Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc.

Background

Juan Murudumbay sued 29 Street Stone Inc. and Rafael Gavartin under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. He alleges that he worked before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. without receiving overtime pay and received inconsistent and arbitrary payments. Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that they loaned Murudumbay money to pay an immigration attorney and that he did not repay it. Murudumbay denies that allegation but admits that defendants gave him a small loan that he quickly repaid during his employment.

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to compel responses to eight document requests. Discovery generally covers nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

The Court’s Rulings on the Requests

- Request 1—Social Security card: The court denied the motion to compel. The court found that the card’s possible connection to Murudumbay’s immigration status was too attenuated and that the request was disproportionate. It also explained that immigration status generally is not relevant to claims under the federal wage law, New York Labor Law, or defendants’ counterclaim. - Request 2—Tax returns and W-2 forms from 2019 through 2024: The court denied the motion to compel. Defendants did not show that the requested information could not be obtained through less intrusive sources, as required for discovery of tax returns. - Requests 3 and 4—Immigration-attorney agreements and payments: The court granted the motion to compel responses. It found that agreements with attorneys representing Murudumbay regarding his immigration status, and checks issued to those attorneys, were relevant to defendants’ counterclaim and did not improperly inquire into the nature of his immigration status. The court stated that Murudumbay could assert attorney-client privilege or work-product protection over information covered by those protections. - Request 5—Documents showing deductions from Murudumbay’s salary: The court denied the motion to compel because there was no evidence that Murudumbay possessed documents other than a spreadsheet generated by defendants. - Requests 6 and 7—Documents about work hours and purchases for defendants: Murudumbay had produced 262 pages, including redacted bank records and other materials. The court granted the motion only to the extent defendants sought unredacted copies of the responsive bank statements. The court did not require production of other materials beyond that ruling. It rejected unilateral redactions from relevant documents, noting that the parties could seek a protective order to protect confidential information. - Request 8—Evidence of on-the-job injuries: The court denied the motion to compel because Murudumbay represented that he had no responsive documents.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman held that defendants’ motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 38. The opinion does not resolve the underlying wage claims or defendants’ counterclaim.