Opinion ID: 485224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Adequacy of Mallick's Stated Requests to Examine Union Records

Text: 22 The IBEW first contends that Mallick failed to make a proper pre-litigation demand. Although the union acknowledges that the statute does not explicitly require any pre-litigation demand, the IBEW claims that [a]mong the prerequisites to the right to examine a union's records pursuant to Section 201(c) is that the requesting party make a demand on the union which demonstrates his or her claim of just cause to seek examination. Appellants' Brief at 33. The IBEW attacks the District Court's decision ordering the union to disclose its records as overlooking this prerequisite. 23 According to the IBEW, a union member cannot satisfy this prerequisite unless he or she explains to the union that the information is requested to verify an LM-2 report. Thus, the IBEW argues that neither before nor during this lawsuit did Mallick actually state that the reason he wished to examine the union's records was to verify an IBEW LM-2 report. In the union's own words, Mallick never articulated a connection between the IBEW's 1980-81 LM-2 report and his request for documents, although given ample opportunity to do so. Indeed, even as late as his July 10, 1985 deposition, Mr. Mallick still did not appear to see any particular link between any items in the LM-2 report and his request.... Appellants' Brief at 37. 24 This contention is entirely spurious. First of all, it has been evident to IBEW from the beginning what information plaintiffs seek and why they seek it. As we detailed in Mallick I, 749 F.2d at 773-74, the information requested concerns litigation expenses that the IBEW incurred while defending another LMRDA lawsuit known as the Boswell case. The IBEW's 1980-81 LM-2 report showed an unexpected drop between $300,000 and $400,000 in the balance of a special reserve fund the IBEW maintains for legal expenses, id. at 775, and plaintiffs seek to determine whether this unexpected drop represents the cost of litigating the Boswell case. Id. at 776. 25 Second, the IBEW's assertion about Mallick's deposition is incorrect. His deposition testimony shows that he articulated a connection between the IBEW's 1980-81 LM-2 report and his request for documents. Appellants' Brief at 37. When asked by IBEW's counsel whether he knew of any of the financial terms of the settlement of the Boswell case, Mallick responded: No. Only that there was--like it showed like a six figure digit--[sic] ... in the LM-2 report was unaccounted for. You get nosey. Mallick Deposition at 28-29. When the counsel for the union then said, I don't understand. What do you mean? Mallick replied: Well, if you see like a $300,000 discrepancy, if you see where there was $300,000 spent, and you don't know why, you try to find out why. So I just figured that part of that went to Boswell. I didn't know what part. Id. 26 Third, Mallick's verified complaint in this lawsuit, which is equivalent to a sworn affidavit, also articulates a connection between the LM-2 report and the information sought. The complaint reads: 27 The IBEW has filed with the Department of Labor financial reports, known as Forms LM-2, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 1979 and July 1, 1980. On neither form does the IBEW indicate that a specific amount of money was expended in connection with Boswell v. IBEW. The form for 1980-1981 does, however, indicate that the reserve for the Defense Fund dropped by almost $400,000 during that year.... 28 By learning how much Boswell and his counsel were paid, and what records the IBEW obtained to determine the appropriate amount of these payments, plaintiff MALLICK and all other members of the IBEW will be aided in determining whether the payments were excessive or otherwise improper. 29 Complaint for Injunctive Relief at 4-5 (April 19, 1982). 30 Finally, it is evident from the pre-litigation correspondence between the parties' counsel that the union knew that Mallick was seeking information relating to the Boswell litigation expenses pursuant to his statutory right to verify his union's LM-2 reports. Indeed, in a letter written to Mallick's counsel, the IBEW's attorney states: You have cited several sections of the LMRDA in support of your client's request.... The one LMRDA section covering disclosure of union records, Section 201(c), requires disclosure when a member demonstrates 'just cause' to examine documents necessary to verify the union's LM-2 report. Letter of Laurence J. Cohen (February 26, 1982), identified in the record as Exhibit J to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (June 18, 1982). Of course, it is true that from the beginning the IBEW had a different interpretation of Sec. 201 than Mallick had. Our decision in Mallick I resolved this dispute. Nonetheless, as this letter shows, prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, the IBEW was on notice that Mallick was requesting the information pursuant to his Sec. 201 rights. Thus, even if we assume that in order to examine union records, a union member must explain to the union that he requests the information in order to verify an LM-2 report, as provided in Sec. 201, such a requirement has been amply satisfied in this case. 7 31