Mikityuk v. Cision US Inc.

Background

The opinion addressed several disputes in a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court had previously authorized notice by both U.S. Mail and email to people who might choose to join the case. Plaintiffs later re-mailed notices to 26 people and sought permission to send reminder postcards and emails. Plaintiffs also sought full Social Security numbers for people whose notices were returned as undeliverable, and moved to compel contact information and other discovery concerning salespeople and possible additional employer entities.

Re-mailing and opt-in deadlines

The court held that its notice procedure was intended to ensure that a potential participant received some form of notice, not both forms of notice. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to re-mail notices to people whose notice was not returned by either email or U.S. Mail was denied. Plaintiffs could re-mail a notice only to a person who received neither email nor U.S. Mail notice.

Defendants’ request for a corrected notice to the August 9 group, using the earlier September 4 deadline, was denied. The court found that changing the deadline after recipients had been told of a later date would be confusing and prejudicial. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that people who received the July re-mailings had a September 24 or September 27 deadline, while stating that it would consider other arguments about excusing a missed deadline if those arguments were later presented. The court noted that the statute of limitations for potential participants would stop running when the court received the Consent to Join form.

Defendants also requested weekly information about notices returned as undeliverable, including whether both forms of notice were undeliverable and when a new address was found. The opinion states that this information was to be provided by the end of each Monday for the preceding week when there were returned notices.

Reminder notices

Plaintiffs could send a reminder postcard and email to the single person in the August group whose U.S. Mail and email notices were both returned as undeliverable. The request to send reminders with new dates to people who received email notice but not U.S. Mail notice was denied.

Full Social Security numbers

The court ruled that Defendants must provide full Social Security numbers for people whom Plaintiffs identify as having received neither email nor U.S. Mail notice, if Plaintiffs provide evidence that both forms of notice were undeliverable. The production must be subject to a confidentiality agreement containing the protections described in the cited prior proceeding. The court stated that full Social Security numbers were not necessary for people who had received notice by either email or U.S. Mail.

Motion to compel

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel was denied. Plaintiffs sought contact information for New York salespeople who sold Falcon.io products and discovery about Cision’s relationships with affiliates and other brands. They argued that this information could help determine whether other entities jointly employed Plaintiffs and other collective members.

The court held that the complaints and the request for conditional certification defined the group as people employed by Cision US Inc. and Cision Ltd. The court stated that Defendants had represented, without contradiction, that they had provided contact information for people in the relevant positions employed by those two entities, including employees nationwide. Defendants were not required to provide information about employees of other entities because Plaintiffs had not alleged facts supporting joint employment or sought certification for those employees. The court described the broader discovery request as a fishing expedition.

Disposition

The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 115 and 117, as well as the motions at Docket Nos. 78 and 87, which had been addressed at an earlier conference.