Preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); San Diego Bldg Trades Council v Garmon; Henry v Laborers’ Local 1191; The local-interest exception; Preemption applicability to unfair competition & fraud claims; Intentional torts; Motion to compel answers to deposition questions; Fifth Amendment privilege; Hoffman v United States; In re Morganroth (6th Cir); Selective waiver; Mitchell v United States; Spousal privilege; MCL 600.2162(1); Production of a nonparty spouse’s notes; Scope of discovery; MCR 2.302(B)(1); People v Fisher; Fifth Amendment act-of-production doctrine; United States v Hubbell

Holding that Garmon preemption did not apply, the court concluded the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case concerning plaintiff-GM’s intentional tort claims arising from an alleged conspiracy to bribe union officials and weaken GM. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that defendant-Iacobelli did not “properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and could not invoke the statutory spousal privilege as a way in which to avoid answering” deposition questions. Finally, his wife (nonparty-appellant Susanne) could not invoke the privilege to refuse to produce handwritten notes about conversations with him. These consolidated appeals arose from unlawful payments made to union officials by employees of defendant-FCA. “Iacobelli was a lead union-bargaining representative for FCA from 2008 to mid-2015” and later worked for GM. In this case, GM alleged fraud and fiduciary duty breach claims as well as unfair competition and civil conspiracy claims. The court first addressed whether the trial court was deprived of subject-matter jurisdiction by NLRA preemption. It held that the unfair competition claim did not arguably fall under either relevant NLRA section. While the fraud claim was “a closer call,” the court held that it was not preempted under Garmon because the focus of the claim was “on misrepresentations made to harm a competitor, and not the collective-bargaining process itself[.]” The court added that even “if the second-amended complaint arguably alleged unfair labor practices falling within the scope of the NLRA, we would conclude that the local-interest exception applied[.]” It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion to compel Iacobelli’s answers to hundreds of deposition questions as the Fifth Amendment did not permit him to avoid answering them. He “did not have a reasonable apprehension of a real danger of incrimination.” As to his spousal privilege argument related to 20 deposition questions, the court determined that the “privilege did not apply because Susanne was not a party to this case and the testimony would not be ‘against’ her.” And as to the production of her notes, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that they “were not protected by spousal privilege and by compelling their disclosure.” Affirmed.