Wisniewski v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-10287
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wisniewski v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Judge Ho affirmed denial of Plaintiffs’ request to force the Labor Department to produce investigation materials.
The ruling affected the Plaintiffs’ effort to obtain subpoenaed investigation materials from the nonparty New York State Department of Labor and DOL’s obligation to produce those materials.
What happened
In Wisniewski v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the Plaintiffs sought documents from the nonparty New York State Department of Labor about prevailing wage investigations involving Johnson Controls employees performing steamfitting or plumbing work.
A magistrate judge denied the request, finding that relevant factual documents could be obtained from Johnson Controls and that producing the requested materials could interfere with the Labor Department’s internal decision-making process. The Plaintiffs objected, and the Labor Department opposed the objection.
Judge Ho reviewed the order under the deferential standard for challenging a magistrate judge’s discovery ruling. He found no clear mistake or legal error and affirmed the denial of the request to compel the Labor Department to produce the documents.
The detailed version
- Wisniewski v. Johnson Controls, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10287
- Robert Lehrburger
- Aug. 20, 2024
Background
The Plaintiffs asked the Court to enforce a subpoena requiring the nonparty New York State Department of Labor (DOL) to produce investigation documents and opinions concerning prevailing wage rates applicable to Johnson Controls, Inc. employees performing steamfitting or plumbing work from the company’s district office in Hawthorne, New York. The request included specified DOL investigation case files.
On July 9, 2024, Judge Lehrburger denied the Plaintiffs’ request. He found that DOL was not a party to the lawsuit, that relevant factual documents and correspondence could be obtained from Johnson Controls, and that producing DOL’s interim deliberations on investigations paused during the litigation would interfere with DOL’s decision-making process. He concluded that requiring DOL to produce the requested materials would impose an undue burden.
Plaintiffs’ Objection
The Plaintiffs objected to Judge Lehrburger’s order, primarily arguing that the finding concerning DOL’s decision-making process incorrectly applied the deliberative-process privilege. DOL opposed the objection and argued, among other things, that the Plaintiffs had not addressed the order’s separate finding that relevant factual documents and correspondence could be obtained from Johnson Controls. The Plaintiffs’ reply was due August 19, 2024, but the Court received no reply.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a district court to change or set aside a magistrate judge’s order when it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The standard is highly deferential. An order is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made; an order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules.
Judge Ho concluded that his review of the record did not leave him with a firm conviction that Judge Lehrburger had made a mistake. The Court adopted the arguments DOL made in its response and affirmed Judge Lehrburger’s decision. The Plaintiffs’ request to compel DOL to comply with the subpoena was therefore denied by the earlier order, and that decision was affirmed on review.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.