Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00701-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant Castlerock Farming and Transport, Inc. (“Castlerock”) seeks the entry of a protective 

order “to protect from public disclosure certain confidential or private information of (a) Castlerock’s 

current and former employees and (b) the current and former employees of farm labor contractors who 

have provided labor services to Castlerock.” (Doc. 138 at 1-2). The parties have agreed to the entry of 

a protective order, but are unable to agree on certain terms of the order. (Doc. 193). 

Castlerock asserts it proposed to enter a protective order identical to the order entered in Rojas 

v. Marko Zaninovich, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT, in which the plaintiffs are similarly 

represented by the law firm of Mallison & Martinez. (Doc. 139 at 2). According to Castlerock, 

Plaintiff’s counsel “refused to stipulate to entry of an identical protective order” and “[i]nstead . . . 

demanded that certain provisions governing the use of confidential information, the designation of 

confidential documents, and the scope of the order be edited or deleted.” Id. Specifically, the parties 

cannot agree regarding the extent to which third parties’ confidential or private information produced in 

SILVESTRE SOTO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CASTLEROCK FARMING AND 

TRANSPORT, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00701 - AWI - JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Case 1:09-cv-00701-AWI-JLT Document 142 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 5
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

this action should be protected from public disclosure, whether putative class members should be 

prohibited from reviewing other employees’ confidential information, and whether certain documents 

should be “presumptively confidential.” Id. at 4-7. 

A. Information Produced by Non-Parties 

Castlerock proposes the terms of the protective order apply to documents produced by not only 

parties in the action, but also non-parties such as J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc. (Doc. 139 at 

76, citing Doc. 138 at 13, ¶ 10). Plaintiff raises no objections to this provision in the Joint Statement. 

Accordingly, this proposed provision is APPROVED.

B. Presumptively confidential documents

Castlerock observes that it and third party J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Service, Inc. “produced 

approximately 25,000 pages of documents, comprising, in large part, employee timekeeping and 

payroll records.” (Doc. 139 at 2). According to Castlerock, “The vast majority of these . . . contain 

confidential information for members of the putative class.” Id. at 6. Castlerock asserts treating certain 

documents as presumptively confidential would “obviate the burden of reviewing and then marking 

tens of thousands of pages of records.” Id. Therefore, Castlerock seeks to have “[a]ll documents 

containing to the personal information of Defendant’s employees, including, but not limited to, 

employees’ Social Security Numbers, home addresses, home telephone numbers, birth dates, wages, 

pay roll and tax information” be presumed confidential. (Doc. 138 at 7-8, ¶5). 

Plaintiff contends these documents should not be treated as presumptively confidential because 

“the inclusion of an a priori category defeats the purpose of Rule 26(c), which requires that Defendant, 

not Plaintiff, meets the burden of showing good cause.” (Doc. 139 at 8). Plaintiff asserts that the 

designation as presumptively confidential could create “an undue burden” “to challenge each (that is 

potentially 25,000) designations individually in writing prior to challenging the designations with the 

court.” Id. Plaintiff argues the Court should embrace the Northern District’s approach of omitting any 

a priori categories and “permit defendant to mark the documents subject to motion practice if defendant 

has overmarked any such documents.” Id. 

Significantly, Plaintiff’s counsel previously agreed to the precise designation proposed here. 

(See Rojas, Doc. 29 at 4-5). As a result, Plaintiff’s argument against the documents being identified as 

Case 1:09-cv-00701-AWI-JLT Document 142 Filed 07/12/13 Page 2 of 5
3

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

presumptively confidential appears disingenuous. Courts have long recognized a privacy interest in tax 

information and personal in such as home addresses, home telephone numbers, and social security 

numbers. See, e.g., Stokwitz v. United States, 831 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The confidentiality 

of tax information may also be preserved in civil proceedings through protective orders”); Pershing 

Pac. West, LLC v. Marinemax, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54001 at *9 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) 

(identifying documents entitled to confidential treatment as including “documents that contain personal 

information, including names, address, account numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, or 

other identifying information or personal information . . .”). Consequently, as Plaintiff acknowledges, 

“none of these categories appear to be problematic.” (Doc. 139 at 8). Accordingly, Castlerock’s 

proposed identification of the categories of documents “presumed confidential” is APPROVED. 

C. Viewing of Protected Material by Class Members

Castlerock asserts putative class members should be restricted from viewing other employees’ 

personal confidential information, and that class members be required to execute a “Class Member 

Confidentiality Acknowledgement” prior to being presented information the individual would not 

otherwise be legally entitled to review. (Doc. 139 at 4-5). Accordingly, the proposed order provides:

Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the 

Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item 

designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to:

...

