Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02741/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02741-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
East Bay Automotive Machinists Lodge No. 1546, Machinists Automotive Trades District Lodge 190
Plaintiff
National Labor Relations Board
Defendant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EAST BAY AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS

LODGE NO. 1546, MACHINISTS

AUTOMOTIVE TRADES DISTRICT LODGE

190,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-05-2741 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 11)

Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed November 10, 2005 by

defendant National Labor Relations Board (“the NLRB”). Plaintiff East Bay Automotive

Machinists Lodge No. 1546, Machinists Automotive Trades District Lodge 190 (“East Bay”)

has filed opposition to the motion; the NLRB has filed a reply. Having considered the

papers filed in support of and in opposition to the NLRB’s motion, the Court finds the matter

appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(a), and hereby VACATES

the December 16, 2005 hearing. 

For the reasons set forth in the NLRB’s motion and reply, the Advice Memorandum

at issue is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information

Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); see also NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132,

159-60 (1975) (holding NLRB Advice Memoranda directing filing of complaint constitute
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

attorney work product protected from disclosure under Exemption 5); Federal Trade

Commission v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19, 20, 28 (1983) (holding attorney work product

exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5 “without regard to the status of the litigation for

which it was prepared”).

Accordingly, NLRB’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge