Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc. et al

Filing 24

OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Secretary's motion for protective order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 1/5/09, by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

Pl~"- T,.-.... ! .'\,~ · tL, {)I...;
· - ' , ' N ' " IJD

- " . . . . ~ ;17uSIJc~JRP

1r ·

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T DISTRICT O F O R E G O N

ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED S t A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F LABOR, Plaintiff,

C i v . No.

08~6302-AC

OPINION A N D O R D E R

v.
WESTSIDE DRYWALL, INC., a corporation; and H O H S E N S A L E M , and SHIRINE S A L E M , individuals, Defendants.

A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: Introduction T h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e U n i t e d States D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ( " t h e S e c r e t a r y " ) b r i n g s this a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s W e s t s i d e Drywall, I n c . , H o h s e n S a l e m , a n d S h i r i n e S a l e m ( c o l l e c t i v e l y

OPINION & O R D E R

I

{JVA}

"Defendants") u n d e r the F a i r Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for injunctive relief, damages, a n d l i q u i d a t e d d a m a g e s f o r u n p a i d m i n i m u m w a g e s a n d u n p a i d o v e r t i m e c o m p e n s a t i o n t o fifty-two individuals, and for Defendants' failure to maintain proper records o f persons Defendants employed and paid. Defendants move to compel production o f " f u l l y u n r e d a c t e d copies o f ( I ) all statements and summaries o f statements taken from all o f the claimants identified o n Exhibit A to the complaint, a n d (2) all dOcuments relied o n b y P l a i n t i f f t o calculate the amount o f damages each has claimant allegedly suffered." Defs.' Motion 2. The Secretary relies upon the i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege t o o p p o s e D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n a n d s u p p o r t h e r m o t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i v e order. D e f e n d a n t s m a y o b t a i n c o p i e s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f t h o s e c l a i m a n t s o f t h e fifty-two c l a i m a n t s listed in Exhibit A that are no longer i n the United States o r who cannot b e located b y the parties, b e c a u s e D e f e n d a n t s h a v e s u f f i c i e n t l y d e m o n s t r a t e d a c o m p e l l i n g n e e d f o r t h o s e statements. H o w e v e r , the c o p i e s o f t h o s e statements w i l l b e r e d a c t e d o f any i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t d i s c l o s e s t h a t any claimant complained to o r initiated a complaint with D O L regarding Defendants' p a y practices. Furthermore, Defendants may obtain from the Secretary unredacted copies o f all the statements the S e c r e t a r y o b t a i n e d d u r i n g h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i f t h e S e c r e t a r y does n o t p r o p e r l y i n v o k e t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege within the time period and in the manner consistent with t h i s o p i n i o n a n d order. A c c o r d i n g l y , D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n t o c o m p e l is g r a n t e d i n p a r t a n d d e n i e d i n p a r t a n d t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s motion for protective order is granted in part a n d denied in part.

Background
Defendants are a drywall construction c o m p a n y and its two owners based in Hubbard, Oregon, approximately thirty miles south o f Portland. I n April 2007 the Secretary began an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f D e f e n d a n t s ' p a y practices and e i g h t e e n m o n t h s later, i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 , t h e Secretary {NA}

OPINION & O R D E R

2

filed its F L S A complaint against Defendants. Attached to the Secretary's complaint as Exhibit A is a two-page list that contains the names o f fifty~two persons the Secretary claims Defendants e m p l o y e d b u t failed t o p r o p e r l y p a y a n d for w h o m D e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t m a i n t a i n p r o p e r records~ a l l in violation o f the FLSA, T h e i n s t a n t m o t i o n c o n c e r n s D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n to c o m p e l u n r e d a c t e d v e r s i o n s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y forty-three o f t h e fifty-two
claimant~
claimants~

a n d t h e w a g e c a l c u l a t i o n s for e a c h

that the Secretary produced i n redacted form among the 1;251 pages o f documents she

i n i t i a l l y p r o v i d e d t o D e f e n d a n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the r e d a c t e d v e r s i o n s o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s o m i t t e d claimants' names, dates and hours worked~ and j o b s worked; as well as the names o f coworkers and supervisors, and names mentioned o f defendant Westside D r y w a l l ' s employees, Defs. ~ Memo 2-3. T h e S e c r e t a r y s t a t e s t h a t s h e o m i t t e d the s p e c i f i c c l a i m a n t ' s n a m e f r o m e a c h o f t h e f o r t y - t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s ' ' t o p r o t e c t t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s " and o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n " t h a t c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y b e used to identify t h e witness," Secretary's M e m o 2. The worksheets omitted claimants' names, and the j o b n u m b e r s a n d j o b l o c a t i o n s o n a t l e a s t s o m e o f the p r o d u c e d d o c u m e n t s . T h e w o r k s h e e t s t h e Secretary produced purportedly show the "specific c a l c u l a t i o n s , . . [ o f the] amount o f back wages d u e to each o f the individuals identified in Exhibit A " Secretary's Memo 2 . Defendants argue that unredacted versions o f the witness statements are necessary because " [w]ithout access to the redacted information, Defendants are unable to compare the information in the witness statements w i t h Defendants' records to check their accuracy." D e f s . ' M e m o 3. Defendants also argue that they cannot use depositions to ' ' t e s t the witnesses for truthfulness" b y comparing specific statements to each w i t n e s s ' s deposition testimony.

Id.

