Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


December 15, 1994


David N. Edelstein, U.S.D.J.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID N. EDELSTEIN

EDELSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

 This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an action commenced by plaintiff, United States of America, against defendants, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("the IBT" or "the Union") and the IBT's General Executive Board. This settlement was embodied in the voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 ("the Consent Decree"). Among other things, the Consent Decree provides for the creation of the Independent Review Board ("the IRB"). The IRB is responsible for investigating allegations of corruption within the Union. As part of its responsibilities, the IRB is authorized to convene hearings. See Consent Decree at 21. During these hearings, "all parties shall be permitted to present any facts, evidence, or testimony which is relevant to the issue before the Independent Review Board." Id. at 21-22. Further, the Consent Decree states that "any such hearing shall be conducted under the rules and procedures generally applicable to labor arbitration hearings." Id. at 22.

 The instant motion concerns charges that the IRB brought against Robert T. Simpson, Jr., who is the former President of IBT Local 743 in Chicago. The IRB charged Simpson with "bringing reproach upon the IBT and interfering with [Local 743's] legal obligations by allowing and condoning Donald Peters to continue to act as a representative of Local 743 and to incur expenses paid by the Local despite a prohibition against Peters acting in this capacity." *fn1" See Simpson's Motion Papers, Ex. A (memorandum from the IRB concerning charges against Simpson). The IRB scheduled a hearing on these charges for December 20, 1994 ("the hearing").

 Simpson brings the instant motion, requesting this Court to issue subpoenas requiring several witnesses to appear at the hearing. In support of this motion, Simpson has submitted a variety of papers to this Court. These papers explain that Simpson needs to subpoena Mr. Leroy Ellis, who has given deposition testimony that substantiates the charges against Simpson, because "Ellis' testimony will not withstand cross-examination by Simpson's lead counsel." See Simpson's Motion Papers, Motion at 2. In addition, Simpson states that he needs to subpoena "certain other industry people" because "these persons have indicated to counsel for Simpson that they are not comfortable with appearing voluntarily at the IRB hearing and would prefer to be subpoenaed." Id. at 3.

 Simpson's papers do not include a memorandum of law, and thus, they fail to brief the Court, in any detail, on the legal basis for this motion. However, one of Simpson's papers explains:

Simpson states that, if the IRB accepts the deposition testimony of Ellis, he will be denied due process as well as his right to confront the witnesses against him, said rights being guaranteed to him by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

 Simpson's Motion Papers, Motion at 4.

 The Government opposes this motion, arguing that Simpson has no right to subpoena witnesses and that none of Simpson's rights will be violated if this Court refuses to grant Simpson the power to subpoena witnesses. For the reasons discussed below, Simpson's motion is denied.


 As a threshold matter, Simpson's motion papers do not comply with the Local Rules for the Southern District of New York. Local Civil Rule 3(b) clearly states "upon any motion, the moving party shall serve and file with the motion papers a memorandum setting forth the points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion." This rule warns that "failure to comply may be deemed sufficient cause for the denial of the motion." Moreover, stressing the importance of this rule, this Court's Individual Rule 4(a) states that "motions must comply strictly with the Fed. R. Civ. P. and the Local Rules, particularly Local [Civil] Rule 3."

 Despite both of these rules, Simpson has submitted motion papers to this Court that do not include a memorandum of law. Therefore, Simpson's motion is denied for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 3(b).

 Even if Simpson had complied with the Local Rules, however, Simpson's motion would be denied in any event because it is meritless.

 Neither party's motion papers explain the source of this Court's authority to grant Simpson the power to subpoena witnesses. The Government simply assumes that this Court has this authority, while Simpson baldly asserts that this Court is authorized to issue such subpoenas under the All Writs Act ("the Act"), 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See Simpson's Motion Papers, McCabe Aff. at P 10 ("this motion is not made pursuant to any specific rule or statute of the Court (other than the All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. § 1651)"). Under the Act, this Court has discretion ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.