Garcia v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: November 23, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00254
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 EASTERUN. SD.I SDTIRSITCRTI COTF CWOAUSRHTI NGTON Nov 23, 2020 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA, as an No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ 5 individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED 6 JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as an PROTECTIVE ORDER individual and on behalf of all other 7 similarly situated persons,

8 Plaintiffs,

9 v.

10 STEMILT AG SERVICES LLC,

11 Defendant.

13 Before the Court, without oral argument, are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order 14 Finding Discovery of ESD Documents Appropriate, ECF No. 20, and Defendants’ 15 Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs seek an order finding that 16 discovery of Washington State Employment Security Division (ESD) records is 17 appropriate in this case. ECF No. 20 at 3. At the telephonic status conference, the 18 Court ordered the parties to confer and provide the Court with an agreed proposed 19 protective order. See ECF No. 23 at 2. 20 // 1 The parties conferred but could not agree on the terms of a proposed 2 protective order. See ECF Nos. 28-2, 29. Accordingly, each party filed a proposed

3 protective order. ECF Nos. 28, 30-2. Defendant also attached to its motion ESD’s 4 proposed protective order. ECF No. 30-1. Plaintiffs seek a narrow protective order 5 which would only cover ESD documents and would allow them to retain the

6 produced records after the close of litigation. ECF Nos. 28, 28-1. Defendant seeks 7 a more expansive protective order, which would cover ESD documents as well as 8 other documents produced by the parties. ECF Nos. 29, 30-2. The protective order 9 proposed by ESD is similar in most respects to Plaintiffs’ proposed order, the most

10 notable difference being that ESD’s proposed order includes provisions for the 11 destruction of covered materials after litigation concludes. ECF No. 30-1. 12 “Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents and

13 information produced during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows 14 ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary.” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 15 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). While the Court agrees with the necessity of a protective 16 order, the Court finds that both Defendant’s and ESD’s proposed orders overly

17 restrict the use of the discovery without a showing of good cause. The Court finds 18 Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order reaches a middle ground that addresses the 19 interests of all parties, striking the appropriate balance between Plaintiffs’ interest

20 in advocating for farm workers and the privacy interests of the parties and the 1 subjects of the records. Because the protective order continues after the conclusion 2 of this lawsuit, it provides adequate protections against broad disclosures without

3 the need to require the destruction of records as proposed by ESD and Defendant. 4 See ECF No. 28 at 5. The Court therefore adopts Plaintiffs’ protective order, subject 5 to the additional provisions described below.

6 The Court finds that, given the adoption of the proposed protective order, the 7 need for the information and records in the current proceedings outweighs any 8 further privacy and confidentiality concerns. See Wash. Rev. Code § 50.13.015 et 9 seq.; 20 C.F.R. § 603.1 et seq. Although Washington Revised Code Section

10 50.13.015(4) states that “[p]ersons requesting disclosure of information held by 11 [ESD] . . . shall request such disclosure from the agency providing the information 12 to [ESD] rather than from [ESD],” Section 50.13.070 allows ESD to disclose such

13 information upon an order from a Court. This creates an efficient result and is 14 consistent with what courts have ordered in similar cases. See, e.g., Rosas v. 15 Sarbanand Farms, LLC, No. 18-0112-JCC, 2019 U.S. Dist LEXIS 131735, at *3– 16 *4 (W.D. Wash. August 6, 2018). Plaintiffs therefore need not seek the records from

17 other agencies before requesting them from ESD. 18 If any party believes additional protections are needed for specific ESD 19 documents or other discovery not covered by the protective order, that party shall

20 confer with opposing counsel to try to agree on a stipulated protective order for the 1 specific discovery at issue. If the parties cannot agree on a stipulated protective 2 order after meeting and conferring in good faith, the party seeking the protections

3 may file a motion with the Court. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Finding Discovery of ESD Documents

6 Appropriate, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED IN PART. 7 2. The Court finds that, given the adoption of the proposed protective 8 order, the need for the information and records in the current 9 proceedings outweighs any further privacy and confidentiality

10 concerns. See Wash. Rev. Code § 50.13.070. ESD shall produce: 11 A. Documentation regarding all recruitment efforts in connection 12 with Stemilt’s 2017 H-2A clearance orders; and

13 B. All complaints, documentation, and investigation results related 14 to Stemilt from 2015 to 2017 in connection with Stemilt’s H-2A 15 clearance orders. 16 3. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 29, is DENIED.

17 4. Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order, ECF No. 28, is APPROVED, 18 ADOPTED, and INCORPORATED in this Order by reference. 19 5. This order has no effect on the parties right or obligation to file private

20 or confidential materials under seal. 1 6. If a party believes that an additional protective order is needed, they 2 may file a motion with the Court after attempting to resolve the issue 3 with the opposing party as described above. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and

5 || provide copies to all counsel. 6 DATED this 23"¢ day of November 2020.

8 S*A2VADOR MEND@#A, JR. United States District Juéze 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20