Hill v. Walmart Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-05436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hill v. Walmart Inc., Judge Corley ordered discovery responses and documents, but denied Walmart’s motion to compel tax documents without prejudice.
Bijon Hill must provide or obtain specified discovery for Walmart Inc.; Walmart’s request for the tax documents was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Hill v. Walmart Inc., Bijon Hill contended that Walmart used her as a model on 10 occasions and did not pay her on time under California law. Walmart contended that Hill was an independent contractor and that her talent agency, Scout Talent Management, LLC, was responsible for paying her.
The dispute concerned Walmart’s requests for documents, answers to written questions, and responses to requests for admission. Walmart sought records about payments from Scout, Hill’s agreements with Scout, tax documents, other income, and whether Hill received certain tax forms.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered Hill to produce payment records, ask Scout for representation agreements and produce them, answer Interrogatories 5–7, and answer Requests for Admission 4–7. The court denied Walmart’s request for the tax documents without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Walmart Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-05436
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 16, 2020
Background
Bijon Hill alleged that Walmart employed her as a model for its marketing materials on 10 occasions and failed to pay her within the time required by California law. Walmart contended that Hill was an independent contractor and that Scout Talent Management, LLC, rather than Walmart, was responsible for paying her.
Discovery in the case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The court considered a joint letter concerning Walmart’s motion to compel documents and answers to interrogatories and requests for admission. The court ruled without oral argument.
Rulings
- Payment records: Hill was ordered to produce documents showing payments from Scout to her during the relevant period. The court said Hill could not unilaterally decide which payments were relevant because Walmart was entitled to determine which payments related to Hill’s work for Walmart and when they were made. - Representation agreements: Hill represented that she did not possess copies of her representation agreements with Scout. The court ordered her to ask Scout for copies of all representation agreements Scout had with her and then promptly produce them to Walmart. - Tax documents: The court rejected Hill’s position that the tax records were absolutely protected from disclosure. However, Walmart had not addressed the California law governing production of tax records, and the information might be obtained through other means, including a stipulation or requests for admission. The court therefore denied Walmart’s motion to compel the tax documents without prejudice. - Interrogatories: Hill was ordered to answer Interrogatories 5–7 because the information was relevant. By filing the lawsuit, Hill had placed her other sources of income during the relevant period at issue. The court said private financial information could be provided under a protective order. - Requests for admission: Hill was ordered to answer Requests for Admission 4–7. The court found her refusal unsupported because she cited no case recognizing a privilege against admitting that she received a Form 1099.
Effect of the Order
The order disposed of Docket No. 36, the discovery dispute joint letter. It addressed discovery obligations and did not decide whether Hill was an employee or independent contractor, whether Walmart owed her payment under California law, or whether Scout was responsible for payment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.