"[P]laintiffs sought an order preventing the discovery of plaintiffs' immigration status. The magistrate judge held a hearing prior to issuing his memorandum and order. In his memorandum and order [doc. 65], the magistrate judge found that a protective order was appropriate based upon relevant authority and the claims as presently asserted by plaintiffs. ... [T]he magistrate judge's decision to grant the motion for a protective order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. ... The protective order will stay in effect, and the defendants will not be permitted to obtain information concerning the immigration status of the plaintiffs." - Almanza v. Baird Tree Service, Sept. 12, 2012.