Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01324/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01324-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN BREWER, individually and on )

behalf of all others similarly situated, )

 )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SCOTT SALYER, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv1324 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO

SUBMIT NAMES TO SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION

(Document 66)

Plaintiff Robin Brewer (“plainitff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated filed the instant motion to compel Salyer and/or non party SK Foods to submit the names

and social security numbers of all hourly paid employees to the Social Security Administration

(SSA)/Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for verification through the U.S. Government’s

Basic Pilot program (or current program) on October 3, 2007. The matter was heard on

November 2, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Brian

Maschler appeared on behalf of Defendant Scott Salyer (“Defendant”). Plaintiff submitted the

motion without oral argument and because of a misunderstanding about his telephonic

appearance, did not make an appearance at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 70 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff filed the instant RICO class action against Defendant on September 21, 2006 on

behalf of all legal U.S. citizens who worked as hourly paid employees at SK Foods during the

last four years. Plaintiff seeks back pay to compensate him for the amount he believes his wages

were depressed as a result of Defendant hiring illegal immigrants at SK Foods.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, this case is bifurcated between issues relating to class

certification and issues relating to the merits. Discovery related to class certification closed on

May 4, 2007.

On May 30, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel non-party SK Foods to

produce: (1) documents related to the manner in which SK Foods sets wages; (2) documents

related to the compilation of job categories; and (3) I-9 forms and supporting documents. The

Court ordered SK Foods to produce the documents within 20 days of a stipulated protective

order. On July 16 2007, the Court entered the Protective Order and the documents, including I-9

forms were produced in early August. 

After reviewing the I-9 forms, plaintiff noticed that many of the documents did not have

the citizen/alien boxes. When plaintiff inquired, SK Foods indicated that the I-9 forms had not

been altered. Plaintiff therefore requested that Sayer and/or SK Foods submit all the names of

hourly paid and piece rate workers to the SSA to determine whether the name matches the social

security number provided for employment. SK Foods refused to consent to the SSA Matching

and the parties are unable to reach an agreement on this issue. Plaintiff therefore brings the

present motion to compel requesting that the SSA Matching be conducted though the Basic Pilot

Program or other government program. 

On October 3, 2007, the parties filed their joint statement regarding this issue.

Plaintiff argues that the matching procedures are relevant to class certification issues in

that non-matches constitute constructive knowledge that an individual is not authorized to work

in the U.S. and further many of the I-9's produced do not indicate the employees’ work status. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate that he can identify the class members in this case (i.e., the legal

workers). Thus, the proposed SSA Matching will provide a workable method for determining

class membership. 

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 70 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff argues that a motion to compel discovery is the proper procedure because the

information plaintiff seeks is in the control of Salyer and/or SK Foods. Plaintiff argues that

material which can be obtained from a request by a party is in that party’s “control” for discovery

purposes. See Allen v. Woodford, 2007 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 11026, *5 (E.D. Cal.2007).

Salyer and SK Foods argue that forcing a medium sized company, which has not elected

to participate in this voluntary DHS program, is not a type of discovery permitted or even

recognized under the Federal Rules. Salyer points out that a party may not, under the auspices of

a discovery request, seek injunctive relief against a party or non-party. See Parents’ Committee

of Public School 19 v. Community School Board of Community School Dist. No. 14 of New York,

524 F.2d 1138 (2 Cir. 1975), Even if the Court could issue such an order, Salyer argues that the nd

“no match” letters go to the merits rather than class certification as found in Hernandez v.

Balakian. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books,

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter.” 

A party may serve on another party a request to produce and permit inspection, copying,

testing, etc., of relevant documents and tangible things; or to permit entry upon land for purpose

of inspecting an object or operation thereon. Fed.R.Civ. P. 34. A party may apply for an order

compelling discovery or disclosure where a party or deponent fails to respond to a request for

production or fails to permit inspection as requested. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. 

Similarly, Rule 45 authorizes issuance of a subpoena commanding the person to whom it

is directed to attend and give testimony or to produce and permit inspection of designated records

or things. Fed.R.Civ. P. 45(a). Failure to comply with a subpoena without adequate excuse is a

contempt of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e).

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 70 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiff served a subpoena on SK Foods seeking production of all I-9 forms for its hourly

employees. This Court ordered production of the I-9 forms and they were produced in August. 

The request now before the Court is unrelated to this discovery or the Court’s Order. By way of

a motion to compel pursuant to Rules 34, 37 and 45, plaintiff moves for an order compelling

Salyer and/or SK Foods to submit the names and social security numbers of its hourly paid

employees to the SSA. This request has not been made by way of discovery and is therefore

beyond the scope of Rule 37. Moreover, as pointed out by Salyer and SK Foods, it is

questionable whether the request is a method of discovery allowed under Rules 26, 34 or 45. 

While Salyer or SK Foods may have the legal right to obtain the matching data, plaintiff’s

request is more intrusive. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring participation in a government

program that is otherwise voluntary for the purpose of authorizing a government agency to create

new documents that do not presently exist. In the absence of compelling authority to the

contrary, this Court is not prepared to interpret the discovery rules to provide for such relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 7, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 70 Filed 11/07/07 Page 4 of 4