Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

Background

Derrick Stewart brought a proposed collective and class action against Hudson Hall LLC, Hudson Hall Holdings LLC, Think Food Group, LLC, and José Ramon Andrés Puerta, also known as José Ramon. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, unpaid off-the-clock work, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The court had set December 31, 2020, as the deadline for completing fact discovery. At 9:00 p.m. on that date, Stewart moved for a 90-day extension tied to the court’s forthcoming ruling on his request for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. He identified four categories of requested discovery: class-related documents that had previously been considered premature, electronic discovery, original clock-in and clock-out data and timekeeping-error documents, and depositions of additional potential witnesses.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence. The party seeking an extension must show that, despite diligent efforts, the deadline could not reasonably have been met.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Stewart had not shown good cause for any of the four categories.

For class-related discovery, the court said the request remained premature because it had not yet ruled on conditional certification. The court expected to hold a conference after that ruling to discuss the next steps, including any necessary discovery.

For electronic discovery, the court found that Stewart had waited more than two months to agree to the defendants’ proposed search terms. That delay left the defendants less time to review and produce electronic records before the deadline.

For the timekeeping documents, the defendants represented that they had produced many of the additional documents discussed during a witness’s second deposition. The court found that Stewart had not shown otherwise or specifically identified what remained missing.

For the proposed witness depositions, the court found that Stewart’s supervisor had been identified in the case four months before the discovery deadline. The court also found that Stewart had not given it a reason to believe he did not already know the other proposed witness, who supervised that supervisor.

Finally, the court said Stewart’s filing of the motion at the end of the deadline undermined any inference that he had acted diligently.

Disposition

The court DENIED Stewart’s motion to extend fact discovery. It stated that Stewart could renew requests relating to class discovery after the court ruled on the conditional-certification motion. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.

Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.