Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ramirez v. Marriott, Judge Halpern scheduled a conference on Ramirez’s request to compel a putative class list and terminated the related filing.
The plaintiff, Marriott International, Inc., the other defendants, and potential members of the proposed class or collective action were affected by the scheduled conference and termination of the plaintiff’s filing; the court did not decide their substantive rights.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc., the plaintiff sought permission to ask the court to require defendants to provide the identities and contact information of potential class and collective-action members. Defendants opposed the request, arguing that it was premature, overly broad, and an improper effort to solicit additional plaintiffs before required Fair Labor Standards Act procedures were followed.
The court’s order did not decide whether defendants had to produce the requested information. Instead, the court acknowledged the plaintiff’s pre-motion letter and defendants’ response concerning a planned motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Judge Philip M. Halpern scheduled a pre-motion conference for March 16, 2021, and instructed the clerk to terminate the plaintiff’s filing at docket number 56. The order did not rule on the merits of the discovery dispute.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-02397
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
The plaintiff sent a letter seeking permission to file a motion to compel the identities and contact information of potential members of a proposed class and collective action. Defendants submitted a response opposing that request. They argued that the requested information was not needed for discovery, was too broad, and would allow the plaintiff to solicit additional plaintiffs before conditional certification and court-supervised notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also argued that the plaintiff had not completed ordinary discovery and had not shown that workers beyond the plaintiff’s workplace were similarly situated.
Those arguments appear in defendants’ response; the order did not decide whether they were correct. The excerpt also reflects defendants’ alternative position that, if information were ordered, it should be limited to a random sample of workers at the plaintiff’s location.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it had received the plaintiff’s pre-motion conference letter and defendants’ response regarding an anticipated motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The court scheduled a pre-motion conference for March 16, 2021, at the stated telephone-access information. The clerk was instructed to terminate docket entry 56.
The order did not grant or deny the anticipated motion to compel, decide whether a class or collective action should be certified, or resolve any underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Judge Philip M. Halpern therefore issued a procedural scheduling order rather than a merits ruling.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.