Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hamilton Growers, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Compel. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 7/27/2012. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 7:11-CV-134 (HL)

and
ZANDREA WADE, et al.,
Plaintiff/Intervenors,
v.
HAMILTON GROWERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion to Compel
Subpoena Response from Margarita Cardenas (Doc. 42).
On March 26, 2012, non-party Margarita Cardenas was personally served with
a subpoena requiring her to produce certain documents. Specifically, the PlaintiffIntervenors requested:
All documents related to your work with Hamilton Growers,
Inc., Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., or any
other business affiliated with or work performed for Kent
Hamilton (collectively “Hamilton”) for the time period of
January 1, 2008 - present.
(Doc. 42-1, p. 4).
Plaintiff-Intervenors specified the following as responsive to the request:
(a)
documents or correspondence concerning farm
labor contracting with Hamilton and agreements with
Hamilton regarding farm labor contracting, including but

not limited to contracts, letters, emails, phone bills, faxes,
telephone memoranda, and contracts for services;
(b)
documents referring to or showing work performed
for or items sold to Hamilton including but not limited to
invoices, field tally sheets, checks, receipts, or notes;
(c)
documents showing names, addresses, contact
information, and work authorization of workers you
provided to Hamilton including but not limited to job
applications, worker lists, I-9 forms, Social Security cards,
permanent resident cards, and passports;
(d)
documents and correspondence showing or
referring to worker recruitment or hiring including but not
limited to telephone records, fax records, notes, and
correspondence with Hamilton or with individuals seeking
employment or hired to work at Hamilton’s operations;
(e)
documents which record, contain, or are concerning
hours or piece work data for work performed at Hamilton’s
operations by you or workers you provided for Hamilton
including but not limited to tally sheets, notebooks,
calculation sheets, picking records, weigh records, pay
stubs, and checks as well as documents showing pay, pay
rates, or total pay or describing the basis on which
workers were paid;
(f)
documents
or correspondence concerning
termination or separation of domestic or H-2A employees
at Hamilton including but not limited to separation notices,
recruitment reports, documents which record or evaluate
work performance, production reports, rule violation
memoranda, warnings, or reports to the Georgia or U.S.
Department of Labor regarding work separation or
recruitment or worker referrals;

2

(g)
documents showing or referring to any action taken
to recruit or hire workers for Hamilton including
correspondence with the Consulate and with agents,
recruiters or other service providers in Mexico,
advertisements, Department of Labor documents, phone
records and letters, [or] any other document concerning
the recruitment of domestic workers or H-2A workers;
(h)
any lists or partial lists of workers for work at
Hamilton including workers referred to you and all lists
prepared for the Consular or Embassy appointment; and
(i)
documents or correspondence concerning drug
testing or the inclusion of a drug testing requirement for
either domestic workers or H-2A workers at Hamilton.
(Doc. 42-1, p. 4) (internal quotation marks omitted)
According to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion, Cardenas called counsel after being
served with the subpoena and stated that she intended not to comply with the
subpoena. However, later in the conversation, Cardenas expressed her intention to
comply. Nevertheless, no response or document production has been made by
Cardenas. Plaintiff-Intervenors sent a follow-up letter to Cardenas on May 1, 2012.
Cardenas has not responded to the letter.
In this motion, Plaintiff-Intervenors seek an order compelling Cardenas to
produce the requested documents. They also seek attorney’s fees and costs incurred
in bringing the motion.

3

As noted above, Cardenas has not responded to the subpoena and has not
filed any objections. She has not filed a response to the Motion to Compel either.
Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) are committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729,
731 (11th Cir. 1984). It appears to the Court that the information sought is relevant
and material to the disputes in this litigation.
Accordingly, Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion to Compel Subpoena Response from
Margarita Cardenas (Doc. 42) is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Margarita
Cardenas shall produce all documents under her possession, custody, or control
responsive to the subpoena on or before August 20, 2012. Failure to do so could
result in sanctions. The Court notes that Cardenas has waived any objections to the
discovery requests. Plaintiff-Intervenors’ request for attorney’s fees is denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Margarita
Cardenas at the following address: 1935 Ross Bowen Road, Lyons, Georgia 30436.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2012.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
mbh

4