Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Plaintiffs' Entitled to a Protective Order
Limiting Discovery of Defendant

Alfred N. Milam
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Centeno-Bernuy v. Becker Farms, 219 F.R.D. 59 (W.D.N.Y. 2003), the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted a motion for a protective order filed by several migrant workers so that the plaintiffs were precluded from disclosing their current places of employment and residences.

Background

The plaintiffs were four migrant agriculture workers who worked at Defendant Becker Farms as non-immigrant H-2A workers. See id. at 61. The plaintiffs alleged that they were "underpaid, housed in dilapidated, unsanitary, and unsafe housing, and illegally charged for transportation and other unauthorized expenses." Id. As a result, the plaintiffs sued the defendant for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker and Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872, and several state laws. See Id. During discovery the defendants requested information about the status of the plaintiffs' residence, employment, and immigration status since the time they left the defendants' employment. See id. at 62.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that they should be granted a protective order on the grounds that "such information was not relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Id. They further argued that the defendant's requests "were unduly burdensome, oppressive, prejudicial and interposed for an improper purpose, namely, to retaliate against the plaintiffs and interfere with their prosecution of this lawsuit." Id. The defendant argued that the information about the plaintiffs' residence and employment would allow it to determine whether the plaintiffs had been discussing their alleged experience with neighbors and current employers. See id. at 64.

Analysis and Holding

The court found that any relevance of the information sought by defendant was outweighed by the potential of the information to be used to "harass, oppress or intimidate the plaintiffs." Id. at 65. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order. See id.

The case was decided on September 30, 2003; this summary was posted Apr. 8, 2005.