Garcia et al v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER granting in part 20 Motion for Discovery; Plaintiffs' proposed protective order, ECF No. 28, is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and INCORPORATED in this Order by reference; denying 29 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 36

Nov 23, 2020

2

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

5
6
7

GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA, as an
individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons,
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as an
individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons,

No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ
ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

PageID.387 Page 1 of 5

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1

4

filed 11/23/20

STEMILT AG SERVICES LLC,
Defendant.

11
12
13

Before the Court, without oral argument, are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order

14

Finding Discovery of ESD Documents Appropriate, ECF No. 20, and Defendants’

15

Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs seek an order finding that

16

discovery of Washington State Employment Security Division (ESD) records is

17

appropriate in this case. ECF No. 20 at 3. At the telephonic status conference, the

18

Court ordered the parties to confer and provide the Court with an agreed proposed

19

protective order. See ECF No. 23 at 2.

20

//

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER – 1

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 36

filed 11/23/20

PageID.388 Page 2 of 5

1

The parties conferred but could not agree on the terms of a proposed

2

protective order. See ECF Nos. 28-2, 29. Accordingly, each party filed a proposed

3

protective order. ECF Nos. 28, 30-2. Defendant also attached to its motion ESD’s

4

proposed protective order. ECF No. 30-1. Plaintiffs seek a narrow protective order

5

which would only cover ESD documents and would allow them to retain the

6

produced records after the close of litigation. ECF Nos. 28, 28-1. Defendant seeks

7

a more expansive protective order, which would cover ESD documents as well as

8

other documents produced by the parties. ECF Nos. 29, 30-2. The protective order

9

proposed by ESD is similar in most respects to Plaintiffs’ proposed order, the most

10

notable difference being that ESD’s proposed order includes provisions for the

11

destruction of covered materials after litigation concludes. ECF No. 30-1.

12

“Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents and

13

information produced during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows

14

‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary.” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206,

15

1210 (9th Cir. 2002). While the Court agrees with the necessity of a protective

16

order, the Court finds that both Defendant’s and ESD’s proposed orders overly

17

restrict the use of the discovery without a showing of good cause. The Court finds

18

Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order reaches a middle ground that addresses the

19

interests of all parties, striking the appropriate balance between Plaintiffs’ interest

20

in advocating for farm workers and the privacy interests of the parties and the

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER – 2

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 36

filed 11/23/20

PageID.389 Page 3 of 5

1

subjects of the records. Because the protective order continues after the conclusion

2

of this lawsuit, it provides adequate protections against broad disclosures without

3

the need to require the destruction of records as proposed by ESD and Defendant.

4

See ECF No. 28 at 5. The Court therefore adopts Plaintiffs’ protective order, subject

5

to the additional provisions described below.

6

The Court finds that, given the adoption of the proposed protective order, the

7

need for the information and records in the current proceedings outweighs any

8

further privacy and confidentiality concerns. See Wash. Rev. Code § 50.13.015 et

9

seq.; 20 C.F.R. § 603.1 et seq. Although Washington Revised Code Section

10

50.13.015(4) states that “[p]ersons requesting disclosure of information held by

11

[ESD] . . . shall request such disclosure from the agency providing the information

12

to [ESD] rather than from [ESD],” Section 50.13.070 allows ESD to disclose such

13

information upon an order from a Court. This creates an efficient result and is

14

consistent with what courts have ordered in similar cases. See, e.g., Rosas v.

15

Sarbanand Farms, LLC, No. 18-0112-JCC, 2019 U.S. Dist LEXIS 131735, at *3–

16

*4 (W.D. Wash. August 6, 2018). Plaintiffs therefore need not seek the records from

17

other agencies before requesting them from ESD.

18

If any party believes additional protections are needed for specific ESD

19

documents or other discovery not covered by the protective order, that party shall

20

confer with opposing counsel to try to agree on a stipulated protective order for the

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER – 3

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 36

filed 11/23/20

PageID.390 Page 4 of 5

1

specific discovery at issue. If the parties cannot agree on a stipulated protective

2

order after meeting and conferring in good faith, the party seeking the protections

3

may file a motion with the Court.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

5

1.

Appropriate, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED IN PART.

6
7

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Finding Discovery of ESD Documents

2.

The Court finds that, given the adoption of the proposed protective

8

order, the need for the information and records in the current

9

proceedings outweighs any further privacy and confidentiality

10

concerns. See Wash. Rev. Code § 50.13.070. ESD shall produce:

11

A.

Documentation regarding all recruitment efforts in connection
with Stemilt’s 2017 H-2A clearance orders; and

12
B.

13

All complaints, documentation, and investigation results related

14

to Stemilt from 2015 to 2017 in connection with Stemilt’s H-2A

15

clearance orders.

16

3.

Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 29, is DENIED.

17

4.

Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order, ECF No. 28, is APPROVED,
ADOPTED, and INCORPORATED in this Order by reference.

18
19
20

5.

This order has no effect on the parties right or obligation to file private
or confidential materials under seal.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER – 4

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

1

6.

ECF No. 36

filed 11/23/20

PageID.391 Page 5 of 5

If a party believes that an additional protective order is needed, they

2

may file a motion with the Court after attempting to resolve the issue

3

with the opposing party as described above.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 23rd day of November 2020.
_________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER – 5