Julian v. MetLife, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-00957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Julian v. MetLife, Judge Moses granted in part a request for a conference about discovery from opt-in plaintiffs.
MetLife and the opt-in plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action, whose discovery obligations and depositions were at issue.
What happened
In Julian et al. v. MetLife, Inc., MetLife asked to obtain written responses and depositions from 15 more opt-in plaintiffs in an overtime lawsuit involving claims by LTD claims specialists. MetLife also asked the court to require opt-in plaintiffs to complete a short survey about their job duties.
The plaintiffs proposed limits on the number, length, and selection of depositions and said they might agree to a limited survey with help from their lawyers. The opinion describes the parties’ dispute but does not decide the underlying overtime claims or the final discovery limits.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application in part and scheduled argument at a previously scheduled June 29, 2020 conference. She ordered MetLife to file a reply by June 25 clarifying which discovery issues required a ruling.
The detailed version
- Julian v. MetLife, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00957
- Andrew Carter
- June 23, 2020
Background
Debra Julian, Stephanie McKinney, and Kimberley Harris brought claims on behalf of themselves and other current or former MetLife long-term-disability claims specialists. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and wage laws of New York, Connecticut, and Illinois based on alleged failure to pay overtime. The court had certified an FLSA collective action, and more than 80 individuals had opted in, although the opinion states that five later withdrew.
MetLife had obtained discovery responses and conducted depositions of the named plaintiffs and seven opt-in plaintiffs. It asked for permission to obtain written discovery and depositions from 15 additional opt-in plaintiffs, for a total of 22. MetLife also asked the court to require every opt-in plaintiff who had not already done so to independently complete a short survey about job duties. MetLife argued that discovery was appropriate because the opt-in plaintiffs were parties to the case and because testimony obtained so far showed differing accounts of their work.
The plaintiffs proposed allowing depositions of 10 additional opt-in plaintiffs, subject to limits on their length and selection. They also indicated that they might agree to a limited survey completed with assistance from counsel.
Court’s action
The court marked MetLife’s application GRANTED IN PART. It stated that it would hear argument on the disputed issues at the previously scheduled June 29, 2020 conference. The court identified the disputes as the number of opt-in depositions, which opt-in plaintiffs could be deposed, how long the depositions could last, and whether MetLife could require the survey and under what conditions.
Because the plaintiffs had filed an opposition letter, the court ordered MetLife to file a reply letter by June 25, 2020. The court asked that reply to clarify the issues on which MetLife sought a ruling. The court also said it was uncertain whether a ruling was requested or required on the substance of the interrogatories and document requests served or to be served on additional opt-in plaintiffs.
This was a discovery-related procedural order, not a decision on whether MetLife violated wage laws or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover overtime.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.