Airlines For America v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The court considered the parties’ joint discovery letter concerning two requests by Airlines For America (A4A). First, A4A sought to depose former Deputy City Attorney Lisa Powell. Second, A4A sought testimony from a witness on two topics in its deposition notice for the City and County of San Francisco under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6): the drafting, consideration, and adoption of the Healthy Airport Ordinance (HAO), and all amendments or proposed amendments to the HAO since April 6, 2021.

A4A said the information would help it show that the HAO was conceived and promoted by local airport-worker union chapters seeking healthcare benefits. A4A argued that the information was relevant to its claim under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that the HAO was preempted—meaning displaced by federal law—and to its claims under the federal and California Contracts Clauses.

Legal standard

Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court emphasized that information need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable, but it must still be both relevant and proportional.

Court’s analysis

For the RLA preemption claim, the court held that information about how the HAO was drafted had little or no relevance. The court explained that RLA preemption turns on whether resolving the claim requires interpreting a collective bargaining agreement or whether the claim arises entirely from such an agreement. In the court’s view, the ordinance’s political background and the subjective motives behind its adoption do not answer that question. Instead, the relevant analysis concerns the ordinance’s operation and economic effects on collective bargaining.

The court also found the requested information immaterial to A4A’s Contracts Clause claims. That analysis asks objective questions, including whether the law substantially impaired a contractual relationship, whether it served a significant and legitimate public purpose, and whether the chosen means reasonably advanced that purpose. The court said those questions are evaluated using the public legislative record, public statements, and the terms of the ordinance—not nonpublic information about the drafting and adoption process.

Disposition

The court denied A4A’s discovery requests at issue in the joint discovery letter. This order resolved the two discovery disputes; it did not rule on the ultimate merits of A4A’s RLA preemption or Contracts Clause claims.