Carrasquillo v. Westech Security and Investigation Inc.
Ana Carrasquillo on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. Westech Security and Investigation Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-04931
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ana Carrasquillo v. Westech Security, Judge Vyskocil ordered Westech to produce employee information and retain counsel, while denying sanctions without prejudice.
Ana Carrasquillo, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class, and Westech Security and Investigation Inc.; Westech must produce the ordered employee information and retain counsel by November 10, 2025, while Carrasquillo may renew the sanctions request.
What happened
In Ana Carrasquillo v. Westech Security, the court addressed Westech Security and Investigation Inc.’s failure to provide employee information needed to distribute notices and consent forms in the collective action. The court had previously partly approved Carrasquillo’s request to notify potential collective members and ordered Westech to produce the relevant employee list.
Westech did not meet the July 2, 2025 production deadline and was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had repeatedly warned that a corporation cannot represent itself and that continued failure to hire counsel could lead to sanctions, including a default judgment.
The court denied Carrasquillo’s renewed request for monetary sanctions without prejudice, meaning it could be renewed later. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered Westech to produce the previously ordered information and retain counsel by 4:00 p.m. on November 10, 2025, warning that noncompliance could lead to sanctions or a default judgment.
The detailed version
- Carrasquillo v. Westech Security and Investigation Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04931
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation partly granting Carrasquillo’s motion for conditional collective certification. The court also approved revised notices and consent-to-sue forms and authorized Carrasquillo to distribute them.
Carrasquillo then moved to compel Westech to produce the employee list needed for that distribution. She also requested sanctions if Westech failed to provide the discovery by July 2, 2025. The court denied the initial sanctions request without prejudice to timely renewal, ordered production by the deadline, and warned Westech that noncompliance could result in sanctions.
The court also repeatedly warned Westech that, as a corporation, it could not proceed without counsel. The court stated that continued failure to retain counsel could result in sanctions, including entry of a default judgment. After the docket showed no further action, the court ordered Carrasquillo to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Carrasquillo responded that Westech had no intention of complying and renewed her request for monetary sanctions of $100 per weekday from June 16, 2025, until the list was produced.
Ruling
The court declined to impose sanctions at that time and denied Carrasquillo’s request without prejudice to renewal. The court did not dismiss the case for failure to prosecute in this order.
The court ordered Westech, by 4:00 p.m. on November 10, 2025, to produce the information previously ordered and to retain counsel to appear on its behalf by the same deadline. The court warned that failure to comply could result in monetary sanctions, preclusion of defenses, or entry of a default judgment. It further warned that continued failure to retain counsel would result in entry of a default judgment. The court directed Carrasquillo’s counsel to serve the order and any response on Westech by November 5, 2025.
Effect of the Order
This order concerns discovery enforcement, sanctions, and Westech’s representation. It does not decide the underlying claims or impose a default judgment at this stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.