Moreno v. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 14, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01574·Unknown

Opinion

Jonathan Melmed (SBN 290218) jm@melmedlaw.com Kyle D. Smith (SBN 280489) ks@melmedlaw.com Jaqueline Antillón (SBN 358092) ja@melmedlaw.com 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Fax: (310) 862-6851 Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Putative Class, and the Aggrieved Employees (Additional Counsel on Following Page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE MARIA MORENO, an individual, on Case Number: 2:25-cv-01574-CKD behalf of himself, the State of California, as a Stipulation and Protective Order Regarding private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Production of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services I-9 Forms Plaintiff, WITH MODIFICATIONS BY THE COURT v. [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Carolyn K. Delaney] ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS, INC., a California Corporation; ZUCKERMAN - Complaint Filed: July 15, 2024 MANDEVILLE, INC, a California Corporation; Removal Filed: June 5, 2025 Trial Date: None ZUCKERMAN PRODUCE, INC., a California Corporation; HERITAGE LAND CO., INC., a California Corporation; ZUCKERMAN- HERITAGE, INC., a California Corporation; DELTA FARMS PACKING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants. Dennis C. Huie (SBN 184377) dhuie@rjo.com Whitney R. Miner (SBN 290825) wminer@rjo.com Crystal J. Yu (SBN 359647) cyu@rjo.com 311 California Street, 10th Floor 1801 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415) 956-2828 Fax: (415) 956-6457 Attorneys for Defendants Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc., Zuckerman-Mandeville, Inc., Zuckerman Produce, Inc., Heritage Land Co., Inc., Zuckerman-Heritage, Inc., and Delta Farms Packing, Inc.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Jose Maria Moreno (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc., Zuckerman-Mandeville, Inc., Zuckerman Produce, Inc., Heritage Land Co., Inc., Zuckerman-Heritage, Inc., and Delta Farms Packing, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or any singular defendant shall be referred to as “Defendant”) (together “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, that Defendants will produce the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services I-9 forms (the “I-9 Forms”) for all individuals who are or were employed by any or all of Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the period from July 15, 2020, through June 5, 2025 for the sole purpose of determining the citizenship of the putative class in assessing whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Parties understand and agree that the I-9 Forms may contain sensitive information and may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate that the I-9 Forms will be produced subject to the following conditions and accompanying proposed protective order: The purpose of this Stipulation and Protective Order Regarding Production of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services I-9 Forms (“Stipulation and Protective Order”) is to protect the privacy interests and confidential information of those individuals whose employment documentation, specifically the I-9 Forms, is produced in response to the Court’s order dated August 4, 2025 (ECF No. 27). The I-9 Forms contain sensitive personal information including but not limited to the immigration status of putative class members that must be shielded from unnecessary disclosure. The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only the I-9 Forms, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal information obtained from the I-9 Forms (collectively, “Protected Material”). Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until Defendants agree otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. The I-9 Forms shall automatically be designated as “Confidential Information” without the need for further action on behalf of any of the Parties. Defendants may, but are not required to, label the I-9 Forms with the words “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” in a manner that does not cover or otherwise obstruct the legibility of the documents. Defendants may also affix a Bates number to the I-9 Forms in a manner that does not cover or otherwise obstruct the legibility of the documents. The I-9 Forms shall not otherwise be altered by Defendants. If Plaintiff’s counsel learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiff’s counsel must immediately (a) notify in writing Defendants of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Protected Information shall not be disclosed to any person or entity except: (1) The Court and its personnel; (2) Counsel of record and the attorneys and staff at their firms to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for Plaintiff to address jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act; and (3) Experts or consultants retained for purposes of jurisdictional analysis, provided they agree in writing to be bound by this Protective Order. The Protected Material shall be used for the sole purpose of determining the citizenship of the putative class to ascertain whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. They shall not be used for any other purpose either within this litigation or in any other proceeding. When the court issues a ruling on a motion to remand or if Plaintiff does not file a motion to remand within the deadline for filing such motion as set by the Court, Plaintiff must comply with the provisions of Section XI below (FINAL DISPOSITION). Plaintiff’s counsel shall take all reasonable steps to prevent their unauthorized disclosure, duplication, or use. All I-9 Forms produced subject to this Stipulation and Protective Order shall be stored in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Stipulation and Protective Order. Any filings that contain or refer to such information shall be filed under seal in compliance with Local Rule 141. This Stipulation and Protective Order may be modified by the Court or by stipulation of the parties with Court approval. Any party to the Proceeding who has not executed this Stipulation and Protective Order as of the time it is presented to the Court for signature may thereafter become a party to this Stipulation and Protective Order by its counsel’s signing and dating a copy thereof and filing the same with the Court, and serving copies of such signed and dated copy on the other Parties to this Stipulation and Protective Order. If any person subject to this Stipulation and Protective Order who has custody of any Protected Material receives a subpoena or other process (“Subpoena”) from any government or other person or entity demanding production of such materials, the recipient of the Subpoena shall promptly give notic

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Moreno v. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Moreno v. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc. (Moreno v. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.