666 F. App'x 14
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Anne Bryant (pro se) sought pre-suit discovery from her unions, AFM and SAG, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 to obtain recording contracts and other documents related to royalty disputes.
- The district court denied the Rule 27 application and later dismissed Bryant’s complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty (construed as a duty of fair representation) by AFM and SAG under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court concluded Bryant’s duty-of-fair-representation claim was governed by the NLRA’s six-month limitations period and was untimely.
- Bryant argued the court should have applied New York state-law standards (longer limitations periods) and that her pre-suit discovery should have been evaluated under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3102(c) rather than Rule 27.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 27 denial for abuse of discretion and the dismissal de novo, construing Bryant’s pro se pleadings liberally.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: (1) no abuse of discretion in denying pre-suit discovery under Rule 27; (2) the duty-of-fair-representation claim was federal and time-barred, so amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-suit discovery: proper procedure and entitlement under Rule 27 | Bryant argued her motion should be judged under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3102(c) and that she needed Rule 27 discovery to obtain contracts | Defendants argued federal procedure (Rule 27) applies and Bryant failed to meet Rule 27 requirements (no need to perpetuate testimony; could pursue discovery in other actions) | Denial of Rule 27 discovery affirmed; federal rules govern and Bryant failed to show inability to bring suit now or risk of losing evidence |
| Breach of duty of fair representation: timeliness and law governing claim | Bryant urged state-law fiduciary theory and relied on longer NY limitations; disputed timeliness | Defendants argued claim is federal (duty of fair representation) and governed by NLRA’s six-month limitations period, making it untimely | Dismissal affirmed: claim construed as federal duty-of-fair-representation and was time-barred; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (federal procedural rules apply in federal court)
- Mosseller v. United States, 158 F.2d 380 (2d Cir. 1946) (standard for reviewing pre-suit discovery applications)
- Deiulemar Compagnia Di Navigazione S.p.A. v. M/V Allegra, 198 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (requirements and limits for Rule 27 discovery)
- In re Petition of Allegretti, 229 F.R.D. 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (articulating Rule 27 factors: focused explanation, good-faith intent to sue, and risk of loss or concealment)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (duty of fair representation standard)
- Kalyanaram v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors at N.Y. Inst. of Tech., Inc., 742 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2014) (six-month limitations period for duty-of-fair-representation claims)
- Grace v. Rosenstock, 228 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2000) (futility standard for amendment)