Barcelona Equipment, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc. et al

Filing 270

ORDER AND REASONS OVERRULING in part and SUSTAINING in part #229 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court as set forth in document.Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr on 2/1/2013. (Reference: 11-2983)(my, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use
and benefit of BARCELONA EQUIPMENT, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-2183
C/W 11-2295
C/W 11-2983
C/W 12-0496
C/W 12-0708
C/W 12-0787
C/W 12-0838

DAVID BOLAND, INC., INC., ET AL.

SECTION “K”(5)

Re: Big B Services LLC v. Target Construction, Inc., et al, C.A. 11-2983

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Written Objection to Minute Order of Magistrate (Doc. 229).
Target Construction, Inc. (“Target”) has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 219)
with respect to its Motion to Compel (Doc. 195) by which Target sought the production of W-9s,
1099s and other documents evidencing the payment of Big B Services LLC (“Barrois”) to its
welders for work on the construction projects which form the basis of this litigation.
Target contends that the amount of hours billed and the number of welders purportedly
performing work on the projects on any given day by Barrois to Target, as evidenced in Barrois’
billing statements, far exceed the amount of welding work actually completed and the number of
Barrois workers actually observed as being present on the sites. Target likewise finds issue with
Barrois’ certified payroll reports. Thus, in essence in this suit for payment filed by Barrois
against Target, the seminal issue is the amount of work actually performed by Barrois welders.
The Magistrate Judge after a telephone hearing issued the following ruling:

To the extent that they exist, Barrois is to produce any daily logs or sign-in sheets
that were actually signed by the workers themselves on a daily basis. If any of
these workers were paid via check, copies of those check stubs are also to be
produced. If the workers were paid in cash, Barrois is to supplement its discovery
responses to so state.
(Doc. 219).

Standard of Review of Magistrate Judge Discovery Ruling
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description , nature,
custody , condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible
things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need
not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated t lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . .
Id.
A magistrate judge may hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before a district
court. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. This rule grants a magistrate judge wide
discretion in determining such matters. Parent v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2007 WL
1651990, *1 (E.D.La. June 4, 2007). Thus, this Court “may reconsider any pretrial matter under
this subparagraph(A) where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995).
Using this standard, the Court finds that the failure to order the production of the W2's
and 1099s is contrary to law as the material may be relevant. Considering the allegations of
Target and its contention that Barrois inflated its payroll, it will be necessary for Barrois to prove
the amount paid to its welders and a seminal piece of evidence to that end will be what it
2

reported to the Government with respect to wages it paid. Indeed, 1099s are required by law to
be produced for the laborer even if the laborer is paid in cash. Thus, this request is not unduly
burdensome and is reasonable. However, as to “other documents” sought, the Court finds no
error in the magistrate judge’s decision. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Objection to Minute Order is OVERRULED in part and
SUSTAINED in part. Barrois shall produce the W2's and 1099 of those workers who worked
on these projects and for whom Barrois seeks compensation.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this

1st

day of February, 2013.

STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3