InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
Litigation Update
March 11, 2004
ALPA Defaults on Discovery Obligations, Fails to Produce Thousands of Documents
ALPA has thus far failed to produce thousands of requested documents as part of its ongoing discovery obligations, including those documents detailing its actions toward the ASA and Comair pilots and its attempts to impose restrictions on their livelihoods. Compounding legal matters for ALPA is the union’s apparent reluctance to provide good cause or to furnish specific information detailing when and how they plan to fulfill their legal obligations.
The magnitude of ALPA’s recalcitrance is exhibited by their recent conduct. Under the Court’s approved schedule, thousands of documents were to be produced by January 9th. On January 5th, at a routine administrative meeting with the Court, ALPA gave no indication that it was totally unprepared to begin the imminent production of the requested materials. Then, on January 14th, five days past the deadline, ALPA sent a letter requesting forty-five additional days to respond and further requested that plaintiffs withdraw fourteen requested items.
In response to ALPA’s request for additional time, Plaintiff’s Counsel indicated that an extension of 30 to 35 days would be granted. However, ALPA failed to follow-up on its own request and instead initiated a debate over the pending confidentiality agreement—which has no bearing on the production of thousands of documents that do not warrant such protections. Furthermore, even though the confidentiality agreement was executed last month, ALPA has only managed to produce a small fraction of the anticipated documents. [1][1]
ALPA’s default on their obligations has left Plaintiff’s counsel with no choice but to formally warn ALPA that it risks judicial intervention unless it moves immediately to fulfill its obligations. Furthermore, plaintiffs have demanded that ALPA’s counsel immediately inform plaintiffs of the volume of documents ALPA plans to produce, the expected delivery dates of said information, and the date ALPA expects to complete document production. ALPA has also been formally advised that both Plaintiffs and their attorney are highly experienced in ALPA matters and the underproduction of documents will not be tolerated.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/discovery_request_by_subject.pdf
ALPA Risks Sanctions
To better understand the nature of ALPA’s default and the possible consequences, suppose a crew-member failed to report for duty, failed to notify the company in advance, failed to provide a valid explanation, and when contacted by crew scheduling, merely stated that they would arrive at work “sometime.” Obviously no employer would tolerate such gross negligence and neither will plaintiffs.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), plaintiffs are entitled to various remedies to compel ALPA to turn over the requested materials and to recoup any legal expenses incurred as a result of ALPA’s non-compliance. In addition to finding itself the subject of a court order, ALPA risks any number of court-imposed sanctions.
Related Link: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/civil2001.pdf
Plaintiffs Submit Written Interrogatories to ALPA
As part of the discovery process, the parties are permitted to submit written questionnaires, called “interrogatories” to the opposing party. The answers to the interrogatories are given under oath and are used to obtain additional information relevant to the case. For example, the following is one of the thirty-eight questions submitted to ALPA:
“State whether Duane Woerth ever told either an assembled group of any persons or ever told any representative of a newspaper, magazine, newsletter, or other medium, that circumstances require that 70-seat equipment be flown by mainline pilots. If so, identify the time, place, and circumstances in which such statement was made, and set forth the actual words of such statement.”
Under the rules, ALPA has thirty days to reply and their responses are due on or about March 17th.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/interrogatories.pdf
Parties Execute Confidentiality Agreement
On March 1st, ALPA and Plaintiffs entered into a confidentiality agreement that will govern the disclosure of certain information obtained via the discovery process. Such agreements are commonplace and do not affect the admissibility of any documents, but rather the ability of the parties to disclose the covered information outside of the legal process.
Under the terms of the agreement, a party may designate as confidential any information that, “if made public, adversely affects the business, financial, commercial, organizational, employment or privacy interests of the producing party or any other individual.” Likewise, the agreement requires that both parties be circumspect in classifying documents as “confidential.” The agreement also provides mechanisms for challenging a “confidential” classification, up to and including taking any disputes to the Magistrate Judge for resolution.
ALPA’s Recalcitrance Sends Important Message
For years, ALPA’s leadership has maintained that all claims of favoritism and conflicting interests are without merit. However, ALPA’s failure to produce the required documents in a timely manner again suggests that the union’s rhetoric and demagoguery will not square with the demonstrable facts. But while the legal process provides an array of remedies to compel ALPA to uphold its legal responsibilities, all of ALPA’s members must not lose sight of the fact that the union’s leadership apparently desires to withhold the pertinent facts from them as well.
ALPA’s members should pay close attention to how ALPA’s leadership responds to serious questions concerning how they safeguarded the rights of ALPA members, and the motives underlying ALPA’s mainline bargaining practices. For example, has ALPA ever demonstrated that restricting the number of smaller airliners promotes large aircraft growth? How did ALPA’s leadership respond to specific warnings that its version of “job security” clauses would not work? How can ALPA’s officers claim to be upholding their fiduciary obligations to the membership while simultaneously claiming to be “unaware” of the union’s actions or bargaining objectives?
ALPA’s officials have a higher duty to place the interests of the Association above political expediency. As such, our leadership cannot continue to hide the union’s history of miscalculation under layers of management bashing or the vilification of a particular type of airliner. The issues raised by ALPA’s conduct extend into every facet of the union’s existence. While some in ALPA may find the idea of litigation distasteful, if the union’s leadership is reluctant to account for its actions, then all ALPA members have reason to be alarmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1][1] As we go to press, ALPA’s counsel has indicated that more documents will be shipped the week of March 15th.
