Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Alviti

• Decision Date: 21 September 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-2120, No. 20-2168,20-2120
• Citation: 14 F.4th 76
• Parties: AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.; Cumberland Farms, Inc. ; M&M Transport Services, Inc.; New England Motor Freight, Inc., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Peter ALVITI, Jr., in his official capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority, Defendants, Gina M. Raimondo, Governor of the State of Rhode Island; Nicholas A. Mattiello, Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Stephen R. Ucci, Member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, Interested Parties, Appellants. In re: Gina M. Raimondo, Governor of the State of Rhode Island; Nicholas Mattiello, Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Stephen R. Ucci, Member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Peter Alviti, in his official capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation; and Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority, Petitioners.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

14 F.4th 76

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.; Cumberland Farms, Inc. ; M&M Transport Services, Inc.; New England Motor Freight, Inc., Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.Peter ALVITI, Jr., in his official capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority, Defendants,Gina M. Raimondo, Governor of the State of Rhode Island; Nicholas A. Mattiello, Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Stephen R. Ucci, Member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, Interested Parties, Appellants.

In re: Gina M. Raimondo, Governor of the State of Rhode Island; Nicholas Mattiello, Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Stephen R. Ucci, Member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives; Peter Alviti, in his official capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation; and Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority, Petitioners.

No. 20-2120

No. 20-2168

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

September 21, 2021

Nicole J. Benjamin, with whom John A. Tarantino, Patricia K. Rocha, R. Bart Totten, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., Michael W. Field, Keith David Hoffman, and R.I. Office of Attorney General were on brief, for appellants.

Nicole J. Benjamin, with whom John A. Tarantino, Patricia K. Rocha, R. Bart Totten, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., Michael W. Field, Keith David Hoffman, and R.I. Office of Attorney General, were on brief, for Rhode Island Senate, amicus curiae.

Charles A. Rothfeld, with whom Evan M. Tager, Reginald R. Goeke, Colleen M. Campbell, Mayer Brown LLP, Richard Pianka, and ATA Litigation Center were on brief, for appellees.

Nicole J. Benjamin, with whom John A. Tarantino, Patricia K. Rocha, R. Bart Totten, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., Michael W. Field, Keith David Hoffman, and R.I. Office of Attorney General were on brief, for petitioners.

Before Thompson and Kayatta, Circuit Judges, and Woodlock, District Judge.^*

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.

We consider in these consolidated cases an interlocutory appeal and a petition for mandamus, each asking that we reverse a decision of the district court refusing to quash subpoenas seeking discovery from Rhode Island public officials and a state consultant.¹The proponents of the discovery are trucking interests who assert that the discovery is reasonably calculated to provide evidence that Rhode Island elected officials aimed to discriminate against interstate commerce in charging bridge tolls.

The targets of the proposed discovery assert that principles of legislative privilege preclude the discovery.We decline the request to allow an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order.We also decline to issue a writ of mandamus regarding the district court's refusal to quash the discovery subpoenas served on the state's consultant, CDM Smith.At the same time, we will issue a writ of advisory mandamus reversing the decision to allow the discovery sought from Rhode Island's former governor, from the former speaker of Rhode Island's legislature, and from a former state representative.Our reasoning follows.

I.

A.

The Rhode Island Bridge Replacement, Reconstruction, and Maintenance Fund Act of 2016 ("RhodeWorks"), R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-13.1-1 – 42-13.1-17, authorizes the assessment of tolls in exchange for "the privilege of traveling on Rhode Island bridges to provide for replacement, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of Rhode Island bridges,"id.§ 42-13.1-4(a).In enacting RhodeWorks, the legislature found that twenty-three percent of bridges in the state were structurally deficient and that other existing funding sources were insufficient to correct the deficiencies.Id.§ 42-13.1-2(2), (4), (7).

American Trucking Associations, Inc., together with several trucking companies²(all "American Trucking"), challenges two features of RhodeWorks.First, American Trucking complains that RhodeWorks allows tolls to be assessed only against "large commercial trucks,"id.§ 42-13.1-4(a), which are defined as vehicles falling between Class 8 (single trailer, three or four axles) and Class 13 (multiple trailers, seven or more axles) of the Federal Highway Administration vehicle classification schedule, id.§ 42-13.1-3(3), while simultaneously prohibiting the assessment of tolls against passenger vehicles, id.§ 42-13.1-5, as well as any future act authorizing the assessment of tolls against passenger vehicles unless such act has been approved by a majority of electors voting in a statewide referendum, id.§ 42-13.1-4(a).

