Rengifo v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc.

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff moved for a protective order to prevent discovery into Plaintiff‘s immigration status, social security number, and authorization to work in the United States.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under FRCP Rule 26(c), a court may issue a protective order to prevent certain matters from being inquired into to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

Facts.

Plaintiff sued Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid overtime wages. Plaintiff moved for a protective order pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(c) to prevent discovery into Plaintiff‘s immigration status, social security number, and authorization to work in the United States. Defendants opposed the request.

Issue.

Under FRCP Rule 26(c), may a court issue a protective order to prevent certain matters from being inquired into to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense?

Held.

Yes.

Discussion.

Under FRCP Rule 26(c), a court may issue a protective order to prevent certain matters from being inquired into to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. As a general rule, courts have recognized the inquiry into a party’s immigration status and authorization to work when the inquiry is not relevant to a material claim can lead to intimidation that inhibits plaintiffs from pursing their rights. Therefore, such inquiry has an oppressive effect. Here, Plaintiff’s primary claim related to wages. His immigration status was a collateral issue and had an oppressive effect. In addition, Defendants sought Plaintiff’s social security number or tax identification number to obtain information regarding the amount of compensation that Plaintiff had received from them. However, Defendants should possess the documentation related to the amount of compensation paid to Plaintiff, which made the information irrelevant to the claims. Lastly, Defendants’s arguments that Plaintiff’s immigration status would be relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility did not outweigh outweigh the public interest in allowing employees to enforce their rights. Accordingly, the motion for a protective order preventing inquiry into Plaintiff’s immigration status, social security number or tax identification number, and authorization to work in the United States is granted.