Martinez v. JVA Industries Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs asked the court to enforce an earlier discovery order. That order required the defendants to produce documents showing the hours each class member worked each day and week during the relevant period, in whatever form the documents existed, to the extent they existed. The defendants said that no paper records remained concerning hours submitted to Paychex and that additional documents were unlikely to be available. The plaintiffs disputed that position.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had not conducted a good-faith search for electronic information. The court had previously ordered a reasonable search for documents responsive to request number 5 and had directed the defendants to produce an email from Mr. DePinto to which Carl Wiggins responded, along with follow-up emails. The plaintiffs said they could not determine who performed the search, how it was performed, or what electronic information was searched, and they alleged that the emails had not been produced.

The plaintiffs further challenged the defendants’ responses to requests for admission concerning text messages exchanged by Mr. DePinto. The defendants generally said they could not admit or deny the matters because the message threads were incomplete. The plaintiffs said the defendants had represented that they would produce metadata—information about the messages that could help establish their authenticity—but had not done so.

Court’s Orders

The court construed the request concerning work-hour records as a request to enforce its prior order. It ordered the defendants to produce all documents required by the July 14, 2021 order and all documents called for by request number 8(c) by August 25, 2021. The court stated that sanctions could be imposed if the defendants failed to obey the order, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2).

The court ordered the defendants to produce the specified email and any related follow-up emails by August 25, 2021. It also allowed the plaintiffs to take a deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of a defendant representative concerning the defendants’ search for and production of electronic information. That deposition had to occur by August 27, 2021, could be conducted remotely, could last no more than three hours, and would be at the defendants’ expense, including reasonable attorney’s fees for one plaintiffs’ lawyer.

Regarding the requests for admission, the court treated the plaintiffs’ request as a challenge under Rule 36(a)(6) to the sufficiency of the defendants’ answers or objections. The court ordered the defendants to answer requests 2 through 9 and 11 through 12 by August 17, 2021, in accordance with the legal standards discussed in the order. If they failed to do so, the requests for admission would be deemed admitted.

Additional Directions and Disposition

The court ordered the defendants to provide all contact information they had for people who had opted into the class, including telephone numbers. The duty to provide that information would continue for people who opted in later. The court directed that depositions be conducted in person unless all participants were fully vaccinated or could show a negative COVID-19 test taken within 48 hours before the deposition. If a participant met neither condition, the deposition had to be remote.

Judge Lewis J. Liman reminded the parties that all depositions had to be completed by September 9, 2021, and fact discovery had to be completed by October 15, 2021. The order required discovery-related compliance and did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.