Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-02515
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc., Judge Parker denied Gao’s discovery motions and Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees.
Xiaochun Gao’s requests for additional discovery were denied, and Savour Sichuan Inc. and the other Defendants were not awarded attorney’s fees.
What happened
In Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc., Xiaochun Gao asked to reopen fact discovery, take additional depositions, and require Defendants to provide more documents and employee contact information. Gao’s claims involve allegedly unpaid overtime and missing labor notices under federal and New York law.
The court said the discovery deadline had passed and that Gao had to show a good reason for reopening discovery. It found that Gao had not shown sufficient diligence, that Defendants would face additional legal costs, and that Gao had not explained what relevant evidence the requested discovery would produce.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Gao’s requests to reopen discovery and compel production. The court also denied Defendants’ requests for attorney’s fees because they provided no legal basis or justification for those fees.
The detailed version
- Gao v. Savour Sichuan Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02515
- Katharine Parker
- Oct. 20, 2021
Background
Xiaochun Gao sued Savour Sichuan Inc. and other Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The opinion states that Gao worked as a waitress in Defendants’ restaurants from December 1, 2016, through February 6, 2018, and alleged that she was not paid overtime wages and did not receive labor notices required by New York law.
The court had set July 30, 2021, as the deadline for completing fact discovery. On October 12, 2021, Gao filed two discovery letter motions: one seeking to reopen discovery for additional depositions and document production, and another seeking a conference to compel Defendants to provide contact information and employment dates for former non-managerial employees. Defendants opposed the requests. The court determined that no conference was necessary.
Legal Standard
After a court-ordered discovery deadline has passed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires the party seeking additional discovery to show good cause. The