Espinoza et al v. Perrault Farms Inc et al, No. 1:2019cv03287 - Document 26 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 17 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (LTR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Espinoza et al v. Perrault Farms Inc et al Doc. 26 Case 1:19-cv-03287-SAB ECF No. 26 filed 10/15/20 PageID.270 Page 1 of 6 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Oct 15, 2020 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ERNESTO AVINA ESPINOZA; 10 JESUS BELLO PAREDES; No. 1:19-CV-03287-SAB 11 JOSE RUTILO GAMBOA NÚÑEZ; 12 LUCIA YUNUEN GAMBOA URBINA; 13 MARIA LIBRADA ESPINOZA ORDER GRANTING 14 NICOLAS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 PERRAULT FARMS, INC.; 18 JEFFREY PERRAULT; and 19 JUDY PERRAULT AND STEVE 20 PERRAULT, and the marital community 21 thereof; 22 Defendants. 23 24 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion and Memorandum for a Protective 25 Order on Immigration Status Discovery for Nonparty Witnesses, ECF No. 17. The 26 motion was considered without oral argument. Plaintiffs are represented by David 27 Morales and Maria Dolores Velazquez. Defendants are represented by Brendan 28 Monahan, Lance Pelletier, and Sarah Wixson. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER * 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-03287-SAB 1 2 ECF No. 26 filed 10/15/20 PageID.271 Page 2 of 6 Introduction Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Perrault Farms, Inc., Jeffrey Perrault, and 3 Judy and Steve Perrault (“Defendants”) hired them as local seasonal farmworkers 4 to work on Defendants’ blueberry and hop harvests in early April 2017, but then 5 fired them when the foreign H-2A workers Defendants had hired from Mexico 6 arrived later that month. Plaintiffs are alleging that Defendants’ actions violated 7 H-2A requirements, which require employers to hire local workers over foreign 8 workers if the local workers are able, qualified, and available to do the work. 9 Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants breached their contracts by expecting 10 Plaintiffs to perform at a faster rate than that listed in the contract, expecting 11 Plaintiffs to perform tasks not listed in the contract, and discharging Plaintiffs 12 without adequate warning or cause. 13 Plaintiffs are bringing three claims. First, Plaintiffs allege violations of the 14 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et 15 seq. (“AWPA”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their working 16 arrangement with Plaintiffs without justification and knowingly provided them 17 false and misleading information regarding the terms and conditions of 18 employment. ECF No. 1 at 2, 17. Second, Plaintiffs allege a state law breach of 19 contract claim. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants materially breached their 20 employment contracts by imposing minimum productivity requirements that were 21 not listed in their H-2A contracts, failing to provide adequate cause for disciplinary 22 actions, and failing to adhere to the disciplinary and firing procedures set out in the 23 contract. Id. at 18. Finally, Plaintiffs allege violations of the Washington Consumer 24 Protection Act (“CPA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010 et seq. Plaintiffs allege that 25 Defendants’ failure to include specific production standards as a condition of 26 continued employment in the contract, tell employees when they received 27 disciplinary warnings, and tell Plaintiffs that they only needed workers for a few 28 weeks were unfair and deceptive. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER * 2 Case 1:19-cv-03287-SAB ECF No. 26 filed 10/15/20 PageID.272 Page 3 of 6 1 AWPA, expectation damages for breach of contract, treble damages under the 2 CPA, and an injunction against Defendants under the CPA from disqualifying 3 Plaintiffs and any workers from working at Perrault Farms in the future based on 4 failure to complete the 2017 contract. Id. at 19-20. 5 Plaintiffs filed this present motion to seek a Rule 26 protective order 6 prohibiting discovery regarding the immigration statuses of nonparty witnesses. 7 Plaintiffs argue that this information is not relevant to any claims or defenses in 8 this case and allowing discovery of this information would discourage nonparty 9 witnesses from coming forward. ECF No. 17 at 2. Defendants argue that there is no 10 need for the Court to grant Plaintiffs’ request because Defendants have already 11 agreed not to seek this information during discovery. ECF No. 22 at 2. 12 13 Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) allows discovery of “any 14 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” But, despite 15 the general liberal policies of the federal discovery rules, Rule 26(c) permits a 16 court to enter a protective order “forbidding the disclosure or discovery” of 17 information if a party demonstrates good cause for protecting that party from 18 “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Upon a 19 finding that “particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the 20 public” a court must “balance[] the public and private interests [involved] to decide 21 whether a protective order is necessary. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General 22 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 24 Analysis Plaintiffs filed this present motion to seek a protective order under Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 26(c) prohibiting discovery of nonparty witnesses’ immigration statuses. 