Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 101-5 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 1 of 3
1986 WL 10382 Page 1
(Cite as: 1986 WL 10382 (N .D.Ill.))
H one of these requirements warrants denial of the
Only the Westlaw citation is currently nvotinmo. m<>ti<>¤ to intervene as <>f right 1_...d· at 209-
AFSCME filed its petition to intervene in January
1985, before this case had progressed significantly.
- · - - - The defendants concede that AFSCME's petition is
U dS D C ,N.D.Il1 ,E _
mm mcs lsmcgivgggn mms astcm timely. Therefore, AFSCME has met the first
` requirement for intervention.
AMERICAN NURSES' ASSOCIATION, l., _ _ _ _
Plaintiffs ct a AFSCME asserts that its collective bargammg
V- ’ agreement with the State of Illinois gives it an
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1. D f d _ interest which relates to the subject of this action. In
eta ’ C an ams Vulcan Society v. Fire Degartment, 79 F.R.D. 437
No 84 C 4451 ]S.D.N.Y.[, the court found that unions which
° ° represented plaintiff firefighters in collective
Sept 12 1986 bargaining had in the collective bargaining agreement
` ° ' an interest related to the race discrimination suit filed
by black firefighters against the municipalities which
MEMORANDUM OPINION employed them. The court stated:
. . _ The collective bargaining agreements between the
CHARLES P' KOCORAS’ Dlsmct Judge' unions seeking to intervene and the defendants set
. . . forth the results of their negotiation and include
*1 This matter 1S before the court on the motion of - - · · -
. . . . provisions relating to salaries, assignments and
gmcflcan Fi$;¥t§§)°€_§Fa§é§4;?W apd Mumclpal benefits. Should plaintiffs' allegations [of race
mp °>;€(?s’ .ff `d (hr 1 1) to {mcgvcnc fas a discrimination] be established, modification of these
Egggcrlilglgumcagiopznif gicgsggy RE1_;§cO1311;t$1¥E terms would be within the scope of possible relief
‘ h b l ` ` .
address these motions separately. Soug t y P amufqs]
M _ I Id. at 439. Although the court in Vulcan Society
(mon to ntervene pemiitted the unions to intervene before liability had
. . . . . been established, the court's language suggested that
AFSCME 1S the exclusive bargainmg representative the umods interest thc collective bar - ·
. . , gaimng
;;;:I§i;(;;;ft;;€ gglggggegiulglgsiluggcicvigiisfatgg agreement, actually related only to the remedial stage
s s s f ` ·
working conditions, and is presently a party to a O the pmccedmgs
collective bargaining agreement with the State of Other coms have found that labor unions and
Illuiolq bAFS€:ME mamtams that ltifmlc as th? collective bargaining agents have a sufficient interest
$1;: t;rgi;1;1;in?p;;S;ut;t;;’t; c;la;1 f;pu(;1d;; to support intervention only at the remedial stage of
_ loyment discrimination case. In Little Rock
· ( X ]_ an °mp . . . .
Ff"c“*‘.R“‘j_1;’;C§;Ij;* Pnfgcdum 4.a In the School District v. Pulaski Coung; Sgeczal School
*"gm"I§"§· mul 24 S°°2 P"“m““’° m”“’°““°“ ozsmot No. 1, 738 mo 82 (Sth Cir.1984), the Eighth
un ¢r ¢ cm .Lt.l<.1- eoontt nord tnot teachers organizations which
. . ted teachers employed by the defendant
To mtervene as of right of Federal Rule 24(a)g2) an rcpmsfn- - - · - · d - h
applicant must (1) timely apply; (2) claim an interest iiggicggsmiits E; 0l;;;:§yba;i;1;;mg0l;-a aa I-Qiht)3
relating to the property or transaction which is the desegregation case The com stated that n[a]S
f;‘bJ°°Yd°f thi? tgcmn;. (3) be so slmatqd {hat the representatives of the classroom teachers in the three
iuiggiil Oznirgpcdg;;¤§l;1;;};Oa;r§uma@tam;?g;¥ districts, [the teachers organizations] have an interest
. . ’ in the existing agreements, which they themselves
agjd <4> gyttbg ;d·=¤¤¤*8*g_*¢Pf¤g;¥¤d bygggg have nsgonotso no no districts nwontn, and in so
$05 egos Org 67 th ug; S 1; 8 61 Fgilurclig satisfy even contmued viability of these agreements. The Eighth
Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 101-5 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 2 of 3
1986 WL 10382 Page 2
(Cite as: 1986 WL 10382 (N.D.Ill.))
