Ruiz Torres et al v. Mercer Canyons, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCOVERY AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL - granting 35 Motion for Protective Order; and denying 39 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Stanley A. Bastian. (CC, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9
10 BACILIO RUIZ and JOSE AMADOR, as
individuals and on behalf of all other
11
similarly situated persons,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
MERCER CANYONS, INC.,
15
Defendant.
16

1:14-cv-03032-SAB
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER ON
IMMIGRATION STATUS
DISCOVERY AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL

17
18

During the deposition of a named plaintiff, counsel for Defendant sought

19 information that potentially implicated the plaintiff’s immigration status.
20 Defendant also put forth written discovery requests for other information that
21 would potentially implicate immigration status. In response, Plaintiffs now seek an
22 order prohibiting all discovery related to immigration status. ECF No. 35.
23 Believing the information is relevant to the claims at issue, Defendant seeks to
24 compel discovery regarding immigration status. ECF No. 39. The motions were
25 heard without oral argument on November 14, 2014.
26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) allows discovery of “any

27 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defenses . . . ” Despite
28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCOVERY AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ~ 1

1 the general liberal thrust of federal discovery rules, Rule 26(c) permits a court to
2 enter a protective order if a party demonstrates good cause for protecting that party
3 from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ”
4 Upon a finding that “particularized harm will result from disclosure of information
5 to the public” a court must “balance[] the public and private interests [involved] to
6 decide whether a protective order is necessary. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.
7 General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211.
8

Plaintiffs contend that immigration status is not an element of their claims

9 and is irrelevant to the damages they seek. According to the plaintiffs, allowing
10 such discovery would result in a chilling effect that burdens the public interest.
11 Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that Plaintiffs are actually seeking to enforce
12 provisions of the federal H-2A visa program. Defendant insists immigration status
13 is relevant, arguing Plaintiffs will not have valid claims under the H-2A program
14 unless they can demonstrate they are “eligible individuals” as defined in 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1188(i)(1). Under that definition, eligible individuals do not include
16 unauthorized aliens. Because immigration status is relevant under the H-2A
17 program, Defendant argues it must also be relevant for Plaintiffs’ claims.
18

The H-2A program’s “eligible individual” requirement pertains to the

19 requirements that must be met in order for a clearance order to issue. As
20 Defendant points out, there is no private right of action directly under the H-2A
21 program. Therefore, whether a litigant must be an “eligible individual” to bring
22 suit directly for an H-2A violation is a philosophical exercise that this Court need
23 not pursue.
24

Instead, Plaintiffs seek damages under the Migrant and Seasonal

25 Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”) and Washington Consumer
26 Protection Act (“CPA”). Thus, the relevant question is whether a litigant’s
27 immigration status affects his ability to bring claims under the AWPA or CPA.
28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCOVERY AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ~ 2

1

The AWPA provides protections for migrant and seasonal agricultural

2 workers. A migrant agricultural worker is an individual who is “employed in
3 agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is
4 required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence.” 29 U.S.C.
5 § 1802(8)(A). Migrant workers do not include H-2A workers. § 1802(8)(B)(ii). A
6 seasonal agricultural worker is “an individual who is employed in agricultural
7 employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature and is not required to be
8 absent overnight from his permanent place of residence . . .” § 1802(10)(A). The
9 AWPA contains no limitations regarding legal status of the employee. The CPA
10 also does not contain any limitations premised on legal status. See RCW 19.86 et
11 seq. Likewise, federal courts have repeatedly recognized that the AWPA protects
12 documented and undocumented workers alike. See In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168, 170
th
13 (5 Cir. 1987) cert. denied, Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Inc.. v. Reyes, 487 U.S.

14 1235 (1988); Rodriguez v. ACL Farms, Inc., 2010 WL 4683743 *1 (E.D.W.A.
15 2010); Escobar v. Baker, 814 F.Supp. 1491, 1498 (W.D.W.A. 1993). Rights
16 derived from the AWPA and CPA can be asserted by any appropriate worker,
17 regardless of their immigration status.
18

Additionally, Defendant had both the ability and the legal requirement to

19 inquire into at least Plaintiff Ruiz’s immigration status when it hired him in 2013.
20 This Court is not inclined to permit an employer to ignore immigration status and
21 allegedly underpay workers only to assert the relevance of immigration status as a
22 defense to subsequent lawsuits based on those actions.
23

Immigration status is irrelevant whether or not the non-statutory damages

24 sought by Plaintiffs are best described as “backpay”—at least at this stage of
25 litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v.
26 N.L.R.B. has been interpreted narrowly to only prohibit the National Labor
27 Relations Board (“NLRB”) from awarding of backpay under the National Labor
28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCOVERY AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ~ 3

1 Relations Act (“NLRA”) to undocumented workers. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364
2 F.3d 1057, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Plaintiffs’ claims under the AWPA
3 and Washington CPA more closely resemble the Title VII claims in NIBCO than
4 the NLRA claims in Hoffman, any aggrieved workers—documented or
5 undocumented—are likely eligible for “backpay” and shall be treated as eligible
6 for purposes of discovery.
7

At this stage of litigation, the immigration status of Plaintiffs and putative

8 class members is irrelevant and could result in intimidation that discourages
9 Plaintiffs from pursuing their employment rights in court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
10 Motion for a Protective Order on Immigration Status Discovery is GRANTED.
11 Defendant is prohibited—with respect to Plaintiffs, class members, and their
12 family members—all discovery related to immigration status which shall include,
13 but is not limited to: place of birth, national origin, immigration documents,
14 passports, visas, social security numbers or statements, tax identification numbers
15 or other tax information, information from prior employers that may indicate
16 immigration status, and information regarding entry into the United States. The
17 Court may revisit the discoverability of immigration status if this litigation
18 proceeds in such a manner to make it relevant.
19

Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 39, seeking

20 answers to questions posed to Plaintiff Amador regarding his termination from a
21 previous employer and questions posed to Plaintiff Ruiz regarding unemployment
22 benefits. For the aforementioned reasons, this line of questioning does not appear
23 to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is
24 prohibited by this Protective Order. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery is
25 therefore DENIED.
26 //
27 //
28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCOVERY AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ~ 4

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order on Immigration Status

3 Discovery, ECF No. 35, is GRANTED.
4

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to

6 enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.
7

DATED this 14th day of November, 2014.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Stanley A. Bastian

United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCOVERY AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ~ 5