Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-02610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Juan Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone, Judge Liman denied reconsideration of an order denying tax-return discovery in this Fair Labor Standards Act case.
Plaintiff Juan Murudumbay’s request for the defendants’ tax returns was denied, leaving the prior denial of that discovery request in place; the opinion does not state any additional effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Juan Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc., Juan Murudumbay asked the court to reconsider its September 9, 2025, decision denying his request for the defendants’ tax returns. He argued that the returns were needed to determine whether the defendants met the Fair Labor Standards Act’s $500,000 annual-revenue requirement for enterprise coverage.
The court explained that reconsideration is reserved for an overlooked controlling decision or information, new evidence, or a clear error or serious unfairness. It also said tax returns should not routinely be disclosed in discovery. Under the test discussed by the court, tax returns must be relevant and there must be a compelling need because the information cannot readily be obtained from a less intrusive source.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. He concluded that Murudumbay still had not shown that the needed information was unavailable from a less intrusive source, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-02610
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Juan Murudumbay moved for reconsideration of the Court’s September 9, 2025 order denying his motion to compel Defendants to produce their tax returns. The earlier discovery motion concerned whether the defendants had sufficient annual revenue for enterprise coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which generally applies to an enterprise with at least $500,000 in annual business.
Plaintiff’s Argument
Murudumbay argued that an employer in a Fair Labor Standards Act case must provide tax returns to determine whether the enterprise-coverage requirement is met. He relied principally on Cardenas v. 77 Smile Cleaners, Inc. The Court explained that Cardenas did not establish an absolute rule requiring disclosure of tax returns. Instead, it stated that disclosure requires both relevance and a compelling need because the information is not otherwise readily obtainable.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that tax returns are not privileged, but courts generally are reluctant to order their routine disclosure in discovery. In Cardenas, disclosure was ordered because other available records could not establish annual revenue and uncertainty remained even after reviewing the information already produced.
The Court stated that, although its September 9 order did not cite Cardenas, that order applied the same two-part test. The Court previously denied the request for tax returns because Murudumbay had not satisfied the test’s second requirement: showing that the information could not be readily obtained from a less intrusive source. The Court found that Murudumbay still had not satisfied that requirement.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 51.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.