Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons, Inc. et al
Filing
504
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECEMBER 21, 2012 ORDER re: 491 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 2/26/2013. ~ Appeal (doc 491 ) re: Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi's December 21, 2012 Order: (doc no. 479 ): "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order re: Immigration Status, and Information related to Immigration Status." Motions terminated: 491 Appeal, a nd Joinders in Appeal, doc nos. 494 and 495 ~ (afc) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., DBA
)
GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER,
)
INC.; CAPTAIN COOK COFFEE
COMPANY LTD.; DEL MONTE FRESH )
PRODUCE (HAWAII), INC.; KAUAI )
COFFEE COMPANY, INC.; KELENA )
)
FARMS, INC.,; MAC FARMS OF
)
HAWAII, LLC NKA MF NUT CO.,
LLC; MAUI PINEAPPLE COMPANY, )
)
LTD. AKA MAUI PINEAPPLE
)
FARMS; ALEXANDER & BALDWIN,
)
INC.; MASSIMO ZANETTI
BEVERAGE USA, INC.; AND DOES )
)
1-15, INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________ )
)
UNITED STATES EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
CIVIL 11-00257 LEK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 21, 2012 ORDER
On December 21, 2012, the magistrate judge issued his
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order RE: Immigration Status, and Information Related
to Immigration Status (“Order”).
[Dkt. no. 479.]
On January 4,
2013, Defendant Mac Farms of Hawaii, LLC, filed its Written
Statement of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi’s
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order RE: Immigration Status, and Information Related
to Immigration Status (“Appeal”).
[Dkt. no. 491.]
Defendants
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., Kauai Coffee Company, Inc., and
Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, Inc. filed a Joinder to the Appeal
on January 16, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 494.]
Defendant Del Monte Fresh
Produce (Hawaii), Inc. filed a Joinder to the Appeal on January
17, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 495.]
Defendants Kelena Farms, Inc. and
Maui Pinapple Company, Ltd. filed statements of no opposition to
the Appeal on January 22, 2013.
[Dkt. nos. 496, 497.]1
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed
its memorandum in opposition to the Appeal on January 22, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 498.]
The Court finds this matter suitable for
disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the
Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for
the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
After careful
consideration of the Appeal, supporting and opposing memoranda,
and the relevant legal authority, Defendants’ Appeal is HEREBY
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The parties and the Court are familiar with the factual
and legal history of this case, and the Court will only discuss
1
Defendants Mac Farms of Hawaii, LLC, Alexander & Baldwin,
Inc., Kauai Coffee Company, Inc., Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA,
Inc., Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd., Kelena Farms, Inc., and Del
Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. are collectively referred to
as the “Defendants” throughout this order.
2
the events that are relevant to the review of the Order and the
Appeal.
In the December 21, 2012 Order, the magistrate judge
granted the EEOC’s Motion for a Protective Order and prohibited
discovery regarding the following categories of information:
“Claimants’ immigration status after they ceased working for
Defendants, Claimants’ passport numbers, visa numbers, other
immigration document numbers, and social security numbers.”
[Order at 19.]
The magistrate judge denied the EEOC’s Motion for
a Protective Order to the extent it sought to bar discovery of
matters “that could suggest one’s immigration status,” including
discovery regarding “the Claimants’ employment experience since
leaving Defendants’ employment, financial account numbers,
marriage, educational background, date of birth, prior criminal
convictions in another country, and social relationships and/or
living arrangements, prior legal experience, other names used,
and duration of residence in the United States.”
[Id.]
Defendants appeal the Order, to the extent it prohibits
discovery regarding Claimants’ immigration status after they
ceased working for Defendants.
STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a
district judge may designate a magistrate judge to
hear and decide a pretrial matter pending before
the court. The decision of the magistrate judge
on non-dispositive matters is final. Bhan v. NME
Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
However, a district judge may reconsider a
magistrate’s order on these non-dispositive
pretrial matters and set aside that order, or any
portion thereof, if it is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); LR 74.1; see Rivera v.
NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004);
see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041
(9th Cir. 2002).
. . . .
“A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it
applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to
consider an element of the applicable standard.”
Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass’n v. Grande, 252 F.R.D.
672, 674 (D. Haw. 2008); see Hunt v. Nat’l
Broadcasting Co., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir.
1989) (noting that such failures constitute abuse
of discretion).
Hasegawa v. Hawai`i, CV No. 10–00745 DAE–BMK, 2011 WL 6258831, at
*1-2 (D. Hawai`i Dec. 14, 2011).
The threshold of the “clearly erroneous” test is
high. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S.
364, 395 (1948) (“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’
when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.”); Thorp v. Kepoo, 100
F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1260 (D. Haw. 2000) (the clearly
erroneous standard is “significantly deferential,
requiring a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.”).
Dowkin v. Honolulu Police Dep’t, Civil No. 10–00087 SOM/RLP, 2011
WL 3021784, at *1 (D. Hawai‘i July 22, 2011).
The Court “may not overturn a protective order simply
because [it] might have weighed differently the various interests
and equities; instead, [it] must ascertain whether the order was
contrary to law.”
Rivera, 364 F.3d at 1063 (citation omitted).
4
DISCUSSION
At the outset, the Court notes that the standard
applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive
order is highly deferential.
In the present case, Defendants
have failed to establish that the magistrate judge’s Order was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
In its December 21, 2012 Order, the magistrate judge
acknowledged the broad scope of discovery available under the
federal rules, and noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) permits a
court to enter a protective order when the party seeking the
order establishes good cause for protecting a party from
“annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.”
[Order at 5.]
The magistrate judge correctly
articulated the standard for granting such a protective order.
[Id. (quoting Phillips ex. rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If a court finds
particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to
the public, then it balances the public and private interests to
decide whether a protective order is necessary.”)).]
The
magistrate judge then went on to carefully and thoroughly analyze
the EEOC’s request for a protective order and weigh the equities
and interests of the parties in accordance with the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion in Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th
Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 905 (2005).
5
The magistrate
judge’s reliance on Rivera and analysis of the facts of the
instant case in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in
that case was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Defendants nevertheless argue that the Order is
“erroneous and contrary to law [because i]nformation related to
Claimants’ immigration status after they ceased working for
Defendants is highly probative regarding Claimants’ claims for
constructive discharge, emotional distress damages, and [to
assess their] credibility.”
[Appeal at 3.]
The magistrate
judge, however, carefully analyzed the Defendants’ arguments to
this effect in the challenged Order.
It is well-settled that the
magistrate judge has broad discretion “to decide when a
protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is
required.”
See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36
(1984); Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845, 888
(9th Cir. 2011).
Here, the magistrate judge appropriately
exercised that discretion in balancing the interests of the
Defendants in conducting meaningful discovery regarding the
Claimants’ allegations against the potential for harm to the
Claimants as a result of public disclosure of the details of
certain personal information.
[See Order at 7-17.]
To the
extent Defendants simply disagree with the magistrate judge’s
balancing of the equities or application of Rivera to the facts
of this case, this alone does not warrant reversal.
6
See Matsuura
v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., Civ. No. 96–01180 SOM–LEK, 2006
WL 2734291, at *6 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 22, 2006) (noting that mere
disagreement with a magistrate judge's ruling is not grounds for
reversal by the district judge).
Having reviewed the Appeal, supporting and opposing
memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, this Court does not
have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed, or that the December 21, 2012 Order was contrary to
law.
The Court therefore FINDS that there are no grounds to
reverse the Order.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Defendants’ Written
Statement of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi’s
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order RE: Immigration Status, and Information Related
to Immigration Status, filed on January 4, 2013, is HEREBY
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 26, 2013.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
EEOC V. GLOBAL HORIZONS, ET AL; CIVIL 11-00257 LEK-RLP; ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 21,
2012 ORDER
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?