From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amazon.com Servs. v. United States Dep't of Justice

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 11, 2023
No. C22-1815-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 11, 2023)

Opinion

C22-1815-JCC

01-11-2023

AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent, and MARTIN J. WALSH, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Intervenor.


ORDER

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Martin J. Walsh's, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”), motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 14). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.

Petitioner filed a petition to modify subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). (Dkt. No. 1.) These subpoenas were issued as part of an ongoing investigation by SDNY and the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). (Dkt. No. 7 at 5-6.) Petitioner asserts it has tried to diligently respond to SDNY and OSHA's subpoena requests, but that the timelines SDNY and OSHA have requested are unreasonable. (Id. at 6-7.) Petitioner asks the Court to issue a protective order and to set a “reasonable schedule” for it to comply with the SDNY's subpoenas. (Id. at 7.)

DOL requests permission to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.) Petitioner consents to DOL's request to intervene. (Id.) Permissive intervention requires “(1) an independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law or fact between the movant's claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470,473 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 777 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Court must also consider whether the intervention “will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(3).

Each of these requirements is satisfied. First, the Court has independent jurisdiction to require individuals to produce evidence and provide testimony related to an ongoing investigation by DOL. 29 U.S.C. § 657(b). Here, DOL seeks to intervene to obtain an order compelling Petitioner to comply with subpoenas issued by OSHA. (Dkt. No. 14 at 4.) Second, DOL's motion is timely; it is filed only two weeks after Petitioner's motion and Petition does not object. Third, common questions of fact exist between DOL's claim and Petitioner's request for a protective order. Although the protective order Petitioner requests is related to SDNY's subpoena requests, there is substantial overlap between the records and testimony requested by SDNY and those requested by OSHA. (Dkt. No. 14 at 5.) This means any ruling this Court makes regarding Petitioner's obligation to produce certain documents and witness testimony will also impact OSHA's ongoing investigation and subpoenas.

Therefore, the Court finds that permissive intervention of DOL is appropriate, and the motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED.


Summaries of

Amazon.com Servs. v. United States Dep't of Justice

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 11, 2023
No. C22-1815-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 11, 2023)
Case details for

Amazon.com Servs. v. United States Dep't of Justice

Case Details

Full title:AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jan 11, 2023

Citations

No. C22-1815-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 11, 2023)