Twitchell v. Allied Pilots Association

Filing 127

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery from American Airlines is DENIED. American Airlines' Motion to Quash is GRANTED. APA's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART for disclosure of the 2014 Settlement Agr eement and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART as to Plaintiff's assertion of work product privilege. Within 7 days of the filing date of this Order, American Airlines shall prepare the confidentiality agreement and provide it to the Plaintiff and th e APA. Within 14 days from the filing date of this Order, the Plaintiff shall file a work product privilege log. In the event the case is not resolved by settlement, the Court shall rule on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; the Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's recently filed Motion Re: Interrogatory Requests shall be due within 14 days of the settlement conference. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 3/6/19. (KAH)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Andrea B Twitchell,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

Allied Pilots Association,

13

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-00493-TUC-DCB

Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiff sues the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which is the union representing

16

pilots of American Airlines. She is a former pilot of American Airlines and alleges that

17

the union breached its duty under the Railway Labor Act of fair representation.1 Plaintiff

18

alleges claims relating to an Equity Distribution that Plaintiff received in 2013 and alleges

19

that APA breached its duty of fair representation to her in 2016 when it entered into an

20

agreement with American Airlines concerning treatment of employees who had been out

21

on disability for fewer than 5 years and when it also agreed in 2016 to reinstate a pilot,

22

who had been administratively terminated by American Airlines, to the seniority list after

23

he had been out on disability for more than five years. (Ds’ Motion (Doc. 1-2)).

24

There are three discovery disputes pending. Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery

25

from American Airlines, a non-party to the suit. (Doc. 105.) American Airlines seeks to

26

quash her subpoena duces tecum for the discovery. (Doc. 110.) The APA seeks to compel

27

1

28

A union breaches its duty of fair representation “when its conduct toward a member of
the bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Marquez v. Screen Actors
Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33, 44 (1998)..

1

discovery from the Plaintiff, (Doc. 106), and she seeks to compel discovery from the APA,

2

(Doc. 115). The Court begins with the easy discovery issues.

3

First, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to produce the

4

settlement agreement from a civil action brought by her against American Airlines which

5

was settled in 2014.2 Defendants believe that pursuant to this settlement agreement the

6

Plaintiff waived any right to reinstatement/reemployment with the company and released

7

any claims arising out of her termination from American Airlines. Defendants assert that

8

if such a settlement was entered into by the Plaintiff, then the union’s duty of fair

9

representation does not extend to her because she ceased to be a member of the bargaining

10

unit upon entering into the settlement. (Motion (Doc. 106) at 7.)

11

Plaintiff represents that her claim for breach of the duty of fair representation dates

12

back to 2012, before the 2014 settlement agreement with American Airlines, when the

13

APA represented falsely that her grievance DFW 12-012 was being extinguished or closed.

14

In truth DFW 12-012 was “Excluded from Settlement” pursuant to the 2013 Collective

15

Bargaining Agreement. According to the Plaintiff DFW 12-012 remained open at that

16

time, remained open through at least December 2018, and may be open today. (Response

17

(Doc. 117) at 9.) According to the Plaintiff, she entered into the settlement agreement in

18

2014 based on fraudulent misrepresentations intentionally made to her by both American

19

and APA that were unknown to her until 2016.

20

misrepresentations she would not have entered into the settlement agreement in 2014. Id.

21

The 2014 Settlement Agreement is absolutely relevant, especially to the defense.

22

American Airlines has no objection to Plaintiff producing the Settlement Agreement to the

23

APA as long as the Settlement Agreement is marked and treated as confidential pursuant

24

to a written agreement. American Airlines should prepare the confidentiality agreement

25

and provide it to the Plaintiff and the APA for use in relation to the disclosure of the 2014

26

Settlement Agreement. It shall be immediately signed by both parties and, thereafter, the

27

Plaintiff shall disclose the 2014 Settlement Agreement.

But for the alleged deliberate

28
2

Twitchell v. American Airlines Retirement Benefit Program et al., CV 11-509 TUC FRZ.
-2-

1

Second, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Non-

2

party American Airlines and grants Non-Party American Airline’s Cross-motion to Quash

3

the Subpoena Duces Tecum. Plaintiff seeks to compel American Airlines by subpoena to

4

produce documents relevant to other American Airline pilots whom Plaintiff alleges were

5

similarly situated to her by having filed individual grievances, but unlike her were

6

represented by the APA and, pursuant to such representation were reinstated as pilots for

7

American Airlines whereas she was not. American Airlines correctly asserts that as a non-

8

party, it is protected from discovery when information is available from a party to the

9

litigation. (Motion (Doc. 110) at 4-5)). American Airlines asserts that the Plaintiff has

10

already sought production of many of the documents from the APA and that all of the

11

documents sought by the Plaintiff are in the possession of the APA. Additionally,

12

American Airlines charges that the Plaintiff failed to seek to compel the documents from

13

the APA. Unless and until, Plaintiff seeks this discovery from the APA and can show that

14

the APA does not have it, the Court quashes discovery from non-party American Airlines.

