United States District Court, D. Nebraska
RODOLFO A. QUILES, Plaintiff,
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INCORPORATED, RODNEY N. DOERR, EDWARD ADELMAN, TRACY SCOTT, and KATHLEEN HUGHES, individually; Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's objection,
Filing No. 134, to the order of the magistrate judge
guashing plaintiff's subpoena for a deposition,
Filing No. 131. This action arises out of
plaintiff's termination by Union Pacific Railroad
Company, Incorporated (hereinafter "UP") allegedly
in violation of 38 U.S.C. §§ 4312, and 4313 and
4316; and 20 C.F.R. § 1002 et seq. (Uniform
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, hereinafter
"USERRA"). Plaintiff contends UP terminated him for
unlawful reasons, namely (1) his reguired military service,
and (2) in retaliation for filing a complaint with the
Department of Labor.
Pacific hired plaintiff in February, 2014, as a General
Manager of Safety Analysis. Plaintiff is a member of the
United States Marine Corps Reserve. The military deployed
plaintiff on or about May 12, 2015. While deployed, Greg
Workman was hired by UP and assumed most of plaintiff's
job responsibilities. Plaintiff returned to work on October
19, 2015. He learned he had been demoted. He complained and
said this demotion violated USERRA. He conferred with
management, the human resources department, and with legal
counsel for UP. He thereafter asserted his rights under
tried to transfer into another department. He successfully
interviewed for the position, but the Director of Human
Resources blocked his transfer. In November, 2015, plaintiff
received a mid-year review. In his written review his
military service absence was referenced in a negative manner.
In December, 2015, plaintiff received another review, again
containing negative military comments. He received a below
expectations rating. This allegedly cost him approximately
$40, 000.00 in denial of a year-end pay raise and bonus pay
and stock interest. On December 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a
complaint of discrimination and violation of USERRA with the
Department of Labor Veterans Employment Training Service.
During the investigation, plaintiff received a letter of
reprimand for refusing to attend a calendar meeting
invitation. On March 2, 2016, defendants placed plaintiff on
a performance review plan. Plaintiff says he immediately made
the changes, so the follow up date of May 2, 2016, was
canceled. However, on March 29, 2016, his employment was
terminated. The Department of Labor investigation concluded
on April 22, 2016, and the findings indicated plaintiff's
claims had merit. Four days later, on or around April 26,
2016, Mr. Quiles received notice from UP that his 2014 bonus
stock award of 237 shares of Union Pacific Corporation was
being forfeited because it had not vested prior to his
determined by the magistrate judge:
On September 5, 2017, a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition
in a Civil Action was issued to Cecilia Coatney, the Director
for Nebraska and Acting Director for Illinois for the United
Stated Department of Labor's ("DOL")
Veterans' Employment and Training Services. Plaintiff
issued a separate Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to a deponent/agent
of the Veterans' Employment and Training Services
("VETS"). Cecilia Coatney ("Coatney") and
the DOL are not parties to this litigation.
The United States has moved the Court to quash the subpoena
issued to Coatney and the 30(b)(6) subpoena issued to a
deponent/agent of VETS.
No. 131. at 1.
magistrate judge determined that DOL regulation 29 C.F.R.
§ 2.22 prohibits Coatney from testifying unless the
Deputy Solicitor of Labor permits her to do so. In this case,
the DOL prohibited her from testifying, contending that the
plaintiff had other alternative means that were reasonable
for obtaining the requested information. The magistrate judge
noted that the courts are split on how to handle such a
request, but she determined that regardless of the standard,
the court would come to the same conclusion.
magistrate judge then analyzed the request to quash under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 and 26, and concluded the subpoena imposes an
undue burden on the United States. VETS identified 748
relevant documents, withheld 34 as privileged and redacted 19
pages, and otherwise released all the remaining pages in
their entirety. The magistrate judge concluded that the
testimony of Coatney would be largely cumulative, and a
deposition would take her away from her normal duties.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge granted the United
States' motion to quash.
objections, plaintiff contends that the magistrate ...