Gardner Denver, Inc. v. District No. 9 Local Lodge 822, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

Filing 34

OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins: Defendant District Lodge No. 9 Local Lodge 822, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Respond to Request for Product ion of Documents 31 is DENIED with leave to refile after the District Court resolves the pending Summary Judgment Motions 15 23 . In addition, further discovery is stayed until the Summary Judgment Motions are resolved. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 28 May, 2014 02:33:11 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

GARDNER DENVER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT LODGE NO. 9
LOCAL LODGE 822,
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND
AEROSPACE WORKERS,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13-cv-3040

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant District Lodge
No. 9 Local Lodge 822, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers’ (Union) Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories
and Respond to Request for Production of Documents (d/e 31) (Motion).
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied with leave to refile
after the District Court resolves the pending cross-motions for summary
judgment (d/e 15 and d/e 23) (Summary Judgment Motions).

Page 1 of 7

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Gardner Denver, Inc. (Gardner Denver) and the Union are
parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA provided
that effective October 1, 1991, Gardner Denver would not provide medical
insurance coverage at retirement for any employee who was 49 years of
age or less at the end of the calendar year 1991. The CBA further provided
that there would be, “No change for those retired prior to October 1, 1991.”
Complaint (d/e1),¶ 18. At that time, Gardner Denver paid the cost of health
insurance premiums for these retirees.
In October 2012, Gardner Denver sent notices to the approximately
70 retirees who retired before October 1, 1991 (the Retirees), that effective
January 1, 2013, Gardner Denver would only pay half the cost of their
health insurance coverage, and effective January 1, 2014, Gardner Denver
would no longer pay any of the cost of their health insurance coverage .
The Retirees would have to pay 100% of the insurance premiums.
Complaint, ¶ 16.
The Union filed a grievance to challenge Gardner Denver’s action to
stop paying for insurance coverage for the Retirees. Gardner Denver
denied the grievance “in part because the retirees are not represented by

Page 2 of 7

the Union and are not covered by the arbitration procedures of the CBA.”
Complaint ¶ 19. The Union sought to take the dispute to arbitration.
On February 12, 2013, Gardner Denver filed this action to seek a
declaratory judgment that this dispute is not subject to arbitration. The
Union answered and filed two counterclaims: the first counterclaim sought
to compel arbitration (Count One); and the second counterclaim sought
injunctive relief and damages for breach of the CBA (Count Two). The
Union filed Count Two in the alternative if the dispute was not arbitrable.
Answer and Counterclaim of Defendant (d/e 8).
On May 24, 2013, the Parties filed a Joint Proposed Scheduling
Order (d/e 11). The parties proposed that discovery would close on
December 2, 2013. The parties anticipated that the case would be
resolved on dispositive motions. The court adopted the parties’ proposed
schedule. Scheduling Order (d/e 13) ¶ 4.
The parties filed the Summary Judgment Motions on the issue of
whether the dispute is subject to arbitration. Gardner Denver challenged
whether the disputes involving the Retirees were arbitrable and whether the
Union had standing because the Retirees were not members of the
collective bargaining unit and were not represented by the Union.
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Page 3 of 7

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
(d/e 24), at 6-12. The Union presented affidavits from two of the Retirees
who consented to be represented by the Union. Memorandum in Support
of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim Count I
(d/e 17), Exhibits 2 and 3, Affidavits of Jesse Stone and Betty Stone. The
Union further argued several grounds under which it had standing to bring
the grievance and to seek arbitration of the dispute. Memorandum in
Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim
Count I, at 11-19.
The Union also served Gardner Denver with interrogatories and
requests to produce documents. Gardner Denver objected on several
grounds. Gardner Denver asserted that no discovery was needed for
resolution of the declaratory judgment actions. Gardner Denver also
asserted that the Union had no standing because the Retirees were not
represented by the Union and were not part of the collective bargaining
unit. Gardner Denver has further argued that the discovery request was
overly broad. Gardner Denver argued that the Union sought information
regarding all 70 Retirees, but only represented two of them. Gardner
Denver asked the Court to stay discovery until the Summary Judgment
Motions were resolved. Opposition to Motion to Compel (d/e 32), at 1-2
Page 4 of 7

The Union responded that Gardner Denver agreed to the discovery
schedule. The Union also argued that the discovery was needed for its
claims in Count Two for breach of the CBA. The Union further argued the
stay was inappropriate. The Union argued that the litigation should be
pursued expeditiously because of the advanced age of the Retirees.
Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Respond to Request for
Production of Documents (d/e 31), ¶ 10; Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Motion to Compel (d/e 33), at 3-5.
ANALYSIS
The court has carefully considered this matter and finds that
discovery should be delayed until the Summary Judgment Motions are
resolved. The Motion and the Summary Judgment Motions raise many of
the same legal issues regarding the Union’s standing and whether the
Union’s standing is limited to the two Retirees who have consented to the
Union’s representation. See Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim Count I, at 11-19;
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment, at 6-12; Opposition to Motion to Compel, at 1-2; Reply to
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Compel, at 3-5. The District Court should
Page 5 of 7

resolve these issues in the first instance to avoid the possibility of
inconsistent rulings. The Summary Judgment Motions are fully briefed.
Waiting for the District Court’s decision should only result in a brief delay.
Such a brief delay will not materially harm the Retirees.
The District Court’s resolution of the Summary Judgment Motions
should also simplify the discovery issues. The District Court could find that
the Union was entitled to take the dispute to arbitration, or the District Court
could find that the Union lacked standing. Either of these findings would
resolve the case and no discovery would be necessary. The District Court
could also find that the Union had standing to bring Count Two on behalf of
all of the Retirees or only had standing to bring Count Two on behalf of the
two Retirees who consented to representation. Resolution of this question
may determine the appropriate scope of discovery should the case proceed
on Count Two. Waiting for the District Court’s decision, therefore, could
materially simplify, and perhaps resolve, the discovery issues.
THEREFORE Defendant District Lodge No. 9 Local Lodge 822,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers’ Motion to
Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Respond to Request for Production
of Documents (d/e 31) is DENIED with leave to refile after the District Court
resolves the pending Summary Judgment Motions (d/e 15 and d/e 23). In
Page 6 of 7

addition, further discovery is stayed until the Summary Judgment Motions
are resolved.
ENTER: May 28, 2014

s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 7 of 7