R e g a r d i n g the

worksheets, Defendants s t a t e that the redacted versions "mak[e] i t impossible" to compare t h e

OPINION & O R D E R

3

{JVA}

worksheets to their records to verify whether these j o b s were Westside D r y w a l l ' s j o b s , which s u b c o n t r a c t o r w o r k e d the s p e c i f i c j o b , a n d t h e a m o u n t o f t l i n e a s p e c i f i c c l a i m a n t s p e n t o n e a c h j o b .

ld. Without the unredacted versions, Defendants claim t h e y are unable to determine whether the
S e c r e t a r y ' s c a l c u l a t i o n s for e a c h c l a i m a n t c o n t a i n i n a c c u r a c i e s . l d . T h u s , D e f e n d a n t s c o n c l u d e , w i t h o u t access t o t h e r e d a c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y c a n n o t d e f e n d a g a i n s t t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s claims. l d . T h e S e c r e t a r y o b j e c t s to D e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p o s e d d i s c o v e r y a n d s e e k s a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r because " t h e identities o f the individuals who gave statements to the [DOL] during the course o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d the s t a t e m e n t s t h e m s e l v e s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege." Secretary's M e m o 3. Relying o n this "well-recognized" privilege, the S e c r e t a r y a s s e r t s t h a t d i s c l o s u r e o f c o o p e r a t i n g w i t n e s s e s ' i d e n t i t i e s " w o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i t h the Secretary's ability to investigate violations o f t h e [FLSA]." S e c r e t a r y ' s M e m o 3. The Secretary points to the upcoming depositions t h a t Defendants have scheduled o f some o f t h e workers allegedly o w e d b a c k pay, a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t D e f e n d a n t s w i l l b e a b l e t o q u e s t i o n e a c h w i t n e s s a b o u t a l l t h e redacted documents to determine whether each witness cooperated in the investigation. l d at 2-3. The Secretary concludes b y asserting that Defendants " h a v e n o t shown that their need for that i n f o r m a t i o n outweighs t h e privilege," a n d t h a t Defendants s h o u l d b e p r o h i b i t e d " f r o m inquiring a b o u t t h e i d e n t i t i e s o f t h e i n f o r m a n t s o r s e e k i n g to o b t a i n t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g t h e d i s c o v e r y p h a s e o f t h i s case." Secretary's Memo 3.

Standards
" W h a t is usually referred to

as the i n f o n n e r ' s privilege is i n reality the Government's

p r i v i l e g e t o w i t h h o l d f r o m d i s c l o s u r e the i d e n t i t y o f p e r s o n s w h o f u r n i s h i n f o r m a t i o n o f v i o l a t i o n s o f l a w to officers charged with enforcement o f t h a t law." Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 OPINION & O R D E R

4

{NA}

(1957). T h e p r i v i l e g e ' s p u r p o s e i s " t h e furtherance and protection o f t h e public interest i n effective law enforcement." Id. B y preserving t h e anonymity o f citizens w h o provide information, t h e privilege encourages citizens to p e r f o n n their obligation o fc o m m u n i c a t i n g t o law enforcement t h e i r k n o w ledge o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f crimes, id., a n d to " ' m a k e retaliation impossible. ' " B r o c k v. On

Shore Quality Control Specialists, Inc., 811 F . 2 d 282, 2 8 4 ( 5 t h Cir. 1987), quoting Continental Finance & L o a n Co. o f West End, 326 F.2d 561, 564 (5th Cir. 1964). T h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege m a y
b e u s e d to conceal t h e n a m e s o f c l a i m a h t - e m p l o y e e s who filed c o m p l a i n t s t h a t p r e c i p i t a t e d a n F L S A action brought b y t h e Secretary o f Labor. D o e s I Thru X X I I I v. A d v a n c e d Textile Corporation, 214 F . 3 d 1058, 1072 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying privilege i n p r i v a t e F L S A action). I t applies " w h e t h e r t h e D O L solicited statements from an employee o r the employee m a d e a c o m p l a i n t to t h e D O L . . . [ a n d it] applies to current as well as former employees o f a c o m p a n y w h o s e w o r k e r s h a v e communicated w i t h D O L . " Martin v. New York City Transit Authority, 148 F.R.D. 56, 63 (E.D.N.V. 1993) (citations omitted). A c c o r d Martin v. A l b a n y Business Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. 927, 937 (N.D.N.Y. 1992) (rejecting proffered distinction b e t w e e n " p e o p l e w h o g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n " a n d " i n f o r m a n t s " to d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e ) . I t also h a s b e e n h e l d t o a p p l y t o the s t a t e m e n t s themselves. Shultz v. Farino Excavating Company, 55 F.R.D. 346, 347 (E.D. Mich. 1972), citing

Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc., 312 F . 2 d 1 4 ( 4 t h Cir. 1963); Mitchel/v. Johnson, 2 7 4 F . 2 d 3 9 4
(5th Cir. 1960). T h e p r i v i l e g e ' s p u r p o s e d e f m e s i t s scope. I f d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f a c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i l l n o t r e v e a l t h e i d e n t i t y o f a n i n f o r m e r , t h e n t h e p r i v i l e g e d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e d i s c l o s u r e o f the communication. Roviaro, 353 U.S. a t 60. Similarly t h e privilege does n o t a p p l y t o b a r disclosure o f the i d e n t i t y o f a n i n f o r m e r i f t h e identity already i s k n o w n o r b e e n d i s c l o s e d to t h o s e w h o m i g h t

OPINION & O R D E R

5

{NA}

have cause to retaliate against the informer. ld. H o w e v e r , e v e n i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e privilege m a y b e discoverable. " W h e r e t h e disclosure o f an. i n f o r m e r ' s identity, o r o f t h e contents o f his communications, is r e l e v a n t a n d helpful to t h e defense o f a n accused, o r is essential to a fair determination o f a cause, t h e privilege m u s t give w a y . " ld. at 60-61. S o m e courts refer to this exception as t h e " b a l a n c i n g o f interests" test, w h i c h , in t h e c o n t e x t o f an F L S A a c t i o n , r e q u i r e s a b a l a n c i n g o f ' ' ' t h e p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t i n e f f i c i e n t e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e Act, t h e i n f o r m e r ' s r i g h t t o b e p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t p o s s i b l e r e t a l i a t i o n , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e e d to p r e p a r e for triaL " , Brock, 811 F . 2 d a t 283, q u o t i n g Hodgsonv. Charles Martin

Inspectors o f Petroleum, 459 F . 2 d 303, 305 (5th Cir. 1972).

