DeGrandis v. Children's Hospital Boston, 203 F.Supp.3d 193

DeGrandis, a carpenter at Children’s Hospital Boston, was fired in 2008 shortly before his pension vested; he is a member of Local 877 governed by a CBA requiring just cause and grievance/arbitration procedures.
After earlier job issues and grievances, DeGrandis and the Hospital (with the union) entered a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA / "last chance agreement") that waived the CBA grievance/arbitration procedures for certain future breaches.
DeGrandis was later terminated pursuant to the MOA; he sued the Hospital under §301 of the LMRA for breach of the CBA. The district court originally dismissed; the First Circuit reversed as to the §301 claim, holding the MOA waived grievance/arbitration and left DeGrandis able to sue in federal court.
On remand, the Hospital served a subpoena on the union for “All documents concerning or relating to Mr. DeGrandis.” DeGrandis moved to quash, asserting a proposed federal "labor relations" privilege and claiming some union files contain attorney-client and work-product materials.
The magistrate judge held DeGrandis bears the burden to show a privilege, declined to recognize a new federal labor-relations privilege, found plaintiff has standing to challenge the subpoena, and ordered DeGrandis to provide any further privilege objections and a privilege log within two weeks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a federal "labor relations" privilege protects union-member communications from subpoenas	DeGrandis: adopt privilege to shield confidential union-member communications and materials	Hospital: union records are relevant to employer's defense and to show union's role; subpoena is proper	Denied: court will not recognize a new federal labor-relations privilege on these facts
Whether DeGrandis has standing to quash a subpoena served on the union	DeGrandis: materials may be privileged and implicate privacy/attorney-client interests, giving him standing	Hospital: union does not object, so plaintiff lacks standing to quash	Held: plaintiff has standing because he asserts privilege/privacy interests
Whether the subpoena is overbroad or seeks irrelevant materials	DeGrandis: (implicitly) subpoena is overbroad and includes privileged items	Hospital: seeks all documents relating to DeGrandis as potentially relevant to defenses	Court: subpoena appears overbroad; plaintiff may raise relevance/overbreadth objections within two weeks
Whether asserted attorney-client/work-product privileges were adequately preserved	DeGrandis: some union file items are attorney-created or privileged; requests protection	Hospital: challenges blanket assertions without a privilege log	Held: blanket assertions insufficient under Rule 26(b)(5); plaintiff must provide a privilege log and further particulars within two weeks

DeGrandis v. Children’s Hosp. Boston, 806 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2015) (MOA waived grievance/arbitration; employee allowed to bring §301 claim in federal court)
University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990) (courts should not expansively recognize new evidentiary privileges)
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (consideration of state recognition of privileges relevant when creating federal privileges)
In re Hampers, 651 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1981) (factors to evaluate whether to recognize a new privilege)
FDIC v. Ogden Corp., 202 F.3d 454 (1st Cir. 2000) (burden rests on party asserting privilege)
DelCostello v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 154 (1983) (law on hybrid §301/fair-representation claims and exhaustion/finality rules)