March 11, 2004
ALPA Defaults on Discovery Obligations, Fails to Produce Thousands of Documents
ALPA has thus far failed to produce thousands of requested documents as part of its ongoing discovery obligations, including those documents detailing its actions toward the ASA and Comair pilots and its attempts to impose restrictions on their livelihoods. Compounding legal matters for ALPA is the union’s apparent reluctance to provide good cause or to furnish specific information detailing when and how they plan to fulfill their legal obligations.
The magnitude of ALPA’s recalcitrance is exhibited by their recent conduct. Under the Court’s approved schedule, thousands of documents were to be produced by January 9th. On January 5th, at a routine administrative meeting with the Court, ALPA gave no indication that it was totally unprepared to begin the imminent production of the requested materials. Then, on January 14th, five days past the deadline, ALPA sent a letter requesting forty-five additional days to respond and further requested that plaintiffs withdraw fourteen requested items.
In response to ALPA’s request for additional time, Plaintiff’s Counsel indicated that an extension of 30 to 35 days would be granted. However, ALPA failed to follow-up on its own request and instead initiated a debate over the pending confidentiality agreement—which has no bearing on the production of thousands of documents that do not warrant such protections. Furthermore, even though the confidentiality agreement was executed last month, ALPA has only managed to produce a small fraction of the anticipated documents. [1][1]
ALPA’s default on their obligations has left Plaintiff’s counsel with no choice but to formally warn ALPA that it risks judicial intervention unless it moves immediately to fulfill its obligations. Furthermore, plaintiffs have demanded that ALPA’s counsel immediately inform plaintiffs of the volume of documents ALPA plans to produce, the expected delivery dates of said information, and the date ALPA expects to complete document production. ALPA has also been formally advised that both Plaintiffs and their attorney are highly experienced in ALPA matters and the underproduction of documents will not be tolerated.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/discovery_request_by_subject.pdf
ALPA Risks Sanctions
To better understand the nature of ALPA’s default and the possible consequences, suppose a crew-member failed to report for duty, failed to notify the company in advance, failed to provide a valid explanation, and when contacted by crew scheduling, merely stated that they would arrive at work “sometime.” Obviously no employer would tolerate such gross negligence and neither will plaintiffs.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), plaintiffs are entitled to various remedies to compel ALPA to turn over the requested materials and to recoup any legal expenses incurred as a result of ALPA’s non-compliance. In addition to finding itself the subject of a court order, ALPA risks any number of court-imposed sanctions.
Related Link: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/civil2001.pdf
Plaintiffs Submit Written Interrogatories to ALPA
As part of the discovery process, the parties are permitted to submit written questionnaires, called “interrogatories” to the opposing party. The answers to the interrogatories are given under oath and are used to obtain additional information relevant to the case. For example, the following is one of the thirty-eight questions submitted to ALPA:
“State whether Duane Woerth ever told either an assembled group of any persons or ever told any representative of a newspaper, magazine, newsletter, or other medium, that circumstances require that 70-seat equipment be flown by mainline pilots. If so, identify the time, place, and circumstances in which such statement was made, and set forth the actual words of such statement.”
Under the rules, ALPA has thirty days to reply and their responses are due on or about March 17th.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/interrogatories.pdf
Parties Execute Confidentiality Agreement
On March 1st, ALPA and Plaintiffs entered into a confidentiality agreement that will govern the disclosure of certain information obtained via the discovery process. Such agreements are commonplace and do not affect the admissibility of any documents, but rather the ability of the parties to disclose the covered information outside of the legal process.
Under the terms of the agreement, a party may designate as confidential any information that, “if made public, adversely affects the business, financial, commercial, organizational, employment or privacy interests of the producing party or any other individual.” Likewise, the agreement requires that both parties be circumspect in classifying documents as “confidential.” The agreement also provides mechanisms for challenging a “confidential” classification, up to and including taking any disputes to the Magistrate Judge for resolution.
ALPA’s Recalcitrance Sends Important Message
For years, ALPA’s leadership has maintained that all claims of favoritism and conflicting interests are without merit. However, ALPA’s failure to produce the required documents in a timely manner again suggests that the union’s rhetoric and demagoguery will not square with the demonstrable facts. But while the legal process provides an array of remedies to compel ALPA to uphold its legal responsibilities, all of ALPA’s members must not lose sight of the fact that the union’s leadership apparently desires to withhold the pertinent facts from them as well.
ALPA’s members should pay close attention to how ALPA’s leadership responds to serious questions concerning how they safeguarded the rights of ALPA members, and the motives underlying ALPA’s mainline bargaining practices. For example, has ALPA ever demonstrated that restricting the number of smaller airliners promotes large aircraft growth? How did ALPA’s leadership respond to specific warnings that its version of “job security” clauses would not work? How can ALPA’s officers claim to be upholding their fiduciary obligations to the membership while simultaneously claiming to be “unaware” of the union’s actions or bargaining objectives?
ALPA’s officials have a higher duty to place the interests of the Association above political expediency. As such, our leadership cannot continue to hide the union’s history of miscalculation under layers of management bashing or the vilification of a particular type of airliner. The issues raised by ALPA’s conduct extend into every facet of the union’s existence. While some in ALPA may find the idea of litigation distasteful, if the union’s leadership is reluctant to account for its actions, then all ALPA members have reason to be alarmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1][1] As we go to press, ALPA’s counsel has indicated that more documents will be shipped the week of March 15th.