See also Chao v. Brumfield

Construction, No. C 0 7 -821 RSL, 2008 W L 192894, at * 1 (W.O. Wash. Apr. 28, 2 0 0 8 ) (recognizing,
i n a n F L S A case, t h a t " t h e c o u r t m u s t b a l a n c e a l i t i g a n t ' s n e e d f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n p r e v e n t i n g d i s c l o s u r e o f the i n f o r m a n t ' s identity."). O t h e r c o u r t s h a v e viewed the privilege i t s e l f a s a "qualified privilege," which m u s t " y i e l d " where identification o f t h e informant o r a c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l t o a " b a l a n c e d m e a s u r e o f t h e i s s u e s a n d t h e f a i r acltninistration o f justice." Dole v. L o c a l 1942, Intern. Broth. ofElec. Workers, AFL-ClO, 8 7 0 F . 2 d 368, 3 7 2 (7th Cir. 1989). I n e i t h e r c a s e , o n c e t h e g o v e r n m e n t a s s e r t s t h e p r i v i l e g e a n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s w i t h i n t h e p r i v i l e g e ' s scope, t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f showing a " c o m p e l l i n g need" for the information requested. Brumfield Construction, 2008 W L 192894, a t *1 (exception to privilege);

D o l e , 870 F . 2 d a t 373 ( q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e ) . DiScussion
1. T h e Secretary h a s n o t p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d t h e privilege. D e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d that to p r o p e r l y i n v o k e t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege, t h e Secretary m u s t OPINION & O R D E R

6

{NA}

lodge a formal claim o f privilege through " t h e h e a d o f the department w h i c h h a s control o v e r t h e m a t t e r , a f t e r p e r s o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h a t o f f i c e r , " a n d t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y h a s n o t d o n e so here. D e f s . ' M e m o 9-10. G o v ern m en t privileges m u s t satisfY "specific, formal requirements for p r o p e r invocation." A l b a n y Business Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. a t 932. Indeed, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t established these requirements o v e r fifty years ago: " T h e privilege belongs t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t and m u s t b e asserted b y it; i t c a n n e i t h e r b e c l a i m e d n o r waived b y a private party. I t is n o t to b e lightly invoked. T h e r e m u s t b e formal c l a i m o f p r i v i l e g e , l o d g e d b y t h e h e a d o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t w h i c h h a s c o n t r o l o v e r the matter, a f t e r actual personal consideration b y t h a t officer." United States; v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953). A c c o r d Chao v. RacewqyPetroleum, Inc., 2008 W L 2 0 6 4 3 5 4 , No. 06-3363, at *4 ( D . N . J . M a y 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 ) . C o u r t s s i n c e h a v e r e a f f i r m e d t h a t a l l g o v e r n m e n t p r i v i l e g e s , r e g a r d l e s s o ftype , m u s t satisfy these f o n n a l requirements t o b e properly invoked. United States v. 0 'Neill, 619 F . 2 d 222, 225-26 (3d Cir. 1980) (analyzing assertion o f executive privilege); Albany Business

Journal, 780 F. S u p p . a t 932 ("[TJhe i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege, b e i n g

a governmental privilege,

is

s u b j e c t t o t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s for formal i n v o c a t i o n . " ) . T h e Reynolds d e c i s i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h e " a g e n c y h e a d r e q u i r e m e n t " t h e p r i v i l e g e m u s t b e asserted b y the head o f t h e agency t h a t seeks to rely u p o n it. Marriott Intern, Resorts, L.P. v. United

States, 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 6 ( F e d . C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s s o m e d i s a g r e e m e n t a m o n g t h e
c o u r t s , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a n a g e n c y h e a d m a y d e l e g a t e t o a h i g h - r a n k i n g s u b o r d i n a t e the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n v o k i n g a g o v e r n m e n t privilege.

Id. a t 1306-08 (finding as p r o p e r IRS

C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s d e l e g a t i o n to Assistant C h i e f Counsel responsibility for i n v o k i n g deliberative process qualified privilege). B u t s e e Scott Paper Co. v. United States., 943 F. Supp. 501, 502 (E. D . Pa. 1 9 9 6 ) ( r e j e c t i n g d e l e g a t i o n b y a g e n c y h e a d , I R S C o m m i s s i o n e r , t o h i g h - r a n k i n g s u b o r d i n a t e ,

OPINION & O R D E R

7

{JVA}

IRS Associate C h i e f Counsel, as appropriate to invoke the deliberative process privilege). Delegation and assertion o f t h e privilege must b e in writing. 0 'Neill, 619 F.2d at 225- 26 (noting that
a i l affidavit is requited); Marriott Intern. Resorts, L.P., 437 F.3d at 1304, 1308 ( c i t i n g w i t h approval

