Hooks v. Starbucks Corp.

• Docket Number: 2:23-cv-01000-LK
• Decision Date: 27 October 2023
• Parties: RONALD K. HOOKS, Petitioner, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

1

RONALD K. HOOKS, Petitioner, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 2:23-cv-01000-LK

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 27, 2023

ORDER REGARDING HOOKS' MOTION FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING, ETC. AND STARBUCKS' CROSS-MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, ETC.

Lauren King United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion “for an order to expedite these proceedings, adjudicate this matter on affidavit and documentary evidence, and for an order governing requests for expedited discovery,” Dkt No. 19 at 2,^[1]and Respondent Starbucks Corporation's cross motion for expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing, Dkt. No. 41 at 1. The Court grants both parties' motions in part and denies them in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Ronald K. Hooks, Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”), filed this action in July 2023 seeking an injunction against Starbucks under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Dkt. Nos 1, 22; 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Board contends that Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices by combining three stores into a new “Heritage District” to quell a nascent union organizing campaign and by discriminating against union supporters in hiring for Heritage District jobs. Dkt. No. 22 at 12-19. The Board has scheduled a hearing before an administrative law judge to begin on December 12, 2023 regarding the alleged unfair labor practices. Id. at 12.

The Board filed this motion seeking to have its motion for a preliminary injunction considered without discovery and on the affidavits and exhibits filed in support of that motion. Dkt. No. 19 at 4-5. The affidavits are from current and former Starbucks employees attesting to various facts about their employment, their union support or lack thereof, their beliefs about the company's knowledge of their union support, and Starbucks' hiring decisions. Dkt. No. 5-2 (exhibits 12-18). Some employees state that managers questioned them about how they felt about the union, or that other employees told them that they had been subjected to such questioning. Id. at 13, 24-25. Some employees indicate whether union supporters were hired. Id. at 13 (an employee who openly supported the union was hired at 1st and Pike store while another supporter was not); id. at 19 (an employee who openly supported the union was not hired into the Heritage District); id. at 64 (same). One employee alleges that a union supporter was not allowed to interview remotely for a Heritage District position, while other employees were allowed to do so. Id. at 32-33.

In addition to the affidavits, the Board filed documents from another Board case, 19-RC-297140 (the “representation case”), which arose out of Workers United's June 6, 2022 petition to represent the hourly baristas and shift supervisors at Starbucks' 1st and Pike store in downtown Seattle. See Dkt. No. 41 at 3. The Board has filed a transcript of the hearing in the representation case and the parties' exhibits from that hearing. Dkt. No. 63 at 9-11 (listing exhibits); Dkt. Nos. 6-2, 7, 7-1, 8, 8-1, 9, 10 (exhibits 24-27 therein include the transcript from the representation hearing and the parties' exhibits).^[2] The Board argues that the Court should issue its requested injunction-without the inevitable delay of discovery-because its exhibits include sufficient information to meet its burden to demonstrate that an injunction is just and proper. Dkt. No. 19 at 5, 8.

Starbucks cross moved for an evidentiary hearing and discovery. Dkt. No. 41 at 1. It seeks discovery to counter the Board's affidavits, “to test Petitioner's assertion that the employees who were ‘displaced' from the legacy 1st & Pike store were likely to have voted for Workers United[,] . . . that the alleged unfair labor practice had a ‘chilling' impact on protected activity under the NLRA[,]” and “to determine why some of the alleged ‘displaced' employees did not apply to Heritage Market.” Id. at 6. Starbucks argues that the evidence from the administrative hearing in the representation case is of limited utility because (1) it involved a different issue, (2) the Board excluded from that hearing any evidence of Starbucks' motivation in creating the Heritage District-a key issue in this case-and (3) no evidence was offered regarding any chilling of union support. Id. at 4.

It also seeks discovery from the Board in three areas: (1) “the facts, not matters concerning the Board's deliberative process, surrounding and leading up to the decision by the Board to authorize the filing of the Petition”; (2) the reasons for “the Board's (a) nearly 14-month delay from the date Starbucks announced the implementation of the Heritage Market to its filing this Section 10(j) petition, and (b) the 18-month delay from the filing of the first unfair labor practice charge to the scheduling of the administrative hearing in December 2023”; and (3) the evidentiary basis for the Board's requested relief, including “that the Court issue an order rescinding establishment of the Heritage Market at 1st & University and Pike Place, despite there being no allegations of union activity at those stores” and for a notice to be posted and read at the impacted stores. Id. at 6-7; see also id. at 7 (seeking an “expedited schedule for document requests and interrogatories to the Board, the deposition of the Regional Director or another agent of the Board, and document subpoenas to and depositions of the Union, the individuals who provided the affidavits that Petitioner offers as exhibits with this Petition, and others whom Starbucks learns may have relevant evidence.”).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court first describes the applicable legal framework as a backdrop to this dispute. It then addresses the propriety of discovery.

A. The Legal Framework

Although the Board “enjoys primary jurisdiction over labor disputes, subject only to narrow judicial review,” Section 10(j) of the NLRA “permits the NLRB to petition a federal district court ‘for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order' pending the Board's resolution of an unfair labor practice charge.” McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 160(j)). The purpose of Section 10(j) is to “protect the integrity of the collective bargaining process and to preserve the NLRB's remedial power while it processes” unfair labor practices complaints. Miller ex rel. NLRB v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 459-60 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

Where, as here, the respondent does not concede that it violated the law, the Board bears the burden of showing that an injunction is “just and proper.” Id. at 459. When evaluating requests under Section 10(j), “district courts consider the traditional equitable criteria used in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.” McDermott, 593 F.3d at 957. Under that familiar rubric, plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that the public interest favors the issuance of the injunction. Small v. Avanti Health Sys., LLC, 661 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 2011); Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The likelihood of success in a Section 10(j) proceeding “is a function of the probability that the Board will issue an order determining that the unfair labor practices alleged by the Regional Director occurred and that [the appellate court] would grant a petition enforcing that order, if such enforcement were sought.” Frankl ex rel. NLRB v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1355 (9th Cir. 2011).

Although the Board argues that discovery is inappropriate in 10(j) proceedings, “the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in 10(j) proceedings, as a suit of a civil nature.” Madden v. Milk Wagon Drivers Union Loc. 753, 229 F.Supp. 490, 492 (N.D. Ill. 1964) (cleaned up); Sperandeo v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Emps. Loc. Union No. 537, 334 F.2d 381, 384 (10th Cir. 1964) (“[W]hile this action was brought by the appellant in his official government capacity, he is in no different position than any ordinary litigant and is, therefore, bound by the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the same respects as any ordinary litigant.”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), each party is entitled to discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” And expedited discovery is permissible upon a showing of “good cause.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 319 F.R.D. 299, 302 (E.D. Cal. 2016).^[3]“Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d), Notes of Advisory Committee on 1993 Amendment (stating that discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference “will be appropriate in some cases, such as those involving requests for a preliminary injunction”).

B. The Court Allows Limited Discovery

The Board argues that discovery, even if expedited, is not appropriate in a 10(j) case. Dkt. No. 19 at 6. But courts have allowed the respondent to conduct at least some discovery in 10(j) cases, including in similar cases involving Starbucks. See Meter v. Minn. Mining & Mfg Co., 42 F.R.D. 663, 664 (D. Minn. 1967) (granting discovery including depositions on the issues raised in the Section 10(j) petition); Poor v. Starbucks Corp., No....