Litigants Can’t Refuse to Testify About Immigration Standing, if It’s Related

Plaintiff first objects to Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty’s oral order throughout Plaintiff’s September 22, 2022 deposition to reply questions relating to Plaintiff’s journey to and in the USA. Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty states in his Advice that:

Within the Criticism, Plaintiff alleges that in July 2013, she got here to the USA at Defendant’s invitation. On the deposition, Defendant was exploring this allegation and requested Plaintiff to determine the authorized foundation for her entry into the USA. Plaintiff refused to reply. I discovered the query sufficiently related for discovery functions and ordered Plaintiff to reply. I suggested her of the next:

1. If she thought the reply would possibly incriminate her, she may invoke her Fifth Modification proper to refuse to reply. She affirmatively acknowledged the reply wouldn’t contain any potential felony conduct and declined to invoke her proper to stay silent.

2. I might be keen to order Defendant out of the courtroom, prohibit this line of questioning to “attorneys’ eyes solely,” instruct counsel to not confide in anybody the knowledge offered by Plaintiff with out additional order of the Courtroom, and mark the transcript as restricted. Plaintiff declined.

3. If she persevered in disobeying my Order to reply the questions, this could possibly be construed as a contempt of court docket, and the sanction may embrace, with out limitation, dismissal of her lawsuit with prejudice. She understood.

In figuring out and deliberate disobedience of my direct Order after these choices and my advisement have been offered to her, in my presence she refused to reply the questions regarding immigration standing on the grounds of “relevance.” Certainly, she refused to reply many questions on relevance grounds regardless of my Order that she might not do this. She totally understood my Order and its which means. She deliberately and knowingly violated that Order, which results in this Advice.

Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty additional notes that:

After I left the courtroom, Plaintiff apparently indicated her willingness to reply the questions. When protection counsel then posed the immigration standing queries, Plaintiff answered to every, “I don’t bear in mind.” Quite than ameliorate Plaintiff’s blatant contempt, I imagine this solely furthers her mockery of the Courtroom’s Order by disingenuously purporting to reply questions and, on the identical time, probably committing perjury. …

Plaintiff [argues] that her “immigration matter has no bearing on both legal responsibility or damages” and that “[d]iscovery of immigration standing is a possible weapon for harassing and intimidating people[]”[:] … “If courts granted discovery requests for info associated to immigration standing in each case, numerous acts of unlawful and reprehensible conduct would go unreported.” … Subsequently, in keeping with Plaintiff, the “[i]mmigration matter is barred from discovery.” Plaintiff cites a number of circumstances, most of that are from exterior of this District and this Circuit, by which the court docket restricted the permissible discovery relating to events’ immigration standing. Plaintiff additionally argues that “[b]ased on Plaintiff’s statement of protection counsel’s follow Plaintiff didn’t imagine the restriction to ‘attorneys’ eyes solely’ till additional order of the Courtroom can be enough to guard Plaintiff.”

The one case that Plaintiff cites from throughout the Tenth Circuit pertaining to this situation is Reyes v. Snowcap Creamery, Inc. (D. Colo. 2012) (Martínez, J.). In that case, the Courtroom concluded that “the danger of damage to Plaintiff if he’s required to reveal his immigration lawyer’s file outweighs the necessity for its disclosure and, due to this fact, the Courtroom shouldn’t compel disclosure.” The Courtroom held that “the burden of authority clearly holds {that a} plaintiff’s immigration standing is irrelevant in an FLSA motion.”

This case is distinguishable from Reyes. Right here, Plaintiff has introduced a defamation declare towards Defendant associated to his alleged statements that Plaintiff filed a false police report and dedicated insurance coverage fraud associated to her misplaced passport whereas she was in the USA and didn’t take a return flight to China. Plaintiff has introduced a further defamation declare and claims for intentional infliction of emotional misery/outrageous conduct and unreasonable disclosure of personal info. To help her claims, Plaintiff alleges in her Third Amended Criticism, which is at the moment the operative criticism on this case, that “[i]n July 2013, … [she] moved to the USA to reside with Defendant in Aurora, Colorado,” at which era she and Defendant had been in a romantic relationship. As identified within the Advice, Plaintiff had additionally alleged in her first Criticism filed on this case that “[i]n July 2013 Plaintiff got here to the USA by Defendant’s invitation.”

Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty decided {that a} line of questioning relating to the circumstances beneath which Plaintiff traveled to the USA was related. This conclusion was not “clearly faulty or opposite to legislation.” The circumstances of this case are clearly distinguishable from these in Reyes, as this isn’t an FLSA motion, and the relevance of the road of questioning that Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty ordered Plaintiff to reply is demonstrated by the truth that Plaintiff’s allegations in her Criticism relate to her travels to and in the USA.

Plaintiff’s particular person “belie[f],” primarily based on her “statement of protection counsel’s follow,” that “the restriction to ‘attorneys’ eyes solely’ till additional order of the Courtroom”—a restriction which Plaintiff declined—would [not] be enough to guard Plaintiff” doesn’t render Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty’s order that she reply questions throughout her deposition improper. Nor does the truth that Plaintiff apparently didn’t wish to reply the questions deemed related by the Justice of the Peace Decide make an order to take action an “ambush” or require that Plaintiff be given the chance to individually analysis and transient the problem earlier than answering, as Plaintiff seems to contend. That is very true, given the Justice of the Peace Decide’s a number of advisements, together with that the transcript of the deposition could possibly be sealed and that the knowledge could possibly be restricted to “attorneys’ eyes solely,” which Plaintiff declined. The Courtroom affirms Justice of the Peace Decide Hegarty’s order that Plaintiff reply the questions requested of her throughout her deposition.

Disclosure: Luo has unsuccessfully sued me to attempt to drive me to take away sure posts about her, and to dam me from writing extra about her, and is interesting her loss. However after all I used to be writing about her circumstances even earlier than she sued (that was the entire level of her lawsuit), and am now simply persevering with my earlier follow.