Charles v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

Background

The provided materials concern a letter from counsel for the plaintiffs describing discovery disputes with HSBC Bank USA, N.A. The letter states that the parties had met and conferred, resolving some issues but not others. It asked for an informal conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 and the court’s individual rules, as well as a 45-day extension of the fact-discovery schedule.

The letter described the case as involving a proposed class and collective. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the putative class contained approximately 17 people and requested documents for those individuals, including paystubs, punch records, email metadata, and timestamps for employee submissions. The letter said this information was sought to examine whether employees worked outside recorded hours or through lunch, while limiting the email request to timing, sender and recipient, and subject-line information rather than email contents.

Discovery Issues Described in the Letter

The letter also requested:

- Names, addresses, email addresses, and mobile telephone numbers for prospective class members; - A search-term “hit report” concerning electronic discovery; - Discovery exchanged in a class case that HSBC had settled around September 9, 2024, according to the letter; - The plaintiffs’ own email correspondence in HSBC’s possession; - Information about after-hours events attended by the plaintiffs or covered employees; - Information about prior wage-and-hour complaints and actions during the relevant statutory periods; - Contact information for employees who worked directly with the plaintiffs; and - Information about people who materially participated in preparing HSBC’s discovery responses.

The letter stated that the plaintiffs sought the fact-discovery extension because significant discovery remained outstanding and no depositions had occurred. It also stated that HSBC would agree to an extension only if the plaintiffs agreed to limit the case to their individual claims. These statements appear in the plaintiffs’ counsel’s submission and are not findings by the court in the short order provided.

Ruling

The court’s order states: “Motion DENIED without prejudice in light of the pending settlement.” It directs the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 39. The provided order does not identify which individual discovery requests, if any, would have been granted or denied on their merits, and it does not resolve the parties’ discovery arguments.

Because the ruling concerned a discovery motion and did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims, this is a procedural order.