Ji v. Aily Foot Relax Station Inc

Background

Yong Biao Ji sued Aily Foot Relax Station Inc., doing business as Foot Relax Spa Station; Linda Foot Relax Spa Station, doing business as Foot Relax Spa Station; Xiang Man Zhang, also known as Ailing Zhang; and Ke Xue Zheng. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law concerning unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, meal periods, records, wage notices, wage statements, and statutory damages.

The defendants moved to compel Ji to supplement answers to Interrogatory Numbers 4, 10, 13 through 23, and to answer Interrogatory Numbers 26 through 31. In their reply, they also asked the court to reconsider its April 16, 2021 discovery order and to sanction Ji’s counsel. The opinion states that the discovery motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy for resolution of outstanding discovery disputes.

Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses

The court first determined that the motion to compel was timely. It rejected Ji’s argument that the defendants had missed the deadline, explaining that the applicable deadline was set at an April 15 conference and memorialized in the April 16 order.

For Interrogatory Number 4, the court denied the request because whether Ji had filed tax returns did not bear on the corporate defendants’ tax filings or Ji’s wage claims. The question also did not fall within the categories generally allowed under the Southern District of New York’s local rule governing interrogatories.

For Interrogatory Number 10, the court denied the request because Ji was proceeding individually and there was no collective action for additional people to join. For Interrogatory Numbers 13 through 16, which asked why Ji received five-minute meal breaks, the court found his answers sufficient. Ji had explained that he was not given regular meal breaks, had to eat quickly when there were no customers, and remained on call while eating.

For Interrogatory Number 17, the court denied the request because any physical harm from the alleged short meal breaks was not relevant to liability or damages for the wage violations asserted in the complaint. For Interrogatory Number 18, the court found the question improper under the local rule and also found Ji’s answer sufficient. The court explained that Ji alleged working approximately 80 hours per week, not massaging customers for 80 hours per week, so the defendants’ claimed inconsistency rested on a mistaken premise.

For Interrogatory Numbers 19 and 20, the court denied the request because Ji had answered what he did before opening and after closing, the defendants were in a better position to know their employees’ job responsibilities, and the defendants had already elicited the information at Ji’s deposition. For Interrogatory Number 21, the court found the question vague and based on unestablished hypothetical income figures. It also found Ji’s answer—that he earned approximately $3,000 per month and $36,000 per year—sufficient.

The court denied the request to compel answers to Interrogatory Numbers 26 through 31. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 generally limits a party to 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts, unless the court grants permission. The court held that the defendants had not made the required particularized showing explaining why additional interrogatories were necessary, and noted that the defendants had already effectively served more than 25 questions.

Requests to Admit

In their reply, the defendants represented that Ji had not answered requests to admit served on August 18, 2020. The court stated that the requests appeared to have been timely served and that Ji had not explained whether he had responded. The court did not order a response in this order. Instead, it directed Ji to write to the court if he wanted additional time; otherwise, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 would govern.

Reconsideration and Sanctions

The defendants asked the court to reconsider the April 16 discovery order based on Ji’s mistaken argument that the defendants’ motion to compel was untimely. The court denied reconsideration, finding that the defendants had not identified a sufficient factual or legal reason for changing the earlier order. Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally limited to matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked.

The defendants also sought sanctions against Ji’s counsel for allegedly misleading the court and acting in bad faith. The court denied that request, finding that Ji’s error about the deadline did not warrant sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied the defendants’ motion to compel in its entirety, denied the motion for reconsideration, and denied the motion for sanctions. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion. This order addressed discovery and related requests; it did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.

Judge-Identification Note

The supplied case metadata identifies Vincent Briccetti, and the opinion discusses earlier rulings by Judge Briccetti. This particular order is signed by Judith C. McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge, so she is identified here as the judge for this order.