Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02035/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02035-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOSHIRA BARAJAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARRIAGE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02035-EMC (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 77

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Carriage Services, Inc. (“CSI”) suing for 

minimum wage and overtime violations. CSI has served document requests seeking Plaintiffs’ tax 

returns for the years they claim to have been employed at CSI and for one year prior. CSI says it 

wants to know Plaintiffs’ employment status and compensation during that time. That request is a 

bit of a head scratcher. People who are self-employed have to come up with something to provide 

to the IRS in a tax return. But employees normally don’t create their own employment 

information for the IRS. That information comes from the employer – here, CSI. Sometimes 

employees turn over a W-2, and other times it’s more automated, but the information comes from 

the employer. So, doesn’t CSI have it already? At the telephonic hearing CSI said it didn’t know 

and was still looking into that. 

CSI also wants to know if the Plaintiffs were employed by some other company during the 

time they allege they were employed by CSI, which could lend doubt to their claim they worked 

for CSI. But tax returns implicate privacy interests, and the Court does not understand why we 

should do this second-order inquiry into whether the Plaintiffs were employed by CSI. CSI should 

know that. There should be payroll records that show this. CSI has failed to explain why it needs 

any discovery to figure out who its employees were and what it paid them. The notion that we 

Case 3:19-cv-02035-EMC Document 83 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

should find out who else the Plaintiffs worked for, see what their compensation was for the other 

company, guess how many hours a year that implies they worked for the other company, and then 

see if there was enough time left in the day to also be a CSI employee is a completely backwards 

and disproportional way to figure out if they were CSI employees. And the request for tax returns 

for the year before the Plaintiffs claim they worked for CSI is simply unexplained.

The Court denies CSI’s motion to compel because the information sought – Plaintiffs’ 

employment status with CSI and their compensation – “can be obtained from some other source 

that is more convenient [and] less burdensome,” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), namely from 

CSI itself. But the denial is without prejudice because CSI is still investigating its own records. 

Payroll records are the sort of thing employers normally have, and CSI has not shown that it 

doesn’t, but when it finishes its investigation perhaps it will come up with a reason why its records 

are insufficient.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02035-EMC Document 83 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2