PER CURIAM.
We granted leave to consider the extent to which plaintiff Gold Medal Bakery, Inc. should be permitted discovery into the immigration status of defendant Armenio N. Martins. In reversing the trial judge's denial of a protective order, we conclude that plaintiff failed to demonstrate what Judge Carchman referred to as the "direct[] relevan[ce]" of this information to the issues in the case and, as a result, plaintiff has not overcome the information's "potential for undue prejudice."
Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in 1996, it entered into a series of contracts with defendant Super Bread for the purchase of bakery goods, baking and delivery equipment, and related accoutrements. According to plaintiff's pleadings, in late 2010, following a nearly fifteen-year supplier-distributor relationship, Super Bread began to fall behind in its payments, thus leading to this lawsuit.
At a deposition more than one year after commencement of the action, defendant Armenio N. Martins was questioned about his immigration status.
Defendants moved to bar further inquiry into Armenio N. Martins's immigration status. After hearing argument, the trial judge denied the motion for a protective order and ordered Armenio N. Martins to produce residency documentation or, failing that, respond to further "narrow questioning" about his immigration status. We granted defendants' timely motion for leave to appeal.
In
Judge Sabatino's opinion for the court thoroughly analyzed the applicable considerations, observing that the admissibility of information relating to a party's right to be present in this country requires a careful application of
In a separate opinion, Judge Carchman expressed his agreement with Judge Sabatino's approach but also stated that he would "go further" and "start with a presumption that any inquiry into matters of immigration status is not appropriate."
We, too, agree with the application of this "further" step, which Judge Carchman described in the following way:
In attempting to convince us that there exists "a meaningful nexus" for the inquiry in question, plaintiff refers to what it claims is Super Bread's pattern of using noncitizen representatives in its dealings with others. Plaintiff contends those representatives are prohibited from being employed in this country because of their immigration status. In furtherance of this argument, plaintiff relies upon the immigration information obtained at the depositions of two other individuals, Jose Santos and Jorge Martins, and argues that it is entitled to determine whether Armenio N. Martins is similarly situated. We fail to see the nexus between, on the one hand, the immigration status of Jose Martins and Jorge Santos and any alleged role they may have played, and, on the other, Armenio N. Martins's immigration status and the role he played in the circumstances giving rise to this suit. The one thing simply does not logically relate to or follow from the other.
Even if there was a link, plaintiff only argues that its alleged right to this discovery is based on the claim that Armenio N. Martins's "potential inability to legally work [in this country] may be the main reason why the company does not follow corporate formalities in this area." In other words, plaintiff argues that Super Bread's corporate veil should be pierced because of the involvement of noncitizens who are either not in this country legally or whose status does not permit their employment.
Plaintiff also argues the information sought is relevant in determining whether Armenio N. Martins was authorized to speak for Super Bread when contracting with plaintiff. There is, however, nothing in the record to suggest that Super Bread has or will disavow any actions taken on its behalf by Armenio N. Martins, nor has plaintiff provided legal support for the contention that the actions taken by a noncitizen on behalf of a domestic corporation are ultra vires.
In the final analysis, we agree with
To the extent other purported grounds for this discovery may be discernible from plaintiff's arguments, we find they have insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
Reversed.