Charles v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-03992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Charles v. HSBC Bank USA, Judge Schofield ordered HSBC to respond by February 11, 2025, to plaintiffs’ discovery-dispute request without deciding the requested discovery.
The plaintiffs and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; the order specifically required the defendant to respond by February 11, 2025, but did not resolve the discovery requests or extension request.
What happened
In Charles v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the plaintiffs asked the court to hold an informal conference about several discovery disputes and to extend fact discovery by 45 days. The disputes arose in a proposed wage-and-hour class and collective action.
The plaintiffs sought records and information about potential class members, contact information, electronic-discovery search results, documents from a related settled class case, employment records, and additional time for discovery. The letter described the plaintiffs’ positions but did not resolve whether the requests were proper.
The court ordered the defendant to respond by February 11, 2025. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the discovery disputes or the requested extension in this order.
The detailed version
- Charles v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · No. 1:24-cv-03992
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 6, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court of discovery disputes and requested an informal conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 and the judge’s individual rules. Plaintiffs also requested a 45-day extension of the fact-discovery schedule. The letter stated that the parties had met and conferred and resolved some issues, but that other disputes remained.
Discovery Disputes Described by Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs stated that the defendant had identified approximately 17 potential members of the proposed class and collective. They requested paystubs, punch records, and limited email metadata for those individuals. They also requested names, addresses, email addresses, and mobile numbers for prospective class members; a report showing the results of electronic-discovery searches; and discovery exchanged in a related class case that the defendant settled on or around September 9, 2024.
For the individual plaintiffs, the letter described disputes about emails, information concerning after-hours work or events, prior wage-and-hour complaints and actions, contact information for potential witnesses, and the identities of people who materially participated in preparing discovery responses. The plaintiffs also said that substantial discovery remained outstanding and requested additional time because the parties had delayed some discovery while negotiating these issues.
Court’s Action
The order did not decide whether any requested discovery had to be produced, whether the proposed class or collective should be certified, or whether fact discovery should be extended. Instead, the court directed: “Defendant shall respond by February 11, 2025.” Judge Schofield therefore issued a procedural order setting a response deadline rather than resolving the underlying discovery disputes.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.