15

Third, the Court directs that the Plaintiff must provide a privilege log to support her

16

objection to providing discovery requested by the APA for Emery, Preitz, and Meadows.

17

Defendant seeks to compel disclosure of any and all documents, including emails,

18

concerning any communications between Plaintiff and Kathy Emery, Wally Preitz, and

19

Lawrence Meadows. Plaintiff identified these three people as non-party witnesses but

20

challenges Defendant’s discovery requests as not likely to lead to relevant evidence and as

21

protected by the work product doctrine. Plaintiff asserts work product privilege over her

22

communications with these allegedly similarly situated pilots because any documents,

23

including emails, were produced by her, acting pro se, solely for the purpose of pursuing

24

litigation.

25

Rule 26(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery of

26

documents and tangible things. “Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and

27

tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another

28

party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety,

-3-

1

indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be

2

discovered if: (i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and (ii) the party

3

shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without

4

undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” “If the court orders

5

discovery of those materials, it must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions,

6

conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative

7

concerning the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.26(b)(3)(B).

8

The work product doctrine generally protects “from discovery documents and

9

tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.”

10

United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendant asserts that the

11

Plaintiff waived any privilege by disclosing her work product to these non-attorney, non-

12

party, individuals.

13

In her response, Plaintiff explains that these three individuals are not ordinary

14

witnesses because in addition to being “similarly situated pilots who had extended medical

15

leaves of absence (greater than 5 years),” they have all litigated against both American and

16

the APA.” (Response (Doc. 117) at 4.) She provides a list of eight cases filed between the

17

three of them over the course of years as follows: 2008, 2011, 2014, 2016, and 2017. She

18

asserts she came to know these three individuals in the course of her litigation “stemming

19

from APA’s breach of its duty of fair representation owed us and otherwise have no

20

connection." Id. at 5. She submits that the work product privilege was not waived by

21

disclosure to these individuals because there is a community-of-interest or common-

22

interest privilege between them. Id.

23

The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to promote candid and complete

24

discussions between attorneys and clients. Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1989).

25

The common interest doctrine that the Plaintiff is generally an extension of the attorney-

26

client privilege and provides an exception to the general rule that disclosing privileged

27

information to a third party destroys the privilege. The doctrine is designed to allow

28

attorneys for different clients pursuing a common legal strategy to communicate with each

-4-

1

other without destroying the attorney-client privilege. Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan,

2

249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (Calif. 2007). In the Ninth Circuit, the common interest privilege is

3

“designed to allow attorneys for different clients . . . to communicate with each other.” In

4

re Pac Pictures Corp, 697 F.3d at 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2012). The doctrine does not apply

5

to the pro se Plaintiff’s communications with these other non-attorney third-parties. Id.

6

Unlike attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection is not

7

automatically waived upon disclosure to third parties because “‘the purpose of the work-

8

product rule is not to protect the evidence from disclosure to the outside world but rather

9

to protect it only from the knowledge of opposing counsel and his client, thereby preventing

10

its use against the lawyer gathering the materials.’” California Sportsfishing Protection

11

Alliance v. Chico Sheetmetal Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 645 (Calif. 2014) (quoting Wright,

12

Miller, Kane & Marcus, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2024 (3d ed.). Therefore, disclosure

13

generally “‘does not waive the work product immunity unless it has substantially increased

14

the opportunities for potential adversaries to obtain the information.’” Id. Disclosure to a

15

person with an interest common to that of the attorney or client is not inconsistent with an

16

intent to invoke the work product doctrine’s protection and would not amount to waiver.

17

Id. (citing In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981)).

18

The common interest exception to waiver is construed more narrowly in the context

19

of attorney-client privilege than it is in the context of the attorney work product doctrine.

20

Id. at 646 (citing United States v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1298–99

21

(D.C.Cir.1980). “The standard for waiver of work product protection is more lenient than

22

the standard for waiver of attorney-client privilege because the two privileges serve

23

different purposes.” McMorgan & Co. v. First California Mortg. Co., 931 F.Supp. 703,

24

709 (N.D.Cal.1996) (internal citations omitted)).

