Learing v. Anthem Companies, Inc., The

Background

Christine Learing brought claims individually and on behalf of other nurse medical managers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. She alleged that Anthem treated certain employees as exempt from overtime requirements, failed to pay overtime compensation, and did not maintain accurate records of their hours.

The court conditionally certified an FLSA collective in February 2022. Twenty-four nurse medical managers opted into that collective. The parties later agreed to use Learing and a representative group of eight opt-in plaintiffs for discovery, dispositive motions, and trial, while allowing Anthem to select two additional opt-in plaintiffs. By the close of fact discovery on February 28, 2023, Anthem had received written discovery from eighteen opt-in plaintiffs and had deposed eleven.

In March 2024, the court granted Learing’s motion for partial summary judgment, denied Anthem’s motion for summary judgment, certified a Minnesota class for the state-law claims, and denied Anthem’s request to decertify the FLSA collective. After class notice was approved, the parties disagreed about whether Anthem could obtain additional discovery from absent Minnesota class members. Anthem then moved to reopen discovery.

Anthem’s arguments

Anthem sought written discovery and depositions concerning the number of hours absent Minnesota class members worked during the relevant period. Anthem argued that Minnesota overtime law required more than 48 hours of work before an employee became eligible for overtime, and that some discovery responses suggested certain opt-in plaintiffs averaged fewer than 48 hours per week. Anthem contended that additional discovery could address class members’ Article III standing, liability, damages, and the manageability of a class trial.

Learing argued that Anthem’s standing theory confused the constitutional requirement of an injury with the elements of a state-law overtime claim. She also argued that the parties’ prior agreement about representative plaintiffs and trial testimony eliminated the need for additional discovery.

Standing ruling

The court first addressed standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a favorable court decision could remedy. The court held that Learing, the sole named representative of the Minnesota class, adequately alleged an injury because she claimed that she worked approximately 51 hours during at least one week and was not paid overtime.

The court rejected Anthem’s argument that some absent class members might lack standing because they had not established that they worked more than 48 hours in a week. It held that, in this case, whether class members could prove they worked more than 48 hours concerned the merits of their overtime claims and the amount of damages, not their standing to sue. The court also applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally requires a court to continue following decisions on issues already resolved in the same case unless there is a good reason to revisit them. It found that Anthem had not provided a good reason to revisit class certification, particularly because Anthem had previously raised related evidence.

Discovery ruling

The court treated Anthem’s request as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and the District of Minnesota’s local rule to modify the scheduling order by extending the fact-discovery deadline. After discovery closes, a party must show “good cause,” primarily through diligence in attempting to meet the existing deadline. Relevance alone does not satisfy that requirement.

The court held that Anthem had not shown good cause. Anthem first raised absent-class-member discovery more than thirteen months after discovery closed and formally moved to reopen discovery nearly two years after the deadline. The court also found that Anthem had long known that Learing intended to pursue Rule 23 class claims, had access to information about potential class members, and had relied on the same discovery responses in opposing class certification. The court found no change in law, newly discovered facts, or other changed circumstance justifying reopening discovery.

The court gave a separate reason for denying the motion. Absent class members generally are not parties and ordinarily are not subject to discovery. Discovery may be allowed in unusual circumstances when the proponent shows a specific need. The court found that Anthem could not satisfy the applicable considerations because the requested discovery appeared intended, at least in part, to reduce or eliminate the class, and because the information about hours worked was primarily unavailable due to Anthem’s apparent failure to maintain accurate records. The court also noted that Anthem had already obtained substantial discovery from opt-in plaintiffs who were members of the Minnesota class and had chosen not to ask specifically whether they worked more than 48 hours in any week.

Disposition

The court did not decide whether Learing could present a manageable trial plan because that issue was unnecessary to resolve the motion. It ordered that Anthem’s Motion for Pre-Trial Discovery, ECF No. 237, was denied.