Rosas et al v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 36 Motion for Discovery of Documents from Washington State Economic Security Department. The Court approves the updated proposed subpoena (Dkt. No. 44 -1). Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUPE
TAPIA, as individuals and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons,

11

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

12
13

CASE NO. C18-0112-JCC

SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for an order providing for the

17

release of information from the Washington State Employment Security Division (“ESD”) (Dkt.

18

Nos 36, 38-1). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the

19

Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.

20

I.

21

Plaintiffs bring class claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”), 18

22

U.S.C. § 1589, and the Farm Labor Contractor Act (“FCLA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30. (Dkt.

23

No. 38-1 at 2.) They seek information relevant to these claims from ESD, a state organization

24

that refers H-2A workers to farms—including Sarbanand—tracks those workers, and receives

25

complaints about employers who unlawfully deny employment to preferred domestic farm

26

workers. (Id. at 2.) ESD maintains official records for each H-2A job order. (Id.) Washington
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 1

BACKGROUND

1

Revised Code section 50.13 designates these records as private and confidential. Wash. Rev.

2

Code § 50.13.020. However, records “shall be available” to parties in judicial proceedings upon

3

a specific finding of need by the court. Id. at § 50.13.070.

4

Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a proposed subpoena making the requisite finding and

5

directing ESD to produce “1) documentation regarding all recruitment efforts in connection with

6

Sarbanand’s 2017 H-2A job orders and 2) all complaints, documentation, and investigation

7

results related to Sarbanand Farms from 2015 to 2017.” (Dkt. No. 38-1.) ESD does not oppose

8

Plaintiffs’ request. (Dkt. No. 42 at 2.) Defendants do not oppose issuance of a subpoena, but seek

9

to limit its scope and to designate as confidential any documents produced. (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.)

10

II.

11

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ motion and the records in this case, the Court finds that the

DISCUSSION

12

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

13

privacy and confidentiality. See Wash. Rev. Code 40.13.070.

14

Plaintiffs represent that the information will likely relate to Sarbanand’s duty to recruit

15

domestic workers and include complaints from H-2A workers regarding working conditions and

16

adequacy of food provided by Sarbanand. (Dkt. No. 38-1 at 4.) This information is relevant to

17

proving claims pled in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 38-1 at 3, 12 at 13, 16.) The

18

Court agrees with Plaintiffs that their claims potentially raise important public policy concerns

19

regarding labor rights, and that information held by ESD is necessary for a full evaluation of

20

those claims. (See Dkt. No. 38-1 at 5.) Neither ESD nor Defendants assert any additional reason

21

for the privacy or confidentiality of the documents requested beyond their statutory designation.

22

(See generally Dkt. Nos. 40, 42.) 1 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ need for the documents

23

outweighs any interest Sarbanand or a third-party may have in recruitment information or

24
25
26

1

Defendants argue that the Court should require ESD or Plaintiffs to identify specific
privacy and confidentiality interests in the records sought. (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) But the records
relate to Sarbanand’s interactions with ESD, both of whom would be better-positioned to identify
such interests than Plaintiffs.
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 2

1
2

investigation records held by ESD.
Despite Defendants’ objections, the Court finds the scope of the subpoena fully supported

3

by Plaintiffs’ motion and the relevant regulations. Furthermore, the Court declines to issue what

4

would amount to a blanket protective order on yet undisclosed documents. Upon receipt and

5

review of the documents, the parties may consult and prepare a stipulated protective order to

6

present to the Court, or move to file under seal any documents containing confidential

7

information.

8
9
10
11

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for an order finding discovery of ESD
documents appropriate (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED. The Court approves the updated proposed
subpoena (Dkt. No. 44-1).
DATED this 6th day of August 2018.

A

12
13
14

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 3