Russo v. Federal Medical Services

Background

Alexander Russo and Eric Reddick brought a wage-and-hour lawsuit against Federal Medical Services, Inc.; Ben Fitzgerald Real Estate Services, LLC (BFRES); Jim Slattery; Jerry Tate; and Abigail Woulfe. They allege violations of the California Labor Code, California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Private Attorneys General Act, and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The alleged violations include failure to pay required minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, inaccurate itemized wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due when employment ended.

Federal Medical hired Renhill Staffing Service as a third-party human-resources, payroll, and staffing subcontractor. Renhill is not a party to the case. The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 104 for pretrial decisions about the admissibility of records and trial exhibits. The order addressed three parts of that motion: (1) whether certain records produced by Renhill could be admitted; (2) whether Federal Medical and BFRES met the requirements for using certain statements against other defendants under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E); and (3) whether discovery should be reopened so the plaintiffs could investigate the foundation for the Renhill records. The order did not address the motion’s other listed issues.

Renhill records

The court held that the plaintiffs had not provided a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the Renhill payroll and time-submission records. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, the party offering evidence must provide enough information to support a finding that the evidence is what the party claims it is. The plaintiffs relied on their records request, an email from a Renhill employee transmitting the records, identifying information on the records, their consistent format, and a declaration from Reddick.

The court concluded that this showing was enough to make a preliminary showing that the documents existed, but it did not establish that the records accurately represented Renhill’s own payroll and time-submission records or Federal Medical’s payroll and time-submission practices. The plaintiffs provided no testimony about how Renhill created or maintained the records, what the records showed, or Renhill’s recordkeeping practices. Reddick also stated that he did not know how Renhill created or maintained its payroll records. The court therefore ruled that the records would be inadmissible unless the plaintiffs provided further evidence establishing their foundation and authenticity, and noted that the plaintiffs had not identified a witness who could authenticate them at trial.

Request to reopen discovery

The plaintiffs asked to reopen discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) so they could take a deposition concerning the records’ authenticity and foundation. The court denied that request. It found that trial was scheduled to begin in less than two weeks, discovery had closed in June 2025, and the plaintiffs had not shown why they could not have pursued the needed discovery earlier.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs had noticed depositions of two Renhill employees but did not proceed with them. In addition, the plaintiffs had known about the authentication problem since the court’s August 2025 summary-judgment decision but waited nearly a year to seek permission to reopen discovery. The court found that they had not acted diligently and had not shown the required good cause.

Statements allegedly made during a conspiracy

The plaintiffs also sought a ruling that all statements by Federal Medical and Slattery could be admitted against BFRES, Tate, and Woulfe under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). That rule excludes from the definition of hearsay a statement offered against an opposing party when the statement was made by the party’s co-conspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy.

The court denied this request without prejudice. The plaintiffs had not identified any particular statement they wanted admitted, and they had not yet introduced evidence of a conspiracy. Before such statements can finally be admitted, the court explained, the plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant against whom the statement is offered was connected to it. The court stated that it could not decide whether the rule applied until the plaintiffs introduced evidence of the alleged conspiracy at trial.

Disposition

The court denied in part the plaintiffs’ Rule 104 motion as to the issues addressed in the order. It ruled that the Renhill payroll and time-submission records would be inadmissible unless the plaintiffs provided further evidence establishing their foundation and authenticity; denied the request to reopen discovery; and denied without prejudice the request concerning Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Judge P. Casey Mitts signed the order.