In re: Perez, No. 13-72195 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThe Secretary filed suit against DSHS, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Secretary provided proof of the alleged violations by 400 employees' signatures - 350 of which he obtained after he had filed suit. The district court held that these 350 employees were not informants whose identities were protected from discovery by the government's informants privilege and ordered the Secretary to answer three interrogatories that would disclose their identities. The Secretary petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The court concluded that the district court erroneously limited the scope of the informants privilege by focusing on the timing of the informants' statements, and DSHS did not have a compelling need for the identities or identifying information of the 250 employees who would not be witnesses at trial. Therefore, the court granted the petition and vacated the district court's order to compel the Secretary's responses to the interrogatories.
Court Description: Mandamus. The panel granted the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor’s petition for a writ of mandamus, and vacated the district court’s order compelling the Secretary’s response to interrogatories, in the Secretary’s action against the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Secretary of Labor’s proof of the alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violations came from 400 employee statements—350 of which the Secretary obtained after he had filed suit. The district court held that the 350 employees were not informants whose identities were protected from discovery by the government’s informants privilege, and ordered the Secretary to answer three interrogatories that would disclose their identities. The panel granted the Secretary’s petition for a writ of mandamus to avoid disclosing the employees’ identities because the timing of the employees’ statements did not affect their status as informants, and because knowledge of the informants’ identities would not significantly aid the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. The panel directed the district court to enter a protective order consistent with its opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.