Eugene Scalia v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Background

Eugene Scalia, acting in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), brought this action against the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) under Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. DOL seeks to invalidate ILWU’s September 2018 election of union officers and require a new election.

The dispute concerns approximately 1,078 ballots from ILWU’s Panama Canal Division. ILWU disqualified those ballots because they were collected and mailed together in a box, which the union said violated its election rules. DOL alleges that ILWU denied some Panama members a reasonable opportunity to vote by failing to provide adequate safeguards, accurate Spanish-language instructions, timely ballot delivery, and ballots to approximately 608 eligible members.

ILWU requested letters rogatory—formal requests for judicial assistance in obtaining evidence from another country—from people and organizations in Panama. The requested evidence concerned membership and voter eligibility, the ballot mailing process, communications about the election, return postage, and the decision to collect and bulk-mail ballots.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the requested information was relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 because it could bear on DOL’s claims and ILWU’s defenses. In particular, evidence about which members were eligible to vote could help determine whether eligible members were denied voting opportunities and whether any violation may have affected the election’s outcome. Evidence about when ballots arrived in Panama could bear on whether members had the minimum time required to vote and return them. Evidence about voters’ actual understanding of postage requirements could bear on DOL’s claim concerning the lack of Spanish-language instructions.

The court also found that at least some of the proposed discovery was proportional and necessary. DOL had investigated the case using sources in Panama, and some information appeared unavailable from sources in the United States. The court rejected DOL’s position that evidence from Panama was irrelevant merely because the claims focused partly on what ILWU knew or should have known before the election.

The court reached a different conclusion concerning ILWU’s equitable “unclean hands” defense, which argued that the court should not order a new election if an incumbent faction or its supporters had caused the election irregularities. The court found insufficient evidentiary support for the theory that Ray Familathe, Greg Mitre, or members of their campaign engaged in or encouraged election fraud in Panama. The supplemental deposition testimony and text messages did not support that inference. The court therefore denied the requested Panamanian discovery on that topic.

Scope of permitted discovery

The court found ILWU’s requests somewhat overbroad and duplicative. It permitted a deposition from one SINTRAPORSPA representative, one Panama Canal Pilots Union representative, and one representative from each of Panama Ports and Serviestiba, S.A. It narrowed the deposition topics and document requests to matters directly relevant to the claims and defenses. The court stated that the changes would appear in amended letters rogatory issued separately.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part ILWU’s motion for issuance of letters rogatory. It stated that it would sign and seal the amended letters and return them to ILWU’s counsel for forwarding to the U.S. Department of State. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.