Raleigh v. Service Employees International Union

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Compel Limited Deposition. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Case 2:18-cv-11591-TGB-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 04/30/20

PageID.381

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK RALEIGH,

2:18-CV-11591-TGB

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL LIMITED
DEPOSITION

vs.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Mark Raleigh alleges Defendant Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) violated the Family and Medical Leave Act
when he was terminated by SEIU while on protected medical leave.
Plaintiff also alleges SEIU then defamed him when it published accounts
of his termination that falsely implied that he was terminated for sexual
misconduct when he was not. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel the Deposition of SEIU President Mary Kay Henry. ECF No. 28.
For the reasons below, the Court will permit a limited deposition of Ms.
Henry.

Case 2:18-cv-11591-TGB-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 04/30/20

I.

PageID.382

Page 2 of 6

Contentions
Plaintiff seeks to compel the testimony of SEIU President Mary

Kay Henry because Plaintiff believes that Ms. Henry was involved in
both the decision to terminate Plaintiff and SEIU’s subsequent media
strategy. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff cites email communications between Ms.
Henry and SEIU communications director Sahir Wali regarding press
reports about sexual harassment allegations at SEIU, ECF No. 29-2;
Internal email chains discussing Plaintiff’s administrative leave that Ms.
Henry was not copied on, ECF Nos. 29-3, 29-4; An email sent from Ms.
Henry to SEIU staff referencing Plaintiff being placed on administrative
leave, ECF No. 28-2, PageID.301; An email sent by Ms. Henry to advisors
about responding the press reports generally, ECF No. 29-5; Two
conference calls involving Ms. Henry and SEIU staff; And talking points
prepared for Ms. Henry by Ms. Wali for use in the calls with SEIU staff,
ECF No. 29-6.
Defendant contends that none of the documents cited by Plaintiff
demonstrate that Ms. Henry has any knowledge of the facts underlying
Plaintiff’s claims that cannot be obtained from other sources. ECF No.
30, PageID.328. Defendant argues that she has no unique knowledge of

Case 2:18-cv-11591-TGB-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 04/30/20

PageID.383

Page 3 of 6

the facts of this case since SEIU staff, and not Ms. Henry, made all
decisions regarding Plaintiff’s leave and termination. Defendant asserts
that the communications Plaintiff cites pertain primarily to the
resignation of another employee, not Plaintiff, and none of the exhibits
show that Ms. Henry did anything more than remain apprised of
decisions that were made by her advisors. Id. at PageID.329.
II.

Legal Standard
Though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for broad

discovery of relevant and nonprivileged matters, upon a showing of good
cause, the Court may issue a protective order to protect a party from
“annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). When a party seeks to depose a high-level
corporate or governmental decisionmaker who is not the subject of the
litigation, the party must first demonstrate that the proposed deponent
has “unique personal knowledge” of facts relevant to the dispute. See
Lewelling v. Farmer Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir.
1989) (affirming issuance of protective order based on deponent having
no knowledge as to facts pertinent to the plaintiff's action); see also Devlin

Case 2:18-cv-11591-TGB-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 04/30/20

PageID.384

Page 4 of 6

v. Chemed Corp., No. 04-CV-74192-DT, 2005 WL 2313859, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 21, 2005) (same).
III. Discussion
Ms. Henry is the president of SEIU, a two-million-member union.
Plaintiff seeks to depose her because Plaintiff contends that she
personally participated in his termination and the Union’s internal and
external communications surrounding his termination. According to the
evidence in the record, President Henry was aware of Plaintiff’s leave
and termination. For example, Ms. Henry sent an email to staff on
October 24, 2017 that discussed scheduling staff meetings in response to
the Buzzfeed article that referenced both Plaintiff and allegations
against Executive Vice President Scott Courtney. See ECF No. 29-5. She
also participated in conference calls where Plaintiff was discussed, and
apparently no transcript of those calls exists. See Fells Dep., ECF No.
28-3, PageID.304. Thus, unlike a typical case where a plaintiff seeks to
depose a high-ranking executive far removed from the events giving rise
to the lawsuit, here the evidence before the Court demonstrates that Ms.
Henry had knowledge of relevant facts at the time the events took place
and participated in at least some of the relevant discussions.

Case 2:18-cv-11591-TGB-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 04/30/20

PageID.385

Page 5 of 6

At the same time, the evidence in the record does not clearly
establish with certainty that Ms. Henry possesses a wealth of unique
personal knowledge of the facts of this dispute that could not be obtained
from other deponents. For example, a significant portion of the emails
cited by Plaintiff were not sent by Ms. Henry, and many she was not even
copied on. See ECF No. 29-3. Plaintiff cites a set of talking points
prepared for Ms. Henry that references Plaintiff, but the talking points
were prepared by Ms. Wali—whom Plaintiff deposed. See ECF No. 29-6.
The only evidence in the record of Ms. Henry’s involvement in preparing
the talking points is her apparent request to change the order of one of
the bullet points. ECF No. 29-8, PageID.326.
Considering the facts as a whole, because Plaintiff has
demonstrated that Ms. Henry was a personal participant in some of the
events giving rise to this lawsuit and may have some limited knowledge
of relevant facts that Plaintiff cannot obtain from other sources, the
Court grants Plaintiff a limited deposition of Ms. Henry that may not
exceed two hours.

Case 2:18-cv-11591-TGB-DRG ECF No. 31 filed 04/30/20

IV.

PageID.386

Page 6 of 6

Conclusion

For the reasons cited herein, the Motion to Compel the Deposition of
SEIU President Mary Kay Henry (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. Plaintiff
may depose Ms. Henry for a time not exceeding two hours.
DATED this 30th day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
United States District Judge