United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT COUNCIL 1 OF ILLINOIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
MASONRY COMPANY, INC., Defendant
For Administrative District Council 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff: Barry M Bennett, LEAD ATTORNEY, Josiah A. Groff, Dowd, Bloch & Bennett, Chicago, IL.
For Masonry Company, Inc., Defendant: Nazar Kashuba, LEAD ATTORNEY, Demchenko Kashuba Llc, Chicago, IL; James Vincent Garvey, Rebecca Lynn Dandy, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL.
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, United States District Court Judge.
This matter is before the court on arbitrators Alan Esche's (Esche) and Richard Lauber's (Lauber) (collectively referred to as " Arbitrators" ) motion to quash subpoenas for deposition and document production. For the reasons stated below, the instant motion to quash is granted.
Plaintiff Administrative District Counsel 1 of Illinois of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO (Union) contends that in May 2009, Defendant Masonry Company, Inc. (Masonry) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Union. Masonry allegedly violated a wage provision in the CBA and the parties proceeded to arbitration. A Joint Arbitration Board (JAB) issued an award (Arbitration Award), ruling for the Union. Esche and Lauber were members of the JAB. The Union brought the instant action to compel Masonry to comply with the Arbitration Award. Masonry then filed a motion to vacate the Arbitration Award, which essentially constituted a counterclaim in this action. Masonry asserts that the Arbitration Award should be vacated on the basis that Esche and Lauber were not impartial members on the JAB. During discovery, Masonry issued subpoenas (Subpoenas) to Esche and Lauber to appear for a deposition and to produce documents. Esche and Lauber now move to quash the Subpoenas.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) (Rule 45(c)(3)), a non-party who is the subject of a subpoena may file a motion to quash the subpoena. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3). Rule 45(c)(3) provides the following:
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's ...