Borup v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC

Background

Timothy C. Borup brought a collective and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing matters including overtime pay, and Minnesota law. He alleged that CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group, misclassified him and other consultants who assisted medical facilities during electronic-recordkeeping “go live” events as independent contractors rather than employees. He alleged that the consultants worked long hours without overtime pay.

Borup sought discovery before asking the court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and certify a Minnesota class. His requests sought information identifying potentially similar consultants who had not waived their FLSA claims in an earlier settlement, along with records concerning their hours, pay, travel, job duties, training, supervision, and CJS’s possible defenses. CJS objected that the requests were irrelevant, overly broad, privileged, or an improper attempt to revisit earlier litigation.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. It concluded that information about consultants from go live events beyond the Mayo Clinic event was relevant to whether Borup could show that other workers were similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification. The court stated that whether those workers were actually similarly situated would be decided later, through certification and possible decertification proceedings.

The court also found that identity and contact information for potentially similar consultants was relevant because Borup said he needed it to develop evidence, not merely to solicit additional plaintiffs. The court determined that the requested information could also bear on liability, limitations issues, and other matters because discovery was not divided into separate certification and merits phases.

The court limited Document Request No. 5 to documents showing which identified workers traveled to out-of-town locations for go live events and when they traveled. It limited Document Request No. 9 to communications relating to a claim or defense and not otherwise protected by privilege. CJS was required to provide a privilege log for documents withheld based on privilege.

The court found Document Request No. 19 insufficiently relevant and proportionate because it sought the number of hours CJS billed clients for the identified workers’ work. The court also found Requests 20, 29, and 30—concerning communications between counsel and discovery or disclosures from the earlier lawsuits—irrelevant and overbroad as written. The court allowed Requests 14 and 15 concerning workers who received notice of or participated in the prior settlement, but required CJS to answer those requests as interrogatories so settlement terms would not be disclosed.

Disposition

The court ordered that Borup’s motion to compel disclosures and discovery under Rule 37(a) was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. CJS had to answer Interrogatory No. 1 and produce documents responsive to Document Requests Nos. 1–18 and 21–28, subject to the stated modifications. CJS did not have to produce documents requested by Document Requests Nos. 19–20 and 29–30. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.