Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc.

Background

The court held a discovery conference on December 11, 2019, and resolved the plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery motions based on rulings made at that conference.

Sanctions motions concerning document production

The plaintiffs moved for sanctions against the RYI Defendants for allegedly failing to produce certain categories of documents. They asked the court to bar the defendants from challenging issues concerning hours worked, whether the defendants were a single or joint employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, whether the defendants were the plaintiffs’ employer, and the plaintiffs’ wage-statement claims. The plaintiffs also sought attorney’s fees and costs.

The opinion states that, after retaining new counsel, the RYI Defendants had produced and were continuing to produce additional documents. The court therefore denied the motion without prejudice to renew after it became clear whether additional responsive documents existed.

The plaintiffs also sought sanctions against Y&S for failing to produce documents. The court denied that request at this time, explaining that Y&S had represented that it had no additional responsive documents. The court stated that nonproduction is not a basis for sanctions when the documents never existed. It separately noted that any challenge to the accuracy of Y&S’s representation was the subject of a September 25, 2019 order to show cause and would be handled separately.

In a separate sanctions motion, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants had failed to produce all workers’ compensation coverage audit reports and that state law required their production. The defendants responded that no other audit reports existed. The court denied the motion, finding no basis at that time to issue sanctions.

Subpoena and deposition motions

The plaintiffs moved to enforce a subpoena directed to nonparty Yasuko Negita, compel her deposition, and impose sanctions for her failure to appear at the scheduled deposition. The court denied the motion as moot because the deposition had been completed and the plaintiffs had agreed to withdraw their sanctions request.

The plaintiffs also moved to compel certain deposition dates. Because the court had resolved that issue by ordering the parties to meet and confer and propose new dates, and because new dates had later been entered, the court denied the motion as moot.

Disposition

The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 253, ECF 264, ECF 269, ECF 294, and ECF 317. The order resolved discovery motions; it did not decide the underlying wage claims.