IRS Commissioner's "delegation order" and the agency's "care in the delegation process"). Here, the Secretary filed no written assertion o f the informant's privilege, submitted no written delegation to a high-ranking subordinate o f the responsibility for asserting the privilege,and provided no affidavit or declaration that she or anyone on her b e h a l f conducted a careful review o f the documents at issue to detennine whether the infonnailt's privilege applies to some o r all o f the documents that Defendants seek. It1 Marriott International Resorts, L.P., the court described as an "excellent example" the process utilized by the government to assert the privilege: a delegation order that expressly stated the scope o f the delegated authority, and provided detailed criteria for claiming the privilege regarding the subject documents, as well as a delegation order t o a highranking subordinate with expertise i n the privilege at issue and responsibility for administering and evaluating the agency's disclosure policies but who was riot directly involved in the dispute. 437 F. 3d at 1308. B y contrast, the Secretary in this case provided only the declarations o f a wage and hour investigator and the attorney o f record in the case, neither o f which, b y level o f authority o r content, satisfies the "strict requirements for formal invocation" o f the informant's privilege. A field investigator is n o t an agency head or a "high-tanking subordinate" to w h o m the agency head m a y appropriately delegate, and a government attorney is precisely who should n o t b e asserting a government privilege. See Albany Business Journal, 780 F. Supp. at 933 n.9 ( ' ' ' T o permit any government attorney to assert the privilege would derogate [the purposes behind the formal claim
OPINION & O R D E R

8

{NA}

requirement].'''), q u o t i n g Pierson v. United States, 428 F. Supp. 3 8 4 , 3 9 5 (D. Del. 1977). T h e S e c r e t a r y implicitly acknowledges t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f h e r s h o w i n g h e r e b y stating the declaration o f t h e W a g e a n d H o u r D i v i s i o n A d m i n i s t r a t o r i n t h e D O L ' s n a t i o n a l office " c a n b e ()btained i f i t is requested[.]" S e c r e t a r y ' s M e m o 5 n.5. T h e offer i s troubling b e c a u s e i t suggests the Secretary b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e r o u t i n e l y applies t o a n y F L S A action s h e decides to bring, and t h a t assertion o f t h e privilege i s s i m p l y p e r f u n c t m y a n d p r o forma. I t i s not; i f i t were, t h e n Roviaro a n d t h e m u l t i t u d e o f c a s e s t h a t h a v e f o l l o w e d i t s r u l e a n d a p p l i e d i t s c r i t e r i a i n t h e p a s t fifty y e a r s w o u l d b e s u p e r f l u o u s . C l e a r l y , a n d a s t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s o f f e r i m p l i c i t l y c o n c e d e s , the c a s e s establish t h e contrary proposition. See, e.g., 0 'Neill, 6 1 9 F . 2 d at 225 (finding "unsatisfactory" i n v o c a t i o n o f g o v e r n m e n t a l p r i v i l e g e b y a t t o r n e y i n s t e a d o f d e p a r t m e n t h e a d , a b s e n c e o f affidavit, failure to s h o w i n v o c a t i o n b y r e s p o n s i b l e p u b l i c official w h o p e r s o n a l l y e x a m i n e d d o c u m e n t s and determined t h a t nondisclosure w a s required, and failure to designate t h e specific documents to which t h e p r i v i l e g e a p p l i e d ) ; M a r r i o t t International Resorts, 4 3 7 F . 3 d a t 1308 ( a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t a g e n c y h e a d m a y d e l e g a t e responsibility for i n v o k i n g i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege as l o n g as guidelines o n the use o f t h e p r i v i l e g e are p r o v i d e d ) . T h e S e c r e t a r y p r o v i d e s no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r h e r f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e i n t h e first i n s t a n t t h e r e q u i r e d w r i t t e n a s s e r t i o n o f t h e p r i v i l e g e , a failure m a d e m o r e i n e x p l i c a b l e g i v e n that t h e p r i v i l e g e a n d its r e q u i r e m e n t s as so well established and t h a t t h e D O L h a s b r o u g h t m a n y F L S A suits o v e r t h e years. See Albany Business Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. at 936 ( " T h e c o u r t notes at t h e o u t s e t t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e c a s e p r e c e d e n t in w h i c h t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e h a s b e e n a p p l i e d t o F L S A c a s e s [ .]"). Furthermore, the S e c r e t a r y ' s failure to i n v o k e t h e required process h e r e is particularly problematic b e c a u s e s h e a l r e a d y h a s d i s c l o s e d t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s t h e n a m e s o f fifty-two p e r s o n s s h e c l a i m s a r e

OPINION & O R D E R

9

{NA}

owed b a c k pay, forty-three o f w h o m apparently provided statements as to w h i c h she asserts t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege. Yet, n e i t h e r s h e n o r a n appropriate delegatee followed a n y process to determine w h e t h e r a n d t o w h a t e x t e n t the i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege applied t o t h e statements o f those s h e h a s identified to Defendants.

I n s u m , the S e c r e t a r y h a s n o t p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d t h e i n f o r m a n t s ' p r i v i l e g e and, t h u s , t h e
p r i v i l e g e d o e s n o t a p p l y t o t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a t are t h e s u b j e c t o f D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a n d t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s m o t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r . A s t h e c o u r t o b s e r v e d i n A l b a n y B u s i n e s s Journal, " [ t ] h e s e a r e n o t m e r e l y technical requirements. Rather, t h e i r p u r p o s e i s t o i n s u r e t h a t the p r i v i l e g e i s c l a i m e d b y s o m e o n e . . . w i t h sufficient authority and responsibility s o t h a t t h e Court c a n rely u p o n his j u d g m e n t the the claim w a s prudently invoked." 780 F. Supp. a t 932-33. A " b l i n d assertion o f the p r i v i l e g e . . . t o t a l l y d e f e a t s t h e p u r p o s e b e h i n d t h e formal c l a i m r e q u i r e m e n t , " b e c a u s e t h e r e w i l l b e instances in w h i c h t h e p r i v i l e g e n e e d not b e invoked o r o n l y p a r t i a l l y invoked. Id. at 936. No r e c o r d exists i n this case u p o n w h i c h t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e ' s s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e b e e n o h s e r v e d a n d applied to m a k e s u c h a determination. Accordingly, t h e i n f o n n a n t ' s privilege does n o t apply to the d o c u m e n t s Defendants seek. 1 2. T h e privilege does n o t apply to s o m e o f t h e documents sought. Defendants s e e k two types o f documents.. First, they w a n t u n r e d a c t e d copies o f statements f r o m t h e c l a i m a n t s , n o t f r o m "informants~" Second, they w a n t r e d a c t e d c o p i e s o f worksheets

s h o w i n g e a c h c l a i m a n t ' s u n p a i d wages. D e f e n d a n t s ' r e q u e s t r e q u i r e s t h e c o u r t f u g t t o d e t e r m i n e whether statements from claimants are materially different from i n f o r m a n t s ' statements for purposes

