Zambrano v. Strategic Delivery Solutions

Background

The November 21, 2025 correspondence was submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs together with counsel for the defendants. The parties asked the court to intervene in several discovery disagreements after meeting and conferring without resolving them. The underlying case is described as both a proposed class action and an opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Discovery on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim was proceeding through an 80-member sample drawn from more than 750 opt-in plaintiffs.

Disputes about depositions

The parties disagreed about who would choose the sample plaintiffs for 36 depositions. The plaintiffs understood the court’s July 23, 2025 directions to mean that each side would select half of the deponents. The defendants argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 allowed the party noticing the depositions to choose all 36 people.

The correspondence states that six depositions had occurred and that defendants had selected those deponents. The defendants argued that the depositions had helped them develop defenses, including their position that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated, and had revealed that some sample plaintiffs declined to answer questions about tax returns on Fifth Amendment grounds. One sample plaintiff withdrew after a deposition was scheduled.

Disputes about discovery notices and possible dismissals

The parties also disagreed about the recipients of a court-approved notice warning of possible dismissal. The plaintiffs said the notice should go to nine sample plaintiffs who had not responded to counsel’s communications or to any discovery. They said defendants instead sought to send the notice to 68 sample plaintiffs whose responses defendants considered deficient, even though many had answered interrogatories, produced some documents, or stated that no responsive documents existed.

The defendants stated that 19 sample plaintiffs had not fully complied with written discovery obligations: 13 had provided no written responses, one had not answered interrogatories, and five had not responded to document requests. Defendants also stated that one sample plaintiff had withdrawn consent to sue and had not been replaced. They asked the court to schedule a pre-motion conference and allow them to file a motion seeking dismissal of the 19 sample plaintiffs from the litigation.

Court’s action

Judge Edgardo Ramos did not resolve who should select the deponents, which sample plaintiffs should receive notices, or whether any sample plaintiffs should be dismissed. The order states that a pre-motion conference would be held on December 9, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 619. The clerk was directed to terminate Motion 313. The order therefore addressed the next procedural step rather than the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses.