Hernandez v. Dutton Ranch Corporation
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-00817
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hernandez v. Dutton Ranch Corporation, Judge Chen granted plaintiffs’ motion to preserve confidentiality and amend the protective order.
The order protects the plaintiffs, their family members, potential Private Attorneys General Act and Fair Labor Standards Act collective members, and witnesses from most immigration-status discovery, while allowing H-2A-related discovery and permitting defendants to ask the court for relief.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Dutton Ranch Corporation, the plaintiffs asked the court to preserve their confidentiality designations and amend the protective order. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the hearing.
The court found that the plaintiffs made their confidentiality designations on time, acted without bad faith, and showed good cause for keeping the information confidential. It also found that Dutton Ranch would not be harmed because it could still argue that O. Hernandez abandoned the job to be with his wife.
The court granted the motion in its entirety and ordered that discovery about immigration status generally be prohibited for the plaintiffs, their family members, potential collective members, and witnesses, except for H-2A-related discovery. Judge Edward M. Chen stated that defendants could ask the court for permission to pursue a relevant immigration-related inquiry.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Dutton Ranch Corporation · No. 3:19-cv-00817
- Edward Chen
- July 16, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs moved to retain confidentiality and obtain an amended protective order. A protective order is a court order limiting the disclosure or use of information obtained in discovery. The court found the motion suitable for decision without oral argument and vacated the hearing.
Confidentiality designations
The court found that the plaintiffs’ confidentiality designations were timely. Although the court would have preferred that the parties present the dispute through a joint letter, it concluded that this did not justify denying relief. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not acted in bad faith because of the terms of the stipulated protective order.
Applying the good-cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the court found a serious issue and good cause to keep the information confidential. It further found that defendants would not be prejudiced because they could still assert the defense that O. Hernandez had abandoned his job to be with his wife, who had recently moved to the area.
Amended protective order
The plaintiffs requested an order prohibiting discovery concerning immigration status involving the plaintiffs, their family members, the putative Private Attorneys General Act and Fair Labor Standards Act collective members, and witnesses. They requested an exception for discovery related to H-2A matters, including whether a worker worked for Dutton Ranch under an H-2A visa and whether expenses were incurred to obtain that visa.
Defendants argued that the plaintiffs had an expansive view of what counted as immigration-status discovery and proposed allowing redactions when necessary. The court rejected that approach because defendants had not identified how immigration status was relevant beyond the limited H-2A-related matters identified by the plaintiffs. The court also considered the potential chilling effect of allowing such discovery. It concluded that defendants could petition the court for relief if they believed a particular immigration-related inquiry was relevant.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for relief in its entirety. It directed the court to stamp the plaintiffs’ proposed amended protective order and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 47. Judge Edward M. Chen entered the order on July 16, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.