However, as e x p l a i n e d below, the Secretary will b e p e r m i t t e d additional t i m e to p r o p e r l y i n v o k e t h e p r i v i l e g e a n d t o p r o v i d e the c o u r t a n d D e f e n d a n t s w i t h s u f f i c i e n t documentation o f p r o p e r invocation.
1

OPINION & O R D E R

10

{IVA}

ofthe i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege. ! f t h e r e is no material distinction between statements o f informants and s t a t e m e n t s o f c l a i m a n t s , t h e c o u r t m u s t t h e n d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s d i s c l o s u r e o f the c l a i m a n t s ' i d e n t i t i e s v i t i a t e s t h e privilege.

a. Regardless o f source, statements given to the Secretary o f L a b o r during an FLSA i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e within t h e s c o p e o f the i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e .
Defendants seek u n r e d a c t e d versions o f ' ' w i t n e s s s t a t e m e n t s " t h a t t h e D O L i n v e s t i g a t o r t o o k from most o f the fifty-two claimants. Defendants assert that t h e y do n o t seek " t h e names o f D O L ' s informants" b u t instead seek "disclosure o f the statements o f the claimants[.]" D e f s . ' M e m o 5. See

a l s o D e f s . ' M e m o 6 ( " D e f e n d a n t s w a n t t o m a k e v e r y c l e a r w h a t t h e y are r e q u e s t i n g : D e f e n d a n t s
seek unredacted copies o f the witness statements and worksheets to t h e extent t h e y relate to a c l a i m a n t w h o h a s b e e n i d e n t i f i e d o n E x h i b i t A to t h e C o m p l a i n t . " ) . D e f e n d a n t s c l a i m t h a t s u c h information " i s simply n o t within the scope o f t h e privilege." D e f s . ' Memo 5. Whether given as a witness, a n informant, o r a claimant, Courts generally read the informant's privilege to protect all three groups o f individuals, as they all are persons w h o provide information to the D O L that leads to o r is in furtherance o f a D O L investigation. F o r example, in Does I T h r u

XXIII, t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t a l l o w e d i n d i v i d u a l p l a i n t i f f s i n a p r i v a t e F L S A a c t i o n w h o f e a r e d r e t a l i a t i o n
to use pseudonyms to assert wage claims against their employer. Some decisions in this area create c o n f u s i o n o n t h e p o i n t , as t h e y o f t e n h a v e c o n f l a t e d t h e i n f o r m a n t a n d w i t n e s s c a t e g o r i e s . S e e a l s o

Brock, 811 F.2d at 284 (rejecting defendant's proposed distinction between informers" and "those
who have knowledge" o f facts); Brumfield Construction, 2008 W L 192894, at *1, *2 (referring to the same individuals as "individuals who provided statements" a n d as " i n f o r m a n t s " and as "cooperating witnesses"). This conflation blurs the analogous b u t not identical definitions o f the two terms: an "informant" is "[0] n e that gives information[;] one who i n f o n n s against others," while a OPINION & O R D E R
11

{NA}

witness is "[0 ] n e w h o c a n give a firsthand account o f s o m e t h i n g seen, heard, o r experienced[;] o n e w h o furnishes e v i d e n c e . " THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLiSH LANGUAGE 8 9 9 , 1 9 7 6 ( 4 t h ed. 2 0 0 0 ) . H o w e v e r , o t h e r d e c i s i o n s m a k e a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c l a i m a n t s and informants, finding t h a t the p r i v i l e g e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s h i e l d c l a i m a n t s o r t h e i r statements. See,

e.g., Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F . 2 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 5 - 3 8 ( 3 d Cir. 1959) (citing c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e names a n d
s t a t e m e n t s o f i m p r o p e r l y p a i d e m p l o y e e s w e r e p r o d u c e d , and n o t i n g t h a t " [ a ] d i s t i n c t i o n m u s t b e d r a w n b e t w e e n t e l l i n g an e m p l o y e r w h i c h e m p l o y e e s w e r e u n d e r p a i d a n d w h o g a v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n about underpayment."). T h e b e t t e r r u l e i s t h a t a s t a t e m e n t g i v e n b y any i n d i v i d u a l , w h e t h e r c l a i m a n t , e m p l o y e e , o r w i t n e s s , t o t h e D O L d u r i n g an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a n e m p l o y e r ' s p a y p r a c t i c e s i s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege. See Albany B u s i n e s s Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. a t 9 3 7 ( " G i v e n the protective p u r p o s e o f t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e , [ d e f e n d a n t ' s ] p u r p o r t e d d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n ' i n f o r m a n t ' s ' and ' p e o p l e w h o g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n ' i s i n a p p o s i t e . " ) Here, t p e s t a t e m e n t s D e f e n d a n t s s e e k a r e w i t h i n the s c o p e o f t h e p r i v i l e g e b e c a u s e t h e i d e n t i f i e d c l a i m a n t s are p e r s o n s w h o h a d k n o w l e d g e a b o u t m a t t e r the S e c r e t a r y w a s i n v e s t i g a t i n g a n d t h e y g a v e t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h a t investigation. U l t i m a t e l y , t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s l e d t o o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s d e c i s i o n t o file t h e i n s t a n t s u i t a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t s . T h u s , t h e p r i v i l e g e a p p l i e s to s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y c l a i m a n t s .

