Service Employees International Union, CTW/CLC et al v. SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West et al

Filing 460

DISCOVERY ORDER re 456 Letter filed by Service Employees International Union. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/22/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
SERVICE EMPLOYEES, v. Plaintiff(s), No. C 09-00404 WHA (MEJ) ORDER RE: FUDR DISCOVERY

SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS, Defendant(s). _____________________________________/

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters regarding Plaintiff UHW's request for discovery related to the Fund for Union Democracy and Reform ("FUDR"), filed January 13 and 20, 2010. (Dkt. ## 456, 459.) In its request, Plaintiff seeks the following documents from FUDR: 1) 2) 3) documents pertaining to FUDR's structure and governance; documents related to communications with the State of California; and documents concerning FUDR's communications with UHW.

UHW argues that the first two requests are simple background documents that seek information on FUDR's history and status. As to the third, UHW argues that the purpose of this request is to explore the extent to which Defendants were involved in setting up FUDR and the extent to which the two entities were interrelated. Although Defendants originally raised objections on grounds of privilege, privacy, etc., UHW argues that these objections cannot withstand scrutiny as by definition UHW was a party to all communications, and it waives any such objections. In response, Defendants appear to make two contradictory arguments. Defendants first argue that FUDR is an independent organization with its own leadership and counsel. But they then argue that they have produced all FUDR documents in their possession. As UHW seeks a court order

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

compelling FUDR to produce responsive documents, and Defendants state that FUDR is an independent organization, it is unclear why Defendants are limiting the dispute to documents in their possession rather than FUDR's. Further, the Court agrees that FUDR cannot object to disclosure of communications that it has shared with an entity that waives the objection. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS FUDR to search for and produce documents responsive to document supoena's Requests Numbers 1, 2, and 9, as limited by UHW's January 13, 2010 letter. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2010

_______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2