25

“The great weight of authority holds that disclosure of work product to individuals

26

who share a common interest with the disclosing party does not constitute waiver.” Id. at

27

646 (compiling examples of cases: Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc.,

28

47 F.R.D. 334, 338 (S.D.N.Y.1969) (district court holding disclosure to counsel for a party

-5-

1

with interests adverse to that of the party seeking discovery does not constitute a waiver of

2

work product immunity); In United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 139–40

3

(D.C.Cir.2010) (holding corporation did not waive work-product protection by disclosing

4

documents to its independent auditor because the auditor was not an adversary of the

5

corporation); In Castle v. Sangamo Weston, Inc., 744 F.2d 1464, 1466–67 (11th Cir.1984)

6

(holding transfer of work-product materials between private plaintiffs’ attorneys and Equal

7

Employment Opportunity Commission did not constitute waiver of work-product

8

privilege, where private plaintiffs’ attorneys and counsel for Commission were engaged in

9

the preparation of a joint-trial at time transfer was made); In Goff v. Harrah’s Operating

10

Co., Inc., 240 F.R.D. 659, 661–62 (D.Nev.2007)(finding work-product immunity is not

11

based on the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship, and it does not disappear

12

when the wall of confidentiality is breached, unless the breach has substantially increased

13

the opportunities for potential adversaries to obtain the information); Ceco Steel Products

14

Corp. v. H.K. Porter Co., 31 F.R.D. 142, 143 (N.D.Ill.1962) (holding that even where a

15

disclosure to a third person was sufficient to create waiver of the attorney-client privilege,

16

there still was not sufficient waiver of the work-product immunity)).

17

Essentially, a court must determine if disclosure is consistent with the work

18

product doctrine’s purpose of preserving the adversary system. California Sportsfishing

19

Protection Alliance, 299 F.R.D. at 646 (citing Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d at 1299; see

20

also United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C.Cir.2010) (finding no waiver

21

where the disclosing party had “a reasonable basis for believing that the recipient would

22

keep the disclosed material confidential”)). Plaintiff argues that disclosure of her work

23

product to other similarly situated litigants was not inconsistent with the work product

24

doctrine’s purpose of preserving the adversary system. Defendant complains that the

25

Plaintiff has not prepared a privilege log to establish or justify how her

26

communications with these non-attorney, non-parties were undertaken in

27

anticipation of litigation nor is there any way for this Court to determine which if any

28

of the alleged work product communications included Plaintiff’s “mental thoughts and

-6-

1

impressions, and litigation strategy and plans. This is the starting point for the requisite

2

discussion of privilege, including whether Defendant can show there is a substantial need

3

for this discovery.3 Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall prepare and file a privilege log for her

4

communications, including emails, with Emery, Preitz, and Meadows.

5

Last, the Court turns to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from APA. She

6

challenges approximately 37 discovery responses made by the Defendant. Many of the

7

challenges are based on Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests for third-

8

party employment and grievance records and settlement agreements because these records

9

for approximately 15 non-party individuals are confidential and contain private

10

information including medical information. Plaintiff asks for this non-party discovery for

11

pilots she alleges were similarly situated to her. She seeks this information to show that

12

the APA did not provide fair representation to all members but instead represented some

13

members, these 15 individuals, and did not represent her for reinstatement. Before the

14

Court can rule on what seems to be delicate disclosure issues affecting third-nonparty

15

individuals, it will have to hear more from the parties. The Court is aware that the parties

16

have a settlement conference set for next week before the Honorable Magistrate Judge

17

Bruce MacDonald. The Court will delay a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel this

18

discovery from APA, until and unless the case is not resolved by settlement.

19

At this time, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s requests to compel wherein she

20

complains that APA asserts it has no responsive documents but she in fact possesses the

21

documents from other sources.

22

authenticity. This is a bridge the Court will cross later, if such a challenge is ever raised.

She fears APA will challenge her documents for

23

Accordingly,

24

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel discovery from American

25

Airlines (Doc. 105) is DENIED.

26
27
28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that American Airlines’ Motion to Quash (Doc.
3

Substantial need depends on whether the Defendant needs these communications to
prepare its case and whether it cannot, without undue hardship, obtain the substantial
equivalent to any facts contained therein by other means. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.
495, 508-09, 512-13 (1947).
-7-

1

110) is GRANTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the APA’s Motion to Compel Production of

3

Documents (Doc. 106) is GRANTED IN PART for disclosure of the 2014 Settlement

4

Agreement and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART as to Plaintiff’s assertion of

5

work product privilege over her communications with Emery, Preitz, and Meadows.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 7 days of the filing date of this Order,

7

American Airlines shall prepare the confidentiality agreement and provide it to the Plaintiff

8

and the APA for use in relation to the disclosure of the 2014 Settlement Agreement. It

9

shall be immediately signed by both parties and, thereafter, the Plaintiff shall within 24

10

hours disclose the 2014 Settlement Agreement.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days from the filing date of this

12

Order, the Plaintiff shall file a work product privilege log. The APA may have 14 days,

13

thereafter, to supplement its motion to compel. The Plaintiff may file a supplemental

14

Response. There shall be no Reply. Failure to file the privilege log shall result in granting

15

the Motion to Compel for the APA; failure to file a supplement to the Motion to Compel

16

shall result in denial of the Motion to Compel.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the case is not resolved by

18

settlement, the Court shall rule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 115); the

19

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s recently filed Motion Re: Interrogatory Requests (126)

20

shall be due within 14 days of the settlement conference.

21

Dated this 6th day of March, 2019.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8-