b. The statements h e r e a r e s t i l l within the scope o fthe p r i v i l e g e even though the Secretary disclosed the c l a i m a n t s ' identities to Defendants.
D e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t t h a t e v e n i f t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e c o v e r s t h e s t a t e m e n t s at i s s u e , t h e privilege n o longer applies b e c a u s e t h e Secretary d i s c l o s e d t h e c l a i m a n t s ' identities w h e n she attached E x h i b i t A t o h e r Complaint. T h a t e x h i b t l i s t s t h e n a m e s o f fifty-two p e r s o n s w h o m t h e S e c r e t a r y characterizes as D e f e n d a n t s ' "employees." C o m p l a i n t 2, 4. The i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege OPINION & O R D E R 12 {JVA}

protects the public interest i n effective law enforcement b y pr e se r ving a n i n f o r m a n t ' s anonymity, b u t i f t h e identity o f t h e informant a l r e a d y i s k n o w n t o " t o t h o s e w h o w o u l d h a v e cause to resent t h e COrninunication, the privilege is n o longer applicable." Roviaro, 353 U.S. a t 5 9 , 6 0 . T h e cases since t h e Roviaro decision have reaffirmed this fundamental principle. See, e.g., D o l e v . L o c a / 1 9 4 2 , 870 F . 2 d a t 3 7 5 ( a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t R o v i a r o " i m p l i e d l y e n d o r s e s t h e n o t i o n t h a t i d e n t i f y i n g the informants is tantamount to w a i v e r o f t h e privilege"); A l b a n y Business Journal, 780 F. Supp. at 9 4 0 ( " T h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege is w a i v e d when t h e m o v i n g p a r t y legitimately learns t h e identity o f t h e i n f o r m a n t a t issue. " ) . T h e S e c r e t a r y d i s c l o s e d t h e i d e n t i t i e s o f fifty-two p e r s o n s s h e i d e n t i f i e d a s " e m p l o y e e s " b u t n o t as " i n f o r m a n t s " and D e f e n d a n t s h a v e p r o d u c e d n o e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e y k n o w t h a t a n y o f t h o s e e m p l o y e e s a l s o are i n f o r m a n t s . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s m a t e r i a l t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n D e f e n d a n t s advance here, b e c a u s e t h e decisions generally h o l d t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s disclosure o femployee names a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o h a v e "knowledge" o f t h e facts a r e n o t d i s c l o s u r e s o f i n f o r m a n t s ' identities. Dole v. L o c a l 1942, 870 F.2d a t 375 ("[I]t c a n n o t b e assumed that the privilege h a s b e e n w a i v e d w h e r e the S e c r e t a r y ' s answer [to a n interrogatory] d i d n o t e v e n disclose t h e identity o f any informers b u t o n l y n a m e d p e r s o n s w i t h ' k n o w l e d g e ' o f t h i s m a t t e r a n d simultaneously reasserted the i n f o r m e r ' s privilege."); A l b a n y Business Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. a t 9 4 0 41 (recognizing t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r ' s knowledge o f t h e identities o f employees w h o gave statements to t h e D O L is n o t "equivalent to k n o w l e d g e o f w h i c h o f t h o s e p e r s o n s w e r e informers w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e privilege. "). H e r e , the Secretary d i s c l o s e d the n a m e s o f D e f e n d a n t s ' employees w h o , according to t h e S e c r e t a r y , w e r e n o t p r o p e r l y p a i d i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F L S A ; s h e d i d n o t i d e n t i f y a n y o f t h e s e fifty-two

OPINION & O R D E R

13

{JVA}

individuals a s " i n f o r m a n t s . " As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e c o v e r s b o t h t h e i d e n t i t i e s o f informants as w e l l as s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n to o r obtained b y t h e D O L from claimants, employees, w i t n e s s e s , a n d i n f t m n a n t s w h e n t h e s t a t e m e n t s a r e o b t a i n e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f a D O L investiga.tion. T h e S e c r e t a r y ' s disclosure does n o t necessarily w a i v e t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege regarding the c l a i m a n t s ' s t a t e m e n t s . See, e.g., Dole v. Local 1 9 4 2 , 8 7 0 F . 2 d a t 375 ( S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r ' s d i s c l o s u r e o fn a m e s o fp e r s o n s h a v i n g k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s d o e s n o t w a i v e i n f o r m a n t ' g p r i v i l e g e ) ;

Herman v. Lipe, 1997 W L 880759, N o . 97-3015, a t *2 (C.D. TIL N o v . 13, 1 9 9 7 ) (same, a n d n o t i n g
t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e e x t e n d s " b o t h t o t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s i d e n t i t y a n d t h e c o n t e n t s o f h i s communica.tion w i t h t h e g o v e r n m e n t i f t h o s e c o n t e n t s t e n d t o r e v e a l t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s i(ierttity"). T h u s , t h e c o u r t m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the D e f e n d a n t s h a v e m a d e a sufficient s h o w i n g u n d e r t h e b a l a n c i n g o f interests t e s t t o o b t a i n t h e s t a t e m e n t s t h e y seek.

c. The Defendants have shown a compelling need to obtain some o fthe statements they seek.
In establishing t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a l s o i n c l u d e d an e x c e p t i o n to that
rule:

A further l i m i t a t i o n o n t h e applicability o f t h e p r i v i l e g e arises from t h e f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f fairness. W h e r e t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f a n i n f o n n e r ' s i d e n t i t y , o r o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i s r e l e v a n t a n d h e l p f u l to t h e d e f e n s e o f a n a c c u s e d , o r i s e s s e n t i a l to a fair d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a c a u s e , t h e p r i v i l e g e m u s t g i v e w a y . I n t h e s e situations, t h e trial c o u r t m a y r e q u i r e disclosure[.]

