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. He seeks unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages for work performed off the clock, additional damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The defendants served two sets of requests for admission—written requests asking Stewart to admit or deny stated facts. The parties agreed to extend Stewart’s response deadlines to December 14, 2020, for the first set, and December 24, 2020, for the second set. Stewart served his responses on December 31, 2020, after both deadlines had passed.

The Motion

The defendants asked the court to strike Stewart’s responses and treat the requests as admitted because the responses were late. They argued that the delay prejudiced them by leaving no time during fact discovery to obtain evidence related to the responses.

Stewart argued that the defendants had not shown prejudice and that the delay was justified because his counsel had contracted COVID-19. He also argued that treating the requests as admitted would create statements inconsistent with evidence already produced, including records of his work hours.

The defendants alternatively asked the court to require Stewart to amend responses to five requests. Stewart amended those responses in his opposition.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to strike the responses or deem the requests admitted. It found that the delay was relatively brief compared with delays that other courts had refused to excuse. The court also credited counsel’s statement that counsel and colleagues had contracted COVID-19 shortly before the deadline and concluded that this explanation justified the delay as excusable neglect.

The court further found that the defendants had not shown measurable prejudice. Although they said they had lost the opportunity to obtain evidence, they did not identify which responses prevented discovery or describe what discovery they would have pursued.

Finally, the court determined that excusing the delay would aid presentation of the merits. Stewart had admitted or denied many of the requests without qualification, and treating all of the requests as admitted could produce contradictions rather than narrow the issues.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to strike. Because Stewart had amended the five challenged responses in his opposition, the defendants’ alternative request was moot. For clarity of the record, however, the court ordered Stewart to serve a complete set of responses, including the amended responses, within five business days—by February 12, 2021. The clerk was directed to close the motion.