(h) A Class Member, but only to the limited extent that his or her individual 

personal information is the subject of the Protected Material (i.e., the Class Member 

may view his or her own time-keeping and/or compensation data, but may not view 

any other Class Member’s data and, to the extent the Protected Material contains 

information regarding additional persons, the information regarding the additional 

persons must be redacted before providing the Protected Material to the Class 

Member). In the event that the Protected Material consists of information that the 

Class Member would not otherwise be legally entitled to view pursuant to the 

California Labor Code and/or the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage 

Order, then prior to receiving the Protected Material, the Class Member must have 

signed the “Class Member Confidentiality Agreement”.

(Doc. 138 at 11-12). Castlerock asserts these proposed restrictions are “appropriate in light of the 

privacy concerns.” (Doc. 139 at 5).

On the other hand, Plaintiff contends the restrictions are “unclear” and “Class Members should 

not be prohibited from looking at documents necessary for them to provide testimony or aid to the 

Case 1:09-cv-00701-AWI-JLT Document 142 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 5
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

litigation.” (Doc. 139 at 12) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff argues “it is essentially (sic) that Class 

Members be able to review the timekeeping (not payroll) records of their crews and other crews to 

refresh their recollection and prepare them to provide testimony by declaration and deposition about the 

practices of the employer concerning other employees.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff contends the putative 

class members should not be restricted from viewing timekeeping records regarding other individuals.

Plaintiff has offered no reasonable explanation as to why class members should need to review 

records other than those to refresh their recollection of what happened to them personally. Likewise, 

Plaintiff does not explain why class members should be permitted to review documents regarding 

other individuals or crews or how, once reviewed, they could possibly provide testimony as to the 

content of these documents which concern only other workers. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to 

the proposed provision are OVERRULED, and the provision limiting class members’ viewing 

documents confidential documents is APPROVED.

D. Destruction of the Documents produced

Under the proposed terms of the protective order, 

Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 

4, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or 

destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all 

copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or 

capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or 

destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing 

Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day 

deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material 

that was returned or destroyed and (2)affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained 

any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or 

capturing any of the Protected Material. 

(Doc. 138 at 16). Plaintiff contends the documents produced in this action “should be permitted to be 

used in the related Castlerock litigation.” (Doc. 139 at 8). Accordingly, Plaintiff argues the documents 

should not be destroyed after resolution of this action, but destruction or return of the documents should 

be delayed pending resolution of the “related litigation covering the same class relating to wage and 

hour issues.” Id. at 12. 

On April 10, 2012, Maria Moreno, Abraham Ortiz, Javier Garcia, Florencia Gutierrez, Israel 

Lopez, Esther Lopez, and Francisco Lopez filed a complaint against Castlerock, J&L Padilla & Sons 

Case 1:09-cv-00701-AWI-JLT Document 142 Filed 07/12/13 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Labor Service, Inc. and Melba Nunez Contract, thereby initiating Gonzalez v. Castlerock Farming & 

Transport, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-00556-AWI-JLT.1 The Court stayed Moreno pending resolution of 

the class action motion in this matter. (Moreno, Doc. 29). However, the plaintiffs in Moreno are

represented by attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, not the law 

firms of Mallison & Martinez and Milberg Weiss, LLP. As a result, Plaintiff fails to explain why his 

attorneys should be permitted to retain confidential documents despite that they have no connection to 

Moreno. On the other hand, destruction or return of the documents best serves the purpose of a 

protective order. 

Plaintiff’s request for delay of destruction of the documents is DENIED, and Defendant’s 

proposed provision requiring return or production of the documents within 60 days after resolution of 

this action is APPROVED.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The terms of the proposed protective order proposed by Castlerock are APPROVED;

2. No later than July 18, 2013, pursuant to Local Rule 137(b), Castlerock SHALL lodge a 

copy of the proposed protective order which comports with the Court’s order here, to 

JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Error! Main Document Only. The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready 

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. 

Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The record of court proceeding is a source whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 

1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 

699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown 

Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980). Therefore, judicial notice is taken of the Court’s docket and 

documents filed in Moreno v. Castlerock Farming & Transport, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00556-AWI-JLT.

Case 1:09-cv-00701-AWI-JLT Document 142 Filed 07/12/13 Page 5 of 5