Maria Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, LLC
838 F.3d 540
5th Cir.2016Background
- Koch Foods faced a large Title VII/related suit by predominantly Hispanic debone‑department workers alleging routine sexual and physical abuse and retaliation; the EEOC later filed a class suit and consolidated the cases.
- Koch claimed the workers fabricated allegations to secure U‑visa immigration benefits and sought discovery of any records related to claimants’ U‑visa applications.
- Plaintiffs resisted, arguing disclosure would reveal immigration status and chill future victims; they asserted statutory confidentiality (8 U.S.C. § 1367) and sought a protective order.
- The magistrate judge initially protected immigration status generally but later allowed targeted U‑visa discovery from individual claimants; the district court modified that order: § 1367 barred EEOC disclosure but not disclosure by individual claimants, and it permitted limited U‑visa discovery.
- The EEOC and individual plaintiffs obtained interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); the Fifth Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and Rule 26 balancing for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1367 bars disclosure of U‑visa application information held by the EEOC | §1367 forbids disclosure by agencies receiving U‑visa info; EEOC therefore cannot produce such records | §1367 does not explicitly create an evidentiary privilege or preclude discovery | Court: §1367 (and 8 C.F.R. §214.14) bars EEOC disclosure — statute unambiguously covers agencies receiving U‑visa information |
| Whether §1367 prevents disclosure of U‑visa records obtained directly from individual claimants | §1367’s purpose (protecting victims) implies individuals should also be shielded; allowing discovery would frustrate program | §1367’s text covers only government officials/agents; it does not reach private parties, so individuals can be compelled | Court: §1367 does not bar discovery from individual claimants; statute applies only to government officials/agencies |
| Whether Rule 26(c) protective order should nonetheless forbid U‑visa discovery from individual claimants (balancing relevance vs. in terrorem effect) | Claimants: U‑visa info is highly sensitive; disclosure would chill reporting, endanger workers, and harm public enforcement interests; plaintiffs urged a presumption of sensitivity | Koch: U‑visa records are probative of motive/credibility (possible fraud); protective orders and confidentiality regulations mitigate harms; relevance outweighs burden | Court: The district court erred in failing to weigh public chilling effects sufficiently; U‑visa discovery is potentially probative but must be cabined — not outright barred but anonymized in liability phase; remand to craft protective procedures |
| Whether interlocutory review and individual plaintiffs’ intervention were proper | EEOC and intervenors timely sought review and intervention under appellate rules | Koch contested timeliness and asked appellate court to decline Rule 26 review | Court: Appellate court exercised discretion to review; intervenors’ joinder was timely under applicable rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 (1982) (statutory nondisclosure of government records can preclude civil discovery even absent explicit "privilege" language)
- St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208 (1961) (a statute restricting government disclosure does not necessarily cloak privately held copies with the same secrecy)
- In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (statutory bar on disclosure to non‑board members interpreted to forbid civil discovery; persuasive analog on confidentiality purpose)
- Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 26 balancing may consider chilling effects of disclosure on future plaintiffs and public enforcement)
- United States v. Blanco, 392 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2004) (immigration‑related benefits can be material impeachment evidence)
- David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, 735 F. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. La. 2010) (disallowed T/U‑visa discovery because of strong in terrorem chilling effects, but permitted redacted/sworn statements)