*1 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Pioneer Natural Resources Company's (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”). (Doc. 26). This case is before the undersigned through an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Appendix C of the Local Court Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. After due consideration of the parties' briefing and the applicable case law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel. (Doc. 26).

Plaintiff Dale Wilkerson (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit on October 18, 2021, against Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (Doc. 1). Employed through a third party, Pipeline Safety, LLC, Plaintiff worked for Defendant “as a Document Control Specialist and Site Inspector from approximately October 2018 through August 2019.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges he was misclassified as an independent contractor and therefore not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Id. at 4–7.

On January 27, 2022, the Court entered a scheduling order in the case, requiring that the parties complete discovery on or before November 29, 2022. (Doc. 16 at 2). However, following a status conference with the Court, the parties were given until June 13, 2022, to complete Swales discovery. (Doc. 25 at 2). Then, on May 6, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel requesting that the Court compel Plaintiff to produce information in response to Defendant's Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 10 and to provide documents in response to Defendant's Request for Production No. 12. (Doc. 26 at 2–3). Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition on May 13, 2022. (Doc. 27). Defendant filed its Reply on May 20, 2022. (Doc. 28). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Compel is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B), “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).

A. Defendant's Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 10

Defendant's Interrogatory No. 3 states:

(Doc. 26-1 at 5). Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is too broad and unduly burdensome, disproportional to Defendant's needs, and “seeks to compile multiple interrogatories into one request.” (Doc. 26 at 2). Plaintiff's answer states he was economically dependent solely upon Defendant during his relevant employment. Id.

Defendant's Interrogatory No. 10 states:

(Doc. 26-1 at 6). Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the interrogatory was too broad and invasive, in addition to claiming the requested information is available to Defendant elsewhere. Id. at 7. Plaintiff answers by stating: “Plaintiff did not provide goods or services to [Defendant] through a business entity during the relevant time period.” Id.

Defendant correctly asserts that, to determine Plaintiff's employee/independent contractor status, courts use the “economic realities test.” (Doc. 26 at 4) (citing Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., 917 F.3d 369, 379 (5th Cir. 2019)). Thus, the requested information is relevant because: 1) “[w]hether or not Plaintiff had other avenues for income tends to show that [Plaintiff] was not economically dependent on [Defendant]”; and 2) “how easily Plaintiff was able to obtain work after [Defendant] ... would show economic independence.” (Doc. 26 at 5). Plaintiff appears to focus his arguments on Defendant's Request for Production No. 12 and does not dispute Defendant's assertions as to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 10. (See Doc. 27). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel regarding Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 10. Id.

B. Defendant's Request for Production No. 12

Next, Defendant's Request for Production No. 12 seeks:

(Doc. 26-1 at 8). Plaintiff objects to the request, claiming that the information requested is irrelevant, disproportional, violates the accountant-client privilege, and constitutes an invasion of Plaintiff's privacy interests. Id. However, Defendant notes that, during a meet and confer, Defendant “agreed to limit this request to years 2018 and 2019.” (Doc. 26 at 3).

*3 The Fifth Circuit has made clear that “[t]ax returns are neither privileged nor undiscoverable.” Gondola v. USMD PPM, LLC, 223 F. Supp. 3d 575, 587 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (citing Rafeedie v. L.L.C., Inc., No. A-10-CA-743, 2011 WL 5352826, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2011) (citing F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163, 172 (5th Cir. 1995))). However, due to the sensitive nature of tax returns, courts often require the requesting party to demonstrate relevancy. Id. After doing so, “the burden shifts to the party opposing production to show other sources exists from which the information contained in the returns may be readily obtained.” Rafeedie, 2011 WL 5352826, at *2; see also Zamora v. GC Servs., LP, EP-15-CV-00048-DCG-RFC, 2016 WL 8853096, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016). Notably, the Fifth Circuit has previously found tax returns to be relevant to the determination of employee/independent contractor status. Rafeedie, 2011 WL 5352826, at *2 (“The Fifth Circuit has looked to the income and deductions in a plaintiff's tax returns in examining whether a plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA.”).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's tax returns are relevant to the determination of Plaintiff's “employee/independent contractor inquiry because they shed light on at least four of the factors used by the Fifth Circuit to determine contractor status.” (Doc. 26 at 6). Plaintiff contests Defendant's classification of him as an independent contractor, a determination which would impact whether Plaintiff is entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. (See Doc. 1). Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's tax returns are relevant to the determination of Plaintiff's employee/independent contractor status using the economic realities test.[1] Therefore, Defendant has met its burden of showing relevancy, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to prove that the information contained in his tax returns would be otherwise accessible to Defendant.

As stated above, Plaintiff claims that producing his tax returns would be disproportional to the needs of the case. (Doc. 26-1 at 8). Additionally, Plaintiff attempts to distinguish W-2s from 1099s. (Doc. 27). However, Plaintiff has not identified any cases within the Fifth Circuit to support making such a distinction. Furthermore, courts have found arguments that the same information found in tax returns may be obtained through interrogatories to be unavailing. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel regarding Request for Production No. 12. (Doc. 26).

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff comply with this Order on or before May 31, 2022.

SIGNED this 24th day of May, 2022.

“Privacy concerns ... may be addressed by appropriately designating materials for limited disclosure pursuant to the Protective Order.” Rafeedie, 2011 WL 5352826, at *2. The Court notes that it granted the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Confidentiality and Protective Order and entered a protective order in the case on April 25, 2022. (Docs. 22, 23). As such, Plaintiff's privacy concerns have already been addressed.