Noble v. Sombrotto, 233 F. Supp. 3d 123

Background

Noble, a union member, sought to inspect NALC records under LMRDA §201(c) to verify the accuracy of the union’s LM-2 filings, following internal charges he filed in 1993.
In Sept. 1993 Noble requested 18 categories of records; he was given some materials but the NALC withheld records for several categories (including a purported Minneapolis bank account, housing-payments records, and broad financial files).
The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for the district court to resolve whether particular inspection requests remained outstanding and, if so, whether they met §201(c)’s requirements.
On remand the court ordered detailed submissions; Noble narrowed his outstanding requests to (1) records for a Minneapolis bank account (1989–1993), (2) records reflecting NALC payments for housing for two officers (1980–1993), and (3) documents responsive to categories 5,7,8,12,13,14,15,18 from his 1993 letter.
The court concluded Noble met the minimal “just cause” standard for some requests but failed to satisfy §201(c)’s verification requirement (i.e., he did not explain how the particular records sought would directly verify entries in the LM-2s), and therefore entered judgment for defendants on the §201 claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of §201(c) claims by failing to list requests in 2002 discovery statement	Noble: discovery focused on §501(a); failure to list §201(c) items does not waive them	NALC: Noble omitted items in the court-ordered final discovery list, so he waived them	Court: No waiver. Failure to pursue those items in discovery does not bar a §201(c) claim because discovery is not the proper vehicle to obtain the §201(c) remedy
Whether Noble showed just cause to inspect Minneapolis bank-account records	Noble: testimony from a former regional employee raised reasonable questions about an alleged Minneapolis account, so just cause exists	NALC: objected in discovery and contends no such account exists	Court: Just cause satisfied for inquiry into Minneapolis account (minimal standard met)
Whether Noble met the §201(c) verification requirement for Minneapolis account records	Noble: needs to verify whether those funds were reported on LM-2s; but says he needs the entire union file to do so	NALC: contends Noble fails to tie the specific records to LM-2 entries	Court: Verification requirement not met — Noble did not explain how the specific Minneapolis records (apart from a wholesale review) would directly verify LM-2 entries; request amounts to an impermissible broad audit
Whether other broad requests (housing payments; categories 5,7,8,12–15,18) satisfy §201(c)	Noble: various suspicious actions and missing documents justify inspection to verify LM-2s	NALC: these requests are overbroad and not shown to be directly relevant to LM-2 verification	Court: Requests fail §201(c) — either insufficient explanation of what is to be verified in LM-2s or failure to show how specific records would accomplish verification; denied as impermissibly broad

Key Cases Cited

Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen Local 760 v. Morley, 378 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1967) (defines minimal "just cause" standard)
Mallick v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 749 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (burden on member to show just cause; verification element discussed)
Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1993) (requires member to state what they wish to verify in LM reports and how the records will assist)
Kinslow v. Am. Postal Workers Union, Chicago Local, 222 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 2000) (explains when LM-2 information inspires reasonable inquiry)
Gabauer v. Woodcock, 594 F.2d 662 (8th Cir. 1979) (LM-2 related records accessed under §201(c), not §501)
Tax Analysts v. IRS, 410 F.3d 715 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (discusses limitations on using discovery to obtain final FOIA-like relief)
Landry v. Sabine Indep. Seamen’s Ass’n, 623 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980) (scope of permitted inspection may exceed earlier discovery limits)