Leslie v. Starbucks Corporation

TES DISTR]

KO se LOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S EX

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 27 2022

Ws L8yc. torwenauts SK

LINDA M. LESLIE, Regional ESTERN pIsTRICL

Director of the Third Region of

the National Labor Relations

Board for and on behalf of the

National Labor Relations Board,

Petitioner,

v.

22-CV-478 (JLS)

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Respondent.

ORDER

Petitioner Linda M. Leslie and Respondent Starbucks Corporation have filed

competing motions addressing the proper procedural path for this case. In the

Motion to Shorten Time and for an Expedited Hearing (Dkt. 2) and Motion to

Determine Section 10G) Injunction Petition on Basis of Affidavits and Documentary

Evidence (Dkt. 3), Petitioner asks the Court to determine the merits of the petition

as soon as possible, based on the evidence that Petitioner submitted, and without a

hearing.! Respondent cross-moved in opposition, asking the Court either to (1) stay

this matter pending completion of the administrative hearing on the underlying

alleged unfair labor practices, or (2) set a schedule for expedited discovery and

schedule an evidentiary hearing. Dkt. 14.

1 Petitioner “does not seek a temporary restraining order.” Dkt. 2-1, at 1.

At the June 24, 2022 status conference to discuss scheduling, Petitioner

stated that she opposed Respondent’s discovery and stay requests, but clarified that

she did not oppose Respondent submitting its own affidavits and documentary

evidence. Respondent stated that it would need sixty days to submit such affidavits

and evidence.

After studying the parties’ submissions,” the Court grants, in part, and

denies in part, each party’s motions as follows. The Court settled on this approach

after reviewing the procedural paths that other Section 10G) cases have taken,

which illustrate that the Court has the discretion to chart a path that gives it the

information necessary to determine the petition and is fair to both sides under the

circumstances of the particular case. See, e.g., Kreisberg v. HealthBridge Mgmt.,

LLC, 782 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir. 2018) (district court “tried the matter on the

papers,” where neither party objected and the NLRB had completed administrative

proceedings); Mattina ex rel. NLRB v. Kingsbridge Heights Rehab. & Care Cir., 329

F. App’x 319, 8322-23 (2d Cir. 2009) (the district court “acted within its discretion

when it held hearings” to resolve the petition and “did not abuse its discretion in

denying [Respondent]’s discovery requests”); Paulsen v. CSC Holdings, LLC, Civil

Action No. 15-7054, 2016 WL 951535, at *2 & n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016) (resolving

petition based on the administrative record, affidavits, and accompanying exhibits);

2 The Court has considered all papers filed by each party regarding the proper

procedure, including Respondent’s supplement to its cross-motion, which it filed this

morning. See Dkt. 19.

Fernbach ex rel. NLRB v. Raz Dairy, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 2d 452, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

(resolving petition after oral argument before the administrative hearing began).

The Court DENIES Respondent’s request for a stay, but GRANTS its request

for limited, expedited discovery. Discovery shall proceed accordingly as follows:

1. By Tuesday, June 28, Respondent shall file a proposed discovery

order indicating, briefly, (a) what discovery it needs and why, (b) a list

of deponents (e.g., affiants and others who it may need testimony from)

and why, (c) proposed time limits for each deposition, in hours, and

(d) a proposed total aggregate deposition time, in hours;

2. By Wednesday, June 29, Petitioner shall respond to Respondent’s

proposed discovery order;

3. The Court will study the proposed order and response, and will issue a

final discovery order by Thursday, June 30;

4. By Friday, July 1, Respondent shall serve all deposition notices on

Petitioner, as well as on witnesses, if necessary and appropriate—with

later service on witnesses permitted, if adequate notice given; and

5. Depositions may begin on Tuesday, July 5, and shall be completed by

Friday, July 29, at 5:00 p.m. EST;

3 Each of the district courts to handle similar cases recently allowed limited,

expedited discovery and held hearings—with the District of Arizona court limiting

each party to three hours of cross-examination and argument at the hearing. See

generally Overstreet v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:22-cv-00676-JJT (D. Az.); McKinney v.

Starbucks Corp., No. 2:22-cv-02292-SHL-cgc (M.D. Tenn.).

The Court strongly encourages the parties to cooperate on scheduling

depositions and resolving discovery disputes. If necessary, the parties may raise a

discovery dispute with the Court by filing a letter. The Court will resolve any

urgent discovery issues by phone, on the record.

The Court GRANTS, IN PART, Petitioner’s motion to decide the petition on

the papers—e.g., affidavits, documentary evidence, and any deposition testimony

submitted—provided that, if the Court decides live witness testimony 1s necessary

on a particular topic or issue, it will receive such evidence on the date set for oral

argument, and will so instruct the parties sufficiently in advance of that date.

Respondent shall file all opposition papers—including deposition testimony,

affidavits, and documentary evidence—and its memorandum in opposition to the

petition by Friday, August 26. Petitioner’s reply brief is due by Wednesday,

September 7. The parties shall appear in person for oral argument on Thursday,

September 15, at 10:00 a.m.

The Court recognizes that it allowed Petitioner until Tuesday, June 28, to

respond to Respondent’s cross-motion and reply in further support of its own

motion. Petitioner may file that submission, if she wishes, and the Court will

consider it. The Court is confident that the procedure described in this order is the

appropriate path forward and balances each party’s rights; it will adjust this order

if any reply by Petitioner justifies doing so, but the parties shall proceed with the

presumption that this order stands.4

SO ORDERED. i A. od fr :

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 27, 2022

Buffalo, New York

4The Court issues this order before the deadline for Petitioner’s submission in light

of the quickly approaching deadlines set forth in this order, which the Court

selected consistent with Petitioner’s request for expedited proceedings.