Kristin Benzinger v. Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC

Background

Kristin Benzinger sued Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Her remaining claims concerned alleged retaliation after she complained about being classified as exempt from overtime requirements. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed her national-origin discrimination and retaliation claims under New York law and dismissed Litasco, S.A. as a defendant. The court also explained that Benzinger’s claims against Lukoil under the federal and New York wage laws remained for trial.

The opinion decided the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to resolve evidence issues before trial. The court explained that evidence should not ordinarily be excluded before trial unless it is clearly inadmissible on every possible basis.

Benzinger’s Motion

Benzinger sought to prevent Lukoil from calling Thomas Rodilosso, her former supervisor, and Clara Walker, her supervisor at Columbia, because Lukoil had not identified them in its original required witness disclosures.

The court denied the motion as to Walker as moot because Benzinger withdrew her authenticity objections to the documents Walker would have authenticated, and Lukoil no longer appeared to need Walker’s testimony. The court denied the motion as to Rodilosso, but only after allowing Benzinger an opportunity to depose him before trial. Lukoil had failed to disclose Rodilosso, but the court found no indication of bad faith or deliberate unfairness. It also found that Rodilosso’s testimony was important and that Benzinger already knew of his significance. The court reopened discovery solely for that deposition, prohibited using it to add or restore claims, set March 22, 2021, as the deposition deadline, and ordered Lukoil to pay half of the deposition’s out-of-pocket costs.

Lukoil’s Motion

The court granted Lukoil’s request to exclude evidence referring to Benzinger’s dismissed national-origin discrimination and retaliation claims. Such evidence was irrelevant to the surviving wage-retaliation claims and could confuse the jury. The court stated, however, that evidence of employment actions could still be admitted if offered only to prove retaliation for Benzinger’s complaints about her employee classification under the federal and New York wage laws.

The court granted Lukoil’s request to exclude references to PJSC Lukoil Company. It denied the request to exclude all evidence about Litasco, S.A., because Litasco employees had supervised Benzinger or had been involved in matters relevant to her surviving claims. The court noted that any reference to Litasco would not establish that Litasco was liable.

The court excluded Plaintiff Exhibits 5 through 9. Exhibits 8 and 9 concerned settlement discussions and a proposed settlement agreement. The court also excluded Exhibits 5 through 7, which were spreadsheets prepared to estimate a possible settlement amount. It found that the spreadsheets were prepared after a disputed overtime claim had arisen and were part of efforts to settle that claim. The court also found that the spreadsheets were hypothetical and could mislead the jury into thinking Lukoil had determined that it owed Benzinger money.

The court denied Lukoil’s request to exclude claims for lost wages and punitive damages at the pretrial stage. It stated that the limited materials before it did not permit a reliable decision on those fact-dependent issues. Instead, the court authorized Lukoil to file a later, limited motion for summary judgment if Benzinger confirmed that she intended to pursue those damages at trial.

The court denied Lukoil’s request to exclude Irina Akinshina’s testimony altogether. Akinshina’s testimony could address Benzinger’s work, employment terms, duties, and responsibilities at Lukoil. The court barred testimony about the dismissed national-origin claims. It granted Lukoil’s unopposed request to exclude Clara Ohr’s testimony and granted its request concerning the job-search documents after Benzinger withdrew her objections to those documents.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court granted Benzinger’s unopposed request to amend the caption to remove Litasco and references to a proposed class or collective action. In its conclusion, the court denied Benzinger’s motion in limine and granted in part and denied in part Lukoil’s motion in limine. The court also set deadlines for the Rodilosso deposition, a revised joint pretrial order, and any supplemental summary-judgment briefing concerning lost wages or punitive damages. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the opinion and order.