Garcia v. Progressive Maintenance LLC

Sanctions

The court found no basis for Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants’ attorney. It gave two reasons: the plaintiffs’ request did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2), which contains procedural requirements for seeking sanctions, and the record did not support a finding that defense counsel failed to make the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11(b). The court described the plaintiffs’ filing as meritless, but stated that it did not warrant the sanctions requested against plaintiffs’ counsel. The court also directed Shah to file a sworn statement correcting any incorrect information previously submitted to the court.

Scheduling and Status Reports

The court received a status report concerning the mailing of notices to the collective. Counsel reported that the notices were sent on July 10, 2020. An earlier order required the parties to file a letter with new scheduling-order deadlines as soon as the notices were mailed. Because the parties had not filed that letter, the court directed them to stop filing status reports and instead file a joint proposal or separate proposals for a scheduling order by July 30, 2020.

Discovery

The court addressed discovery issues raised in the status report because the related joint letter substantially complied with the court’s individual practices. Plaintiffs sought permission for what they called class-wide discovery. The court noted that some requested information might be discovery plaintiffs were already entitled to receive. Because the plaintiffs were in the lower end of the 21-to-40-person range that the court described as a borderline area for the class-action numerosity requirement, the court said it should not be presumed that defendants had to answer discovery directed exclusively to the class as a whole rather than to individual plaintiffs.

The court stated that plaintiffs were permitted to seek discovery concerning the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a). If plaintiffs could show that class-wide discovery was necessary to prepare a motion for class certification, including to address commonality or another Rule 23 requirement, the court instructed them to discuss the issue further with defendants and try to reach an agreement. The court also said defendants should strongly consider providing nonburdensome merits discovery that truly concerned the class as a whole. Any unresolved dispute could be brought to the court.

For depositions, the court expected the parties to schedule them without court involvement. If they could not do so, each side was directed to file a letter on the same date proposing dates and identifying deponents, along with an explanation of why the other side’s preferred date was unreasonable. The court would approve the schedule it found more reasonable. Other discovery disputes were to be raised under paragraph 2.A of the court’s individual practices.

Disposition

The order found no basis for sanctions against the defendants’ attorney, declined to impose the sanctions requested against plaintiffs’ counsel, directed Shah to file a corrective sworn statement, ordered the parties to submit scheduling proposals by July 30, 2020, and provided guidance and procedures for discovery and deposition disputes.