Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-07332
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc, Judge Moses sanctioned counsel for missed depositions by requiring notices to future opt-ins and a compliance certification.
Troy Law, PLLC and any additional plaintiffs who later opt in to the action; the order also addressed the plaintiff’s discovery obligations and the defendants’ deposition obligations.
What happened
In Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc, the court addressed the plaintiff’s failure to schedule or conduct six party depositions during a 90-day discovery extension in this wage-and-hour case. The plaintiff’s attorneys said their small firm was too busy with other matters.
The court found that explanation inadequate. It declined to impose a monetary sanction, but ordered Troy Law to give any additional opt-in plaintiffs a copy of the order in English and Chinese and to file proof that it had done so. The firm also had to certify compliance with another court order by March 19, 2021.
Judge Barbara Moses issued the order. The order was intended to deter further missed deadlines and protect potential future plaintiffs from inadequate representation.
The detailed version
- Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc · No. 1:19-cv-07332
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Yi Mei Ke brought a wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December 18, 2020, the court reopened discovery for 90 days, until February 25, 2021, so Ke could take six party depositions. The court expressly warned that it would grant no further extensions.
On March 1, 2021, the court denied in substantial part Ke’s request for another 102-day extension. It instead granted a 30-day extension and limited Ke to two depositions during that period. The court also ordered Ke to explain why sanctions should not be imposed because no party deposition had been conducted or scheduled during the previous 90-day extension.
Party’s response
Ke’s attorneys, John Troy and Aaron Schweitzer of Troy Law, PLLC, responded that the firm had only a small number of attorneys and more than 300 pending cases. Schweitzer stated that he was lead trial counsel in all of the firm’s cases and had been occupied with other court matters, depositions, and arbitration-related submissions. He also said that he had intended to complete the depositions after the opt-in period closed.
The court found this explanation inadequate. It stated that a firm too overstretched to handle basic discovery obligations could not adequately represent its existing clients or additional plaintiffs who might opt in. The court also discussed prior cases involving alleged failures by Troy Law and Schweitzer to meet discovery or other court obligations.
Ruling
The court concluded that more than a written admonishment was needed to deter repetition and protect potential future plaintiffs. It stated that no monetary sanction would be assessed, in part because the defendants had benefited from the earlier order limiting the required depositions to two and had not needed to file a motion to obtain that result.
The court ordered that, if additional plaintiffs opted in, Troy Law must give each one a copy of the order in English and Chinese. For each such plaintiff, Troy Law must file a certificate confirming delivery, along with a copy of the Chinese translation, when filing the plaintiff’s consent-to-sue form. The court separately ordered Troy Law to certify in writing by March 19, 2021, that it had complied with the court’s February 22, 2021 order.
Effect
The order imposed nonmonetary requirements on Troy Law concerning future opt-in plaintiffs and compliance with a prior court order. It did not assess a monetary sanction.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.