26 Plaintiffs’ requested protective order would prohibit Defendants from (1) inquiring 27 into the immigration status of any nonparty witnesses and (2) posing immigration28 related inquiries to any nonparty witnesses, including any questions or requests for ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER * 3 Case 1:19-cv-03287-SAB ECF No. 26 filed 10/15/20 PageID.273 Page 4 of 6 1 documents regarding immigration status, place of birth, national origin, 2 immigration documents, passports, visas, social security numbers or statements, 3 tax identification numbers or other tax information, and information from prior 4 employers that may indicate immigration status. ECF No. 17 at 2-3. Plaintiffs 5 argue that discovery of nonparty witness immigration status is not relevant to 6 proving Plaintiffs’ claims and that “such improper and invasive discovery would 7 only serve to introduce unfair prejudice into the proceedings and discourage 8 witnesses from testifying in Plaintiffs’ meritorious civil rights action.” Id. at 2. 9 Defendants argue that there is no need for the Court to grant Plaintiffs’ request for 10 a Rule 26 protective order because Defendants already agreed that the immigration 11 status of nonparty witnesses is irrelevant to this case, have represented to Plaintiffs 12 that they would not seek this information through discovery, and indeed have not 13 requested this information. ECF No. 22 at 2. Defendants also argue that, if the 14 Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court should clarify that Plaintiffs’ protective 15 order is only intended to protect nonparty witnesses and that Plaintiffs’ claims are 16 purely personal in nature, rather than intended to seek relief on behalf of 17 unidentified nonparties. Id. 18 1. Whether the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ request for a Rule 26 protective 19 order prohibiting discovery of the immigration status of nonparty witnesses 20 Substantively, there is no disagreement between the parties on this point. 21 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that (1) the immigration status of nonparty 22 witnesses is not relevant to any claim or defense in this case and (2) inquiring into 23 immigration status may have a chilling effect on nonparty witnesses’ willingness to 24 come forward. ECF No. 17 at 2; ECF No. 22 at 7. Instead, Defendants argue that 25 “there is simply no dispute for this Court to resolve” because Defendants already 26 agreed not to seek this information during discovery. ECF No. 22 at 2. Defendants 27 claim that there is no basis for Plaintiffs’ motion because Rule 26 only allows for a 28 protective order after the parties have conferred in good faith to resolve the dispute ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER * 4 Case 1:19-cv-03287-SAB ECF No. 26 filed 10/15/20 PageID.274 Page 5 of 6 1 without court action—and here, Defendants, argue, the parties have already 2 resolved the dispute. Id. at 4. 3 But Plaintiffs argue that it was Defendants who told them to file a motion for 4 a Rule 26 protective order to resolve this issue. Plaintiffs state that the parties, 5 through their attorneys, conferred in good faith about a stipulated protection order 6 on May 15, May 27, and June 5, 2020. ECF No. 17 at 2. After Plaintiffs presented 7 Defendants with a draft of the proposed order, Defendants responded on June 5: It is our understanding that the purpose of the proposed order is to 8 articulate the parties’ agreement (a) that the immigration status of 9 third party witnesses is irrelevant to any claims or defenses and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and (b) not to 10 seek this information in discovery or at deposition. If our 11 understanding is correct, that can be handled through a Rule 26 motion for protective order. We will not oppose a motion for 12 protective order that is consistent with these concepts, should your 13 office file one. 14 ECF No. 24 at ¶ 5. Plaintiff subsequently filed their Motion for a Protective 15 Order on September 4. ECF No. 17. 16 In order for the Court to grant a motion for a Rule 26 protective order, 17 the moving party must show (1) they have in good faith conferred with the 18 other party to resolve the dispute without court action and (2) good cause 19 exists to grant the protective order, which includes to protect a person from 20 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 26(c). Here, Plaintiffs have shown they did confer with Defendants 22 in good faith about the best way to protect the immigration statuses of 23 nonparty witnesses during the discovery process, and that Defendants told 24 them to file a Rule 26 protective order. ECF Nos. 17, 24. Additionally, both 25 parties agree that this information is not relevant to this litigation and that 26 asking nonparty witnesses about their immigration status would impose an 27 undue burden due to the potential chilling effect. ECF Nos. 17, 22. Thus, the 28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER * 5 Case 1:19-cv-03287-SAB ECF No. 26 filed 10/15/20 PageID.275 Page 6 of 6 1 Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a Rule 26 protective 2 order. 3 4 2. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to seek more broadly applicable relief Because the Court can fully resolve Plaintiffs’ motion based on the first 5 point, the Court does not find it necessary to address the proper scope of Plaintiffs’ 6 requested relief at this time. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order on Immigration Status 9 Discovery for Nonparty Witnesses, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 11 and provide copies to counsel. 12 DATED this 15th day of October 2020. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER * 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