Circuit had previously affirmed the district court's valuable during the liability phase of this case.
refusal to permit the teachers organizations to Therefore, AFSCME's motion for leave to intervene
intervene at the liability stage, stating that the interest under Rule 24tb)t2) is denied.
that the organizations sought to protect related to the
remedy. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Discovery Motions
County Sgecial School District No. 1, 725 F.2d 690
t8th Cir.l983)quoted in 738 F.2d at 83. The plaintiffs have moved for an order compelling
answers to their first set of interrogatories and their
*2 In EEOC v. American Teleghone v. Telegragh first request for production of documents. The
Co., 506 F.2d 735 (3d Cir.1974), the Third Circuit defendants have moved to compel the depositions of
concluded that the recognized bargaining agent for the named plaintiffs on the issue of class certification
AT & T had no right to intervene generally as a party and for a protective order staying general discovery
plaintiff in a civil rights suit. The court found, pending resolution of the class certification issue.
however, that the EEOC was entitled to intervene as All three motions relate to the same question:
a matter of right to challenge the terms of a consent whether classwide discovery on the merits should be
decree entered by EEOC and AT & T as the terms of stayed and discovery conducted only on the class
the consent decree required modifications in certification question until that issue is resolved.
collective bargaining agreements. Significantly, the The plaintiffs seek to commence general discovery
court held that although the muon sought to intervene on the merits now; the defendants prefer to bifiircate
as a party plaintiff it could intervene only as a party the discovery and proceed only with discovery
defendant as it opposed modifications in existing related to the question of class certification at this
collective bargaining agreements. |FNl| See also time. Although both parties have cited numerous
Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (Sth cases and other authorities in support of their
Cir.l977) (white employees could intervene pursuant respective positions, both parties recognize that the
to Rule 24ta)t2[ at remedial stage of race decision to bifurcate discovery is within the
discrimination case to object to consent decree which discretion of the district court and depends on the
could adversely affect their seniority rights). circtunstances of the individual case.
Neither AF SCME's existing collective bargaining *3 The court is persuaded that bifurcation of
agreements nor its role as exclusive bargaining discovery would be prudent under the circumstances
representative for state employees give it an interest of this case. This approach will expedite the
which would support intervention as of right at this decision on class certification in accord with Federal
stage of the proceedings. AFSCME's petition to Rule 23 which requires that class determination be
intervene as of right is presently denied, without made "as soon as practicable." Fed.R.Civ.P.
prejudice to the right to seek intervention at the 23tc)tl). The Manual for Complex Litigation also
remedy stage if and when the court determines that prefers bifurcated discovery:
the defendants are liable.
It is recommended that no discovery on the merits be
AFSCME also seeks permissive intervention under permitted during the discovery of the class action
Federal Rule 24tb)g2). Under Rule 24tb)t2), a court issue, except as is relevant to the class determination.
may permit intervention when the applicant's claim or Only in exceptional circumstances, such as obvious
defense and the main action have a common question lack of merit in the claim for reliefQ should a decision
of law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)t2). Permissive on the merits be made before scheduling discovery
intervention is within the discretion of the district on the class action issue.
court. United States v. City of Chicago, 796 F.2d
205, 211 47th Cir.l986[. The Manual for Complex Litigation § 1.40 (1977).
AFSCME contends that because its complaint in Plaintiffs' argument that much of the discovery on
intervention closely tracks the complaint in the main the merits will be necessary whether or not a class is
action, numerous common questions of law and fact certified obviously has some merit. Yet, as Judge
exist. |FN2| Nevertheless, permitting AFSCME to Robson recognized in Plummer v. Chicago
intervene now will only add to the ntunber of Journeyman Plumbers’ Local Union, 77 F.R.D. 399,
attomeys attending court calls, engaging in 402 (N.D.Ill.l977), many lawsuits will proceed to the
discovery, filing motions, submitting briefs, and merits regardless of whether a class is certified. "To
participating at trial, without adding a tmique hold that discovery can proceed on the merits
perspective that would make its participation irrespective or whether a class is certified would
Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 101-5 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 3 of 3
1986 WL 10382 Page 3
(Cite as: 1986 WL 10382 (N .D.Il1.))
swallow-up the well-established and sound
recommendations of the Manual for Complex
Litigation." Id.
The plaintiffs also object to bifurcated discovery
because it enables the defendants to depose the
named plaintiffs twice, once on the issue of class
certification and once on the merits of their claim. V
While the bifurcation of discovery will .
inconvenience the named plaintiffs in this way, it
may result in substantial savings of time and energy
later. If class certification is denied, the scope of
permissible discovery may be significantly narrowed;
if a class is certified, defining that class should help
determine the limits of discovery on the merits.
Therefore, discovery on the merits is stayed pending
resolution of the class certification issue. The
plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied, and the
defendants motions to compel and for a protective
order are granted.
@ The AT & T case is noteworthy
because it highlights a problem which might
arise if AFSCME intervened at this juncture.
If the plaintiffs succeed on the merits of
their employment discrimination claim, the
plaintiffs may seek relief which would
require changes in the existing collective
bargaining agreement and would adversely
affect members of AFSCME who were not
victims of, and indeed may have benefited
from, the alleged discriminatory practices.
AFSCME might then choose to oppose the
p1aintiffs' request for relief, and it would be
clear that AFSCME is not properly aligned
as a party plaintiff
LN; The court notes, however, that the
applicants have not amended their complaint
since the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion
upholding the dismissal of the plaintiffs
claims to the extent they rest on a theory of
"comparable worth."
1986 WL 10382, 1986 WL 10382 (N.D.Ill.)
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works