Roviaro, 3 5 3 U.S. a t 60-61. N o fixed r u l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o d i s c l o s u r e i s j u s t i f i a b l e ; instead, t h e c o u r t
m u s t balance t h e public interest i n protecting t h e flow o f information against t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s right to p r e p a r e a defense. /d. a t 63. Accord Usery v. Local Union 720, Laborers' Intern. Union o fNorth

America, 5 4 7 F . 2 d 5 2 5 , 5 2 8 ( 1 0 t h Cir. 1977) ( g o v e r n m e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y m u s t b e
w e i g h e d against t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s n e e d for d i s c l o s u r e in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f i t s defense). T h e p a r t y

O P I N I O N & ORDER

14

{lVA}

seeking to a p p l y the exception has the burden to prove " s p e c i f i c and j u s t i f i a b l e need for the discovery s o u g h t : ' Albany Business Journal, 780 F. Stipp. a t 937. C o u r t s s i n c e h a v e applied t h e e x c e p t i o n i n F L S A cases, b u t i n d o i n g s o h a v e o f t e n c o m m e n t e d t h a t t h e n a m e s o f i n f o r m e r s a r e irrelevant t o w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e r p r o p e r l y p a i d its employees and otherwise complied with the A c t ' s requirements. See, e.g., Dole v. Donovan v.

Fasgo. Inc., No. 81-0129, 1981 W L 2402, at *2 ( R D . Fa. Oct. 6, 1981) (uIt is p e r f e c t l y plain that
t h e n a m e s o f i n f o r m e r s are u t t e r l y i r r e l e v a n t to t h e i s s u e s to b e t r i e d b y t h e trial c o u r t . T h e q u e s t i o n is whether, w i t h respect to certain employees, the A c t ' s requirements as t o p a y m e n t o fh o u r l y wages w e r e v i o l a t e d . " ) . T h e c o u r t s a l s o h a v e b e e n c a r e f u l to g u a r d t h e i d e n t i t y o f i n f o r m a n t s b y r e f u s i n g t o p e n n i t employers to ohtain information that could allow the employer to determine which o f its employees acted as informer. See, e.g., Albany Business Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. a t 940-41 (declining t o o r d e r production o f statements o f individuals identified by the S e c r e t a r y as employees b u t n o t informants, because to do so " m i g h t reveal [the employee] as a n informer").

I n this c a s e , t h e b a l a n c e w e i g h s i n f a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t s , a t l e a s t a s t o s t a t e m e n t s g i v e n t o t h e
D O L b y c l a i m a n t s w h o e i t h e r n o l o n g e r are i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r c a n n o t b e l o c a t e d . A s D e f e n d a n t s point out, " m a n y " o f t h e claimants are
'~no

l o n g e r i n the country and w i l l n o t b e available for

depositions o r trial," D e f s . ' Memo 3, and the Secretary does n o t dispute this fact. Defendants have stated t h a t they do n o t seek the identities o f informants w h o i n i t i a l l y brought this m a t t e r to the S e c r e t a r y ' s attention. FurthermQre, the Secretary already has disclosed t o Defendants the identities o f t h e employees the Secretary claims Were n o t paid in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the F L S A and for w h o m the Defendants seek infonnation. A s to those individuals, the Defendants s e e k o n l y information that will allow them to l i n k the claimants to specific j o b s and to determine the p a y each claimant

OPINION & ORDER

15

{NA}

allegedly is owed. Defendants do n o t seek information b e y o n d this, i n c l u d i n g information that w o u l d i d e n t i f y a n y c l a i m a n t as a n i n f o r m a n t . W i t h r e s p e c t to t h o s e c l a i m a n t s n o l o n g e r i n t h e U n i t e d States o r w h o c a n n o t b e located, D e f e n d a n t s h a v e n o o t h e r w a y t o o b t a i n t h a t information - i t is s i m p l y n o t available to t h e m e x c e p t through t h e statements t h e s e claimants gave to D O L before they b e c a m e unavailable. A p p l y i n g the e x c e p t i o n i n this w e i g h t a p p r o p r i a t e l y b a l a n c e s t h e c o m p e t i n g interests. T h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e i d e n t i t i e s o f i n f o r m a n t s i s s a f e g u a r d e d b e c a u s e that i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l n o t b e d i s c l o s e d . T h e r e is n o r i s k o f i m p r o v i d e n t l y r e v e a l i n g t h e c l a i m a n t e m p l o y e e s ' identities b e c a u s e the Secretary already has p r o v i d e d D e f e n d a n t s w i t h their names. The Defendants o b t a i n o n l y that i n f o n n a t i o n essential to p r e p a r e t h e i r defense and nothing more, including a n y information t h a t might uncover w h i c h employee c l a i m a n t s also w e r e informants. See,

e.g., Raceway Petroleum, Inc., 2008 W L 2064354, at *4 (acknowledging that some courts have
a l l o w e d t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f w i t n e s s s t a t e m e n t s t h a t d o n o t r e v e a l t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e inforIllers). Fairness is served b e c a u s e Defendants will obtain necessary information to t h e i r defense regarding t h e specific j o b s , h o u r s w o r k e d o n those j o b s , locations Of t h o s e j o b s , a n d supervisors o n those j o b s o f those employees w h o n o l o n g e r a r e i n the U n i t e d States o r who c a n n o t b e located, w h i c h Defendants likely w i l l n o t b e able t o otherwise obtain. A n d , a s t o t h o s e c l a i m a n t s still available to Defendants for deposition, t h e y will b e required to depose t h o s e c l a i m a n t s a n d w o r k t h r o u g h with t h o s e d e p o n e n t s t h e r e d a c t e d s t a t e m e n t s the S e c r e t a r y a l r e a d y h a s p r o v i d e d , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e case decisions. See, e.g., Brock, 811 F .2d at 283-84; q u o t i n g Hodgson v. Charles Martin Inspectors o f

