Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The National Labor Relations Board sued the State of California and the Public Employment Relations Board on October 15, 2025, contending that California Assembly Bill 288 is facially preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. AB 288 authorizes PERB to regulate private-sector labor relations otherwise within NLRB authority under specified conditions, including an express or implied cession of NLRB jurisdiction. The identified circumstances include election challenges or objections, loss of an NLRB quorum, processing delays, and loss of agency independence based on unconstitutional removal protections. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed an unopposed motion to intervene on October 30, 2025, which was granted on November 12, 2025.
The district court granted part of the NLRB’s preliminary-injunction motion on December 26, 2025. It found that AB 288’s implied-cession provisions concerning lost quorum, processing delays, and lost independence did not avoid conflict, and that the NLRB was likely to succeed on the merits on its Garmon preemption argument. Discovery followed in 2026. The NLRB moved for summary judgment and for a protective order staying discovery on August 26, 2026. On September 22, 2026, the State of California and the Teamsters filed cross-motions for summary judgment and oppositions to the NLRB’s motion, while the Teamsters separately sought to stay the summary-judgment proceedings pending discovery. The parties filed a joint statement on September 30, and Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney heard the discovery motion on October 14, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney granted the NLRB’s motion for a protective order staying discovery pending resolution of the summary-judgment motions. She applied the district court’s wide discretion over discovery and the good-cause requirement, using a two-part test: the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or of the issue targeted by discovery, and the court must be able to decide that motion without additional discovery. The first prong was uncontested because the NLRB’s summary-judgment motion could dispose of the entire case. The judge emphasized that she was not adjudicating the merits of that motion, but could examine them enough to decide whether discovery should proceed.
The NLRB’s motion raises Garmon and obstacle-preemption arguments. The Teamsters argued that Garmon was inapplicable because Congress envisioned an independent NLRB and sought discovery concerning lost independence and agency atrophy. Judge Delaney found those arguments unavailing in light of the district court’s preliminary-injunction finding that the NLRB was likely to succeed on the merits on Garmon preemption. She distinguished NLRB v. New York because that motion to quash was not tied to a pending dispositive motion and the preliminary-injunction request there was withdrawn without merits findings. Because summary-judgment briefing was underway and the motions could be decided without further discovery, the second prong was satisfied. The order grants the stay through resolution of the summary-judgment motions and provides that if the NLRB appeals, it must seek an additional discovery stay at the appropriate time.
Key Takeaways
- The order stays discovery only while the parties’ summary-judgment motions are resolved; it does not decide whether AB 288 is ultimately preempted.
- Both parties effectively accepted that the NLRB’s summary-judgment motion was potentially dispositive of the entire case, satisfying the first protective-order prong.
- The magistrate judge relied on the earlier preliminary-injunction finding that the NLRB was likely to succeed on the merits on Garmon preemption when rejecting the Teamsters’ argument that the summary-judgment motion would fail.
- The New York discovery decision was distinguishable because it involved a different procedural posture and no merits findings on a withdrawn preliminary-injunction motion.
- An appeal by the NLRB will not automatically extend the discovery stay; the Board must request additional protection at the appropriate time.
Why It Matters
The decision keeps the California preemption litigation focused on legal challenges to AB 288 rather than allowing discovery into the NLRB’s independence or alleged agency atrophy before summary judgment. It shows how an existing potentially dispositive motion and prior preliminary-injunction findings can shape the discovery analysis without constituting a final merits ruling.
The order also defines the stay’s limits. It covers the period through resolution of the pending summary-judgment motions, while leaving any later appeal-related stay to a separate request. The State of California’s and Teamsters’ cross-motions, and the Teamsters’ separate request to delay summary-judgment proceedings for discovery, remain distinct from this grant of the NLRB’s protective order.