Julian v. MetLife, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-00957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Julian v. MetLife, Judge Moses granted a deposition request for Adalie Arroyo but did not dismiss her claims.
The order directly affected opt-in plaintiff Adalie Arroyo, who was required either to appear for a deposition within 30 days or request withdrawal from the FLSA action. It also required action by plaintiffs’ counsel and addressed MetLife’s discovery request.
What happened
Julian v. MetLife concerns opt-in plaintiff Adalie Arroyo, who stopped responding to efforts to schedule her deposition in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. MetLife asked the court to require her deposition and dismiss her claims if she did not appear.
Arroyo’s fellow plaintiffs did not dispute MetLife’s account but cited her anxiety about participating in litigation against her employer. They requested 30 days for the deposition and asked that any later dismissal be without prejudice. MetLife agreed to that possibility if Arroyo later rejoined the case only after committing to appear for a deposition.
Judge Barbara Moses granted MetLife’s request to the extent that Arroyo must appear for a deposition within 30 days, or instead withdraw her consent to join the case. Judge Moses said deciding whether to dismiss Arroyo’s claims would be premature because Arroyo had not yet violated a court order or been warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Julian v. MetLife, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00957
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 7, 2020
Background
Adalie Arroyo, an employee of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), filed consent to join this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action as a plaintiff. She later responded to written discovery, but MetLife was unable to schedule her deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel told MetLife that Arroyo had become “unresponsive,” apparently for several months.
MetLife filed a letter-motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(d) and 41(b), asking the court to order Arroyo to attend a deposition within 15 days and to dismiss her claims with prejudice if she failed to appear. The other plaintiffs did not dispute MetLife’s account but argued that dismissal would be too severe because many current MetLife employees felt anxiety about actively participating in litigation against their employer. They proposed giving Arroyo 30 days and making any dismissal without prejudice. MetLife later said it did not object to dismissal without prejudice, subject to a condition if Arroyo later rejoined the case.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an opt-in FLSA plaintiff must participate in party discovery, including a deposition. A court may dismiss claims as a discovery or case-management sanction when a plaintiff willfully fails to appear after adequate warning. But dismissal is a harsh remedy generally reserved for extreme situations involving willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Before imposing it, the court must also consider lesser sanctions, the length of the noncompliance, and whether the party was warned about the consequences.
The court found that dismissal was premature. Although MetLife had noticed Arroyo’s deposition and the lawyers had made some efforts to schedule it, Arroyo had not yet violated an express court order requiring her to appear. She also had not previously been expressly warned that continued failure to appear could lead to dismissal. The court further stated that the plaintiffs’ explanation based on anxiety appeared speculative and would not excuse the discovery failure absent a claim that MetLife had engaged in misconduct.
Because of the ongoing COVID-19 public-health emergency, the court allowed the deposition to be conducted remotely and gave Arroyo 30 days from the date of the order to complete it.
Order
Judge Barbara Moses granted MetLife’s letter-application to compel discovery to the extent that Arroyo must appear for a deposition on a mutually convenient date within 30 days. Alternatively, Arroyo could file a request within that period to withdraw her consent to join the FLSA action. The order warned that failure to comply could lead to significant sanctions, including dismissal of her claims, but it did not dismiss those claims. The court also ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to promptly serve Arroyo with the order at her last known mailing and email addresses and file proof of service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.