P e t r o l e u m , 4 5 9 F . 2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 ( 5 t h Cir. 1 9 7 2 ) ( i f a l t e r n a t i v e m e a n s e x i s t f o r o b t a i n i n g t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e p r i v i l e g e w i l l apply, e v e n i f t h e " ' c o s t o f t a k i n g d e p o s i t i o n s o f all t h e i n d i v i d u a l s

OPINION & O R D E R

16

{NA}

involved would b e v i r t u a l l y prohibitive"'); Albany Business Journal, 7 8 0 F. Supp. at 939 (citing cases holding that i f an employer " c a n obtain the same information without necessitating a waiver o f t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s privilege, t h e n a w a i v e r should n o t b e granted"). As for the worksheets, Defendants ate entitled to copies o f these documents for those c l a i m a n t s w h o n o l o n g e r a r e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r w h o c a n n o t b e located. B e c a u s e t h e s e c l a i m a n t s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e , D e f e n d a n t s c a n n o t , a t d e p o s i t i o n , r e v i e w t h e w o r k s h e e t s w i t h a n y o f t h e m to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h o f t h e m c o r r e s p o n d s t o w h i c h worksheet. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e D e f e n d a n t s h a v e stated that they regularly use subcontractors to perform their contracts, which could cause the claimants c o n f u s i o n a b o u t t h e i d e n t i t y o f w h o a c t u a l l y e m p l o y e d t h e m . B e c a u s e D e f e n d a n t s c a n n o t c o v e r this issue with the unavailable claimants, t h e y have no other w a y to reliably o b t a i n this infonnation. Accordingly, the exception thus applies. A s to those claimants n o t still i n United States o r w h o o t h e r w i s e c a n n o t b e l o c a t e d , D e f e n d a n t s h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d a c o m p e l l i n g n e e d to o b t a i n t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s b e c a u s e t h e y c a n n o t o b t a i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n from t h o s e claimants. H o w e v e r , those statements must b e redacted to leave only information regarding the j o b s worked, hours worked for e a c h j o b , l o c a t i o n o f e a c h o f j o b , a n d t h e s u p e r v i s o r s o n e a c h j o b . Specifically, t h e S e c r e t a r y m u s t r e d a c t t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s to e n s u r e t h a t a n y i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t m i g h t i m p l i c a t e a n i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m a n t as an "informant" is not included in any statement. The exception applies only.as necessary, to t h e statements o f those claimants from whom Defendants cannot get information through deposition, and then o n l y in redacted form to ensure that no claimant is identified as an informant.

Order
T h e S e c r e t a r y m u s t p r o d u c e c o p i e s o f the s t a t e m e n t s a n d w o r k s h e e t s f o r t h o s e c l a i m a n t s w h o no longer are in the United States o r who cannot b e located, redacted to include only the n a m e o f t h e

OPINION & ORDER

17

{JVA}

claimant, t h e j o b s w o r k e d b y the claimant, the dates and hours w o r k e d o n e a c h j o b , a n d the n a m e s o ft h e s u p e r v i s o r o n e a c h j o b . A l l o t h e r i n f o n n a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i d e n t i f y i n g a n y c l a i m a n t as o n e w h o filed o r i n i t i a t e d a c o m p l a i n t w i t h D O L o r t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d t o m a k e s u c h a d e t e n n i n a t i o n , m u s t b e r e d a c t e d from the c o p i e s g i v e n t o D e f e n d a n t s . T h e S e c r e t a r y m u s t m a k e e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t t o p r o v i d e t h e s e c o p i e s t o D e f e n d a n t s i n t i m e f o r t h e i r u s e b y D e f e n d a n t s at the u p c o m i n g s c h e d u l e d d e p o s i t i o n s , b u t in n o e v e n t later t h a n f o u r t e e n ( 1 4 ) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f this opinion a n d order. T h e S e c r e t a r y also w i l l have twenty"'one (21) days from t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r to p r o p e r l y invoke t h e i n f o n n a n t ' s privilege a n d p r o v i d e t h e c o u r t a n d D e f e n d a n t s ' c o u n s e l w i t h appropriate s u p p o r t i n g documentation. T h a t i n v o c a t i o n m u s t b e consistent w i t h this o p i n i o n a n d the c a s e s cited i n this o p i n i o n i n w h i c h t h e p r o p e r process for invoking t h e p r i v i l e g e i s described. I f t h e Secretary does n o t s u b m i t t h i s d o c u m e n t a t i o n w i t h i n t h e t w e n t y - o n e d a y p e r i o d , t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s p r i v i l e g e shall b e d e e m e d w a i v e d as to all u n r e d a c t e d statements and w o r k s h e e t s for all c l a i m a n t s i n this matter. Accordingly, D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n t o c o m p e l i s G R A N T E D i n p a r t a n d D E N I E D i n part, a n d t h e S e c r e t a r y ' s m o t i o n for p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r i s G R A N T E D in p a r t a n d D E N I E D in part. I T IS S O O R D E R E D . D A T E D t h i s 5 t h d a y o f January, 2009.

JOHN V. ACOSTA U n i t - S t a t e s Magistrate Judge

OPINION & O R D E R

18

{JVA}