Bimbo Bakeries USA v. Bakery

Background

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. sued to vacate a labor arbitration award issued in favor of Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union Twin Cities, Local 22. After answering the complaint, the union filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). That motion remained pending before the district judge.

The union separately moved to stay discovery until the Rule 12(c) motion was resolved. It argued that the motion presented a narrow legal question about whether the arbitration award was based on the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The union also argued that Bimbo’s discovery requests—covering communications with 17 other signatory employers, hundreds of other unions, and hundreds of members—were burdensome and implicated employees’ rights to keep their union activities confidential. The union additionally requested attorney’s fees and litigation costs related to the stay motion.

Bimbo opposed the stay. It argued that the motion was untimely because the union filed it after discovery responses were due, that the union had not shown undue burden or good cause, and that discovery was necessary to resolve the arbitration dispute.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Foster rejected Bimbo’s timeliness argument. Bimbo had served its discovery requests before the pretrial scheduling conference, where the court expressed concern about immediate discovery and directed the parties to discuss a possible agreement to stay discovery. After those discussions failed, the court gave the union until August 4, 2025, to file its motion. The union filed on that date, so the court found Bimbo’s timeliness argument frivolous.

The court found good cause to stay discovery. It explained that courts may regulate discovery under Rule 26 and may also control their own dockets. The court considered the breadth of Bimbo’s requests, the significant burden on the union, the potential prejudice from delaying discovery, and the parties’ and court’s resources. It concluded that almost every relevant factor favored a stay.

The court declined to consider the merits of the pending Rule 12(c) motion because that motion was before the district judge. It also noted that Rule 12(c) motions generally are decided from the pleadings, with limited exceptions for outside documents. If the district judge determines that the dispute cannot be resolved from the pleadings, discovery can proceed then. The court further observed that the pending motion could narrow or resolve the case and that judicial review of an arbitration decision is limited.

Disposition

The court ordered that the union’s motion for a stay of discovery was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Discovery was stayed pending resolution of the union’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The union’s request for attorney’s fees and costs was denied. Although the court found Bimbo’s timeliness argument frivolous, it denied fees because Bimbo had raised additional arguments that were colorable, even though unpersuasive. The court also explained that the cited rule concerning fees for protective orders did not apply because the union had not sought a protective order.