United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
WILLIAM L. MCVEIGH, Plaintiff,
CLIMATE CHANGERS INC., JW BROWER HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL, AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS, LOCAL 66; and MARLENE HARNISH, Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT LOCAL 66'S MOTION TO COMPEL
AND ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH, COMPEL AND DISCLOSE
J. BRYAN United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendant International
Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation
Workers, Local 66's (“Local 66” or
“Union”) Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 84),
Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, Compel and Disclose
Defendants (Dkt. 87) and Defendants' motions for
reasonable expenses (Dkts. 92 and 96). The Court has
considered pleadings filed regarding the motions and the
remainder of the file herein.
March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed this civil action, and now
alleges claims against his former employer, Climate Changers
Inc. d/b/a J.W. Brower Heating and Air Conditioning
(“Brower”), its' president, Marlene Harnish,
and Local 66 “pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act and 29 U.S.C. § 185.”
Dkt. 1-1. In his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts
that there was no just cause for his termination for
misconduct or sexual harassment. Dkt. 60. He alleges he was
not fully paid. Id. Plaintiff maintains that Local
66 violated their duty of fair representation. Id.
The Third Amended Complaint includes claims for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of fair representation,
defamation per se, intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and wrongful discharge. Id.
Plaintiff seeks damages, “[f]or Defendant(s) to be
rehabilitated with personal, professional, and social
deterrence, ” and for the Court to enforce a provision
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Id.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THE MOTIONS
October 17, 2016, Local 66 served its First Interrogatories
and Requests for Production on Plaintiff. Dkt. 85-1, at 2-15.
Plaintiff sent his First Set of Answers and Responses to
Local 66 on November 21, 2016. Dkt. 85-1, at 17-29. On
November 29, 2016, Local 66 wrote to Plaintiff, informing him
he provided incomplete answers, lodged multiple objections
and failed to produce documents in response to the Requests
for Production. Dkt. 85-1, at 31-38. Local 66 further
explained their interrogatories and agreed to extend the date
for full answers and production of documents to December 21,
2016. Id. Plaintiff did not respond. Dkt. 85, at 2.
Local 66's counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff twice
via email. Id. On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff
responded and indicated that he was available for a call.
Id. That same day, Plaintiff served his second set
of answers and responses. Dkt. 85-1, at 47- 64. Local
66's counsel contacted him again, and they agreed to meet
on December 28, 2016 to discuss Plaintiff's incomplete
answers and to inspect and copy documents. Dkt. 85, at 3.
Plaintiff agreed to email counsel and let them know when to
expect him. Id. Plaintiff did not email counsel, but
appeared at counsel's office around the noon hour.
Id. The receptionist told him counsel would return
in a few minutes and that he was welcome to wait. Dkt. 86, at
2. Plaintiff gave the receptionist a thumb drive containing
the record of his “October 22, 2015 OAH hearing”
and left. Id. Five minutes later, Local 66's
counsel returned to her office. Dkt. 85, at 4. Counsel
attempted to contact Plaintiff by phone and by email.
Id. He did not respond. Id. Local 66's
instant Motion to Compel (Dkt. 84) followed.
filed a response to Local 66's Motion to Compel,
discussed unrelated actions of Jay Roderik Stephens, counsel
for Defendants Brower and Marlene Harnish (Dkt. 90, at 1-8)
and asserts that counsel for Local 66 committed a fraud in
regard to documents they filed (Dkt. 90, at 8-10). Plaintiff
contends that he has sufficiently answered Local 66's
questions and mailed 125 pages of documents to them.
Id., at 14. In his Response, Plaintiff also moves
the Court for an:
Order of Protection to stop the harassing behavior, Compel
Marlene Harnish to produce Initial Disclosures pursuant to
FRCP 26(a)(l)(D)&(E), Compel Mr. Stephens to withdraw as
the attorney of record or file a Notice of Appearance on
behalf of Marlene Harnish, compel Ms. Fix [Local 66's
counsel] to cease her testimonies to what she is not a
witness, compel Ms. Harnish to file Initial Disclosures,
Compel Mr. Stephens to cease his shenanigans, to Order an In
Camera Review of the National Labor Relations Board 's
file of case #19-CB-169041, write a grievance to the
Committee on Discipline to investigate the actions of Ms.
Fix, Mr. Stephens, Bradley Medlin, and Daniel Hutzenbiler in
Id., at 15. (These requests are repeated in his
pending motion, and so will be addressed in this order's
discussion of his motion.)
66 filed a reply, and point out that only a few lines of
Plaintiff's response is dedicated to the motion to
compel. Dkt. 101. Local 66 acknowledges that Plaintiff sent
it several pages of documents, but notes that he in no way
indicated which documents responded to which Request for
Production or that they were intended to respond to their
Requests for Production at all. Id. Local 66 argues
that it repeatedly tried to work with Plaintiff (particularly
in light of his pro se status) to no avail. Id. It
asserts that it should be awarded $3, 645.00 in reasonable
attorneys' fees for having to bring this motion.
January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Quash,
Compel, and Disclose Defendants. Dkt. 87. In this motion,
Plaintiff states that “on December 29 and 30, 2016
along with 3 January, 2017, Plaintiff was served subpoenas
from ‘Claimate [sic] Changers INC, JW Brower, Marlene
Harnish' represented by ‘Roderick [sic]
Stephens.'” Dkt. 87. He points out that the
attendance date of the deposition was 6 January 2016 on the
first subpoena, and notes that on the second one, a hand
written change was made for the deposition date to be 6
January 2017. Id. Plaintiff also states that no per
diem check came with the subpoena and that the name of the
issuing court had been left blank. Id. He also
discusses the time given him to respond to the subpoena.
Id. Plaintiff moves to quash these subpoenas.
Id. Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling
Marlene Harnish to produce her Initial Disclosures and to
compel Mr. Stephens to withdraw as the attorney of record or
file a notice of appearance on behalf of Marlene Harnish.
Id. Plaintiff states that he “believes that a
collaboration has taken place to which both Defendant's
[sic] representatives are a party and will need to call each
as witnesses.” Id., at 3. He again asserts
that counsel for Local 66 has deceived the Court.
Id. Plaintiff maintains that the “evidence
forces plaintiff to believe he has been the focus to a
conspiracy. These legal representatives are running free
breaking the laws they should be protecting.”
Id., at 4. Lastly, Plaintiff also moves the Court to
“issue a subpoena to view in camera the complete file
for case # 19-CB-169041, if required write a grievance to the
Committee on Discipline” and for an order protecting
Plaintiff from “further misleadings [sic] of Defendant
and Ms. Harnish filed a response and argue that
Plaintiffs' motion should be denied. Dkt. 96. They point
out that Plaintiff acknowledges that Brower timely filed
initial disclosures, and state that Ms. Harnish, as the only
owner of this three person company, expressly adopts those
disclosures. Id. Brower and Harnish note that
Plaintiff failed to follow Local Rule W.D. of Wash. 37 (a),
which requires parties to meet and confer to try to resolve
the dispute discovery disputes before a motion to compel is
filed. Id. They also point out that Plaintiffs'
meritless attacks on counsel and this frivolous motion have
needlessly increased the cost of litigation. Id. For
his failure to adhere to Local Rule 37 (a) and his filing of
this allegedly meritless motion contrary to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11,
Brower and Harnish seek an award of $3, 800 in reasonable
66 filed a Response to Plaintiff's motion, arguing that
to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an order compelling
counsel to act as a witness in this case, the motion should
be denied because it has no merit. Dkt. 92. It also opposes
Plaintiff's motion for the Court to issues a subpoena to
the National Labor Relations Board. Id. Local 66
points out that the discovery deadline, January 23, 3017, has
now passed. Id. It argues that his requests for
relief should be denied. Id. Local 66 also points
out that Plaintiff failed to follow Local Rule 37(a).
Id. Local 66 asserts that no meet and confer has
taken place. Id. Local 66 also moves for an award of
reasonable expenses of $1, 642.50 it incurred in opposing
Plaintiffs' motion. Id.
filed replies (Dkt. 103 and 104) and the motion is ripe for
January 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pleading indicating that
he had attended a videotaped deposition. Dkt. 105.
opinion will first discuss the general standard regarding
discovery, then Local 66's motion to compel,
Plaintiff's motion for various relief, and lastly the
Defendants' motions for attorney's fees.