, AFL-CIO, 860 F.2d 346, 350 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Local 261 challenges the request for its members‘ contact information by arguing that it has 

already given the Department all the information it should need to decide whether former 

members of the Marin and San Mateo locals were hampered from voting because the polling place 

was in San Francisco. (ECF No. 9 at 15-16.) The Department should be able to assess this 

challenge adequately, the union contends, by the list the union has already given the Department 

showing its active members‘ cities of residence. It is not hard to see why this is insufficient to the 

Department‘s investigation. Where a given member resides says something, but hardly everything, 

about whether she was impeded from voting on the days of the election because polling was held 

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 9 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 10

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

only in San Francisco. Common reasoning tells us that more will impact that fact than a union 

members mere place of residence. That information is relevant, of course, but it would not give a 

full picture of the extent to which the San Francisco location might have impacted members‘ 

decisions to participate in, or abstain from, the election. And the court cannot place a restriction on 

the subpoena that would ―unduly burden‖ the Department‘s investigation. Dole, 950 F.2d at 1462. 

Restricting the Department to only the union members‘ cities of residence would prevent the 

Department from making a normally full inquiry into the circumstances that might have kept 

members from the polls; such a restriction would more than ―unduly burden‖ an adequate 

investigation, it would all but prevent it. Furthermore, the Department has proposed limiting its 

subpoena to only those union members who were formerly members of the Marin and San Mateo 

locals. (ECF No. 17 at 5.) With that reduction, the court has no difficulty holding that the 

information sought by the current subpoena constitutes the ―least restrictive means‖ available for 

conducting an appropriate investigation.

With respect to the municipal-vehicles issue, too, the Department should be able to obtain 

enough contact information that will allow it to ―communicate directly‖ with Local 261 members 

who were employed by the City and County of San Francisco and were eligible to vote in the June 

2014 election. The union‘s counterproposal is again unduly restrictive. The union has offered to 

provide contact information for the two individuals who drove municipal vans to the polling place, 

and for ―anyone who rode in the van.‖ (ECF No. 17 at 6.) Again, it is not hard to see that this 

limitation would crimp the Department‘s ability to inquire into the circumstances in a normal way. 

The most immediate objects of an investigation are not always the most forthcoming. At least 

there is no guarantee that they will be. Normal investigations, moreover, often require going 

beyond the direct participants in a given situation to those with whom those participants have 

spoken — or, in a case like this, perhaps to others who were offered a ride, but declined it, or who 

wanted a ride but were denied one. At all lengths, it takes only a moment‘s reflection to see that, 

merely to conduct a normally effective inquiry, the Department cannot be limited to asking 

questions only of people who rode in municipal vehicles on the day of the election.

///

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 10 of 11
ORDER ENFORCING SUBPOENA – 14-mc-80336 LB 11

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

The court enforces the subpoena to this degree: Local 261 must produce to the Department all 

the contact information it possesses for: 1) former members of Locals 291 and 389 who were 

eligible to vote in the election of June 18-19, 2014; and 2) Local 261 members employed by the 

City and County of San Francisco who were eligible to vote in the election of June 18-19, 2014. 

Local 261 must product this information by March 5, 2015. The LMRDA statute of limitation (29 

U.S.C. § 482(b)) is tolled for the period from November 24, 2014 until Local 261 has fully 

complied with the subpoena. See Brock v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Chicago Local, 

815 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1987) (―This court has recognized that the sixty-day limitations period 

may be tolled by conduct on the part of the Union which impedes or delays the Secretary‘s 

investigation.‖) (citing cases).

This disposes of ECF Nos. 1, 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015

______________________________________

Laurel Beeler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-mc-80336-LB Document 20 Filed 02/11/15 Page 11 of 11