Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Information Obtained Through Discovery is Presumptively Public

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Information Obtained Through Discovery is Presumptively Public

Recently, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that information and documents obtained in discovery are presumptively public. In Cordero v. Stemilt AG Services, LLC, 142 F.4th 1201 (9th Cir. July 10, 2025), the Ninth Circuit vacated a blanket protective order issued by the District Court against Columbia Legal Services in Gomez v. Stemilt AG Services, 2021 WL 9145038.

Columbia Legal Services brought a class action in Gomez on behalf of 1,100 H-2A farm workers who alleged Stemilt violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act when they changed the H-2A contract. The new contract required workers to pick a certain number of apple bins a day, and if the workers failed to do so, Stemilt would threaten to deport them and blacklist them from future employment in the US.

The litigation in Gomez involved numerous discovery disputes resulting in two protective orders. The first regarded records from the Washington State Employment Security Division. Stemilt sought a universal protective order, but the court adopted the plaintiffs’ narrower proposed order protecting only addresses, medical records, dates of birth, telephone numbers, and Social Security numbers.

The second order concerned Stemilt’s financial and employment records, to which Stemilt sought a universal protective order, asserting that Columbia Legal Services might seek to use the information outside of the action. According to Stemilt, Columbia had used Stemilt’s payroll data in another lawsuit to advocate for higher wages in Washington H-2A contracts.  While again the court adopted the plaintiffs’ more narrow proposed order, the court concluded that Columbia should “not have free [rein] to utilize the information and documents discovered in this action in other advocacy with which Plaintiffs are not involved” and ordered that “Plaintiffs must seek leave of this Court before they—or counsel—utilize discovery from this action in other advocacy” and warned they would grant leave in only “limited circumstances.”

Gomez settled, and the agreement resolved all claims between the plaintiffs and Stemlit. The parties stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, which the court approved, and Columbia appealed, saying that the protective order issued by the court, restricting the usage of the produced financial and employment records, was overly broad. The Court of Appeals agreed.

In Cordero, Columbia attorneys stated in a declaration that the order had a chilling effect on their advocacy in other matters. Columbia stated that they regularly use non-confidential information obtained from discovery in its impact litigation, legislative advocacy, and community education efforts. Columbia further identified several documents it would use in other advocacy efforts if permitted to do so. Stemlit argued that Columbia lacked standing to challenge the court order, but the court found that the inability to use the information from the records about the abuses of farmworkers or shortcomings in the H-2A system for future advocacy was sufficient harm for Article III standing. Stemlit further argued that the court should apply a nonparty “standing to appeal” rule, and the court declined to impose this standard, because Columbia clearly showed an interest in using the information revealed in the class action and had no other way to vindicate that interest, other than by appealing the protective order.

The Ninth Circuit in Cordero held that it is well-established that discovery is “presumptively public.” Id., 142 F.4th at 1207 (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (2022) 187 F.3d 1096, 1103). The court stated that it “strongly favor[s]” access to discovery for other litigation in the interest of judicial economy, and a district court must find good cause and particularized harm that would arise from public disclosure before issuing a limiting protective order like that which had been issued in Gomez. Here, the Ninth Circuit found that the broad order prohibiting Columbia from using the information gathered in discovery in Gomez for other matters, with only brief explanation and no finding of good cause, was insufficient to justify restricting Columbia’s use of information obtained from the documents produced in Gomez discovery.

The Cordero ruling ensures that practitioners will be able to use the information obtained in discovery to better advocate for their clients, for legislative advocacy, and to help inform community members of their rights. Litigation often impacts not only the parties involved in a case, but the community at large, as Bryan Schwartz Law helped establish in Vaughn v. Tesla (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 208 (establishing the right to pursue a public injunction under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act). Being able to share information learned for the benefit of the community is a necessary function of litigation. The court’s ruling in this case encourages lawyers to share information for efficiency in future litigation, and more importantly, for the betterment of the society affected by the harms.

If you believe your employer has violated your workplace rights, contact Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C..