Miguel Baez Duran v. E L G Parking Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:18-cv-06685
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Baez Duran v. E L G Parking: Judge Cave denied without prejudice a protective-order motion because defendants skipped required discovery conferences.
E L G Parking, Inc. and Bishop Joseph Alexander were denied their request to limit discovery from 1240 Edward Grant, LLC, but the denial was without prejudice. Plaintiffs may face a renewed motion if the defendants first follow the required discovery procedures.
What happened
In Gerardo Miguel Baez Duran v. E L G Parking Inc., former parking-lot attendants sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, individually and for others similarly situated.
E L G Parking, Inc. and Bishop Joseph Alexander asked the court to limit discovery from 1240 Edward Grant, LLC. Plaintiffs opposed the request, arguing that defendants had not followed required procedures or shown good cause.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion without prejudice because defendants did not try to resolve the dispute with plaintiffs, request the required court conference, or provide the discovery requests at issue. The court said defendants could file a proper motion after conferring with plaintiffs.
The detailed version
- Miguel Baez Duran v. E L G Parking Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06685
- Sarah Cave
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs are former attendants at a parking lot that they allege is owned and operated by E L G Parking, Inc., Bishop Joseph Alexander, Steven Rosenberg, and Raymond Lopez. They bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, both individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
E L G Parking, Inc. and Bishop Joseph Alexander moved for a protective order limiting discovery from nonparty 1240 Edward Grant, LLC. A protective order is a court order that limits or conditions discovery. The moving defendants said the discovery requests were “extremely broad and amorphous.” Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that defendants had not met and conferred, had not followed the applicable federal and local procedures, and had not shown good cause for the requested order.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that discovery generally may concern nonprivileged matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a party seeking a protective order must certify that it made a good-faith effort to confer with the affected parties before asking the court to intervene.
The court also applied Southern District of New York Local Rule 37.2 and Judge Cave’s Individual Practices. Those requirements generally call for the moving party to try in good faith to resolve the discovery dispute and, if necessary, request a pre-motion discovery conference with the court.
The court found that the moving defendants did not attempt to meet and confer with plaintiffs. They also did not request the required pre-motion discovery conference and did not attach the discovery requests for which they sought judicial relief. The court held that these combined procedural failures were fatal to the motion.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion without prejudice. The court stated that, if the moving defendants still needed judicial intervention after conferring with plaintiffs, they could file a proper motion complying with the Federal Rules, the Local Rules, and the court’s Individual Practices. The conclusion directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion, referring to ECF No. 49, although the opinion identifies the motion earlier as ECF No. 89.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.