Second, American Trucking points out that RhodeWorks imposes statutory caps on the number of tolls that can be assessed against any single truck per facility and per day.Specifically, RhodeWorks provides that: (1) trucks cannot be charged more than "once per toll facility, per day in each direction,"id.§ 42-13.1-4(b);(2) trucks "making a border-to-border through trip" on I-95 cannot be charged more than $20 in each direction, id.§ 42-13.1-4(c); and (3) trucks cannot be charged more than $40 per day, id.§ 42-13.1-4(d).³American Trucking alleges that, according to a report prepared by CDM Smith, the toll caps increase the share of the total costs borne by out-of-state trucks from fifty-five percent to sixty percent.

In arguing that these aspects of RhodeWorks are unlawfully discriminatory, American Trucking highlights in its Complaint that the Rhode Island Department of Transportation(RIDOT) first considered increasing the fuel tax to cover its bridge-related expenses but rejected that proposal because such a tax would have been "borne primarily by Rhode Island businesses and consumers."A tolling program, by contrast, would "shift[ ] a segment of the cost ... onto semi-tractor trailer trucks that pass through the state without stopping."American Trucking next points to the following statement purportedly made by former Governor Raimondo, as reported in a local newspaper:

The reason I prefer the tolling proposal [to the diesel-tax proposal] is because the majority of the burden is on out-of-state truckers and out-of-state companies who are using -- and I would say abusing -- our roads. ...I don't like putting the burden squarely on the people and businesses of Rhode Island. ...If you increase the diesel tax, it's every fisherman, every restaurant, every dry cleaner that delivers, every florist that delivers ....It really hits every Rhode Island business.

Along similar lines, a member of former Governor Raimondo's staff reportedly stated that "[t]he Governor has made it very clear she does not want to put the burden on the backs of Rhode Island families ....A significant share of the revenue will be raised from out-of-state users."

Later, former Governor Raimondo also reportedly indicated that she favored truck-only tolling because "the majority of [revenue] would come from out of state."And shortly before the legislation was amended to exempt smaller trucks, American Trucking alleges that former Governor Raimondo stated, "We are willing to sit down with local companies and say, ‘Is there a way we can make this less burdensome for local Rhode Island companies?’We're at the table discussing it."

In connection with their critique of RhodeWorks's design, American Trucking asserts that the drafters were aware of and intended to achieve the cost-shifting effects of the toll caps, citing that: (1) former House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello reportedly stated, "People should know that 60 percent of the money [for tolls] is going to come from out of state"; (2) former Representative Stephen Ucci reportedly stated, "The tolling relies on 60 percent revenue from out of state trucks who would have never paid to come through this state"; and (3) RIDOT Director Peter Alviti, when asked about the toll caps during a state legislative hearing, reportedly stated, "That's part of the mitigation that we put in place.That local businesses[,]they benefit."⁴

Tolling under RhodeWorks began in June 2018.The following month, American Trucking filed this action against the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority and RIDOT Director Alviti in his official capacity ("the RIDOT defendants"), contending that RhodeWorks facially violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and seeking to permanently enjoin the collection of RhodeWorks tolls.

B.

Following a previous appeal on an unrelated jurisdictional issue, seeAm. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Alviti, 944 F.3d 45(1st Cir.2019), American Trucking moved for a preliminary injunction against the collection of RhodeWorks tolls.After extensive briefing, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that American Trucking had not established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Alviti, C.A.No. 18-378-WES, 2020 WL 5443551, at *7–8(D.R.I.Sept. 10, 2020).The district court explained, in relevant part, that the record was insufficiently developed to show that RhodeWorks discriminated against interstate commerce in either purpose or effect.Id. at *4, *6.In so holding, the district court specifically rejected American Trucking's argument that the statements by RhodeWorks' sponsors revealed a patently discriminatory legislative purpose, finding that the statements (if admissible) were "largely selective and presented without context."Id. at *4.

American Trucking thereafter sought to enforce subpoenas seeking documents and deposition testimony from several non-party drafters and sponsors of RhodeWorks -- Governor Raimondo, Speaker Mattiello, and Representative Ucci ("the State Officials") -- to bolster its discriminatory-intent claims.Specifically, the subpoenas sought materials relating to: (1) any efforts to mitigate the economic impact on Rhode Island citizens; (2) the expected or actual impact of the toll caps on in-state vs. out-of-state truckers; (3) the expected or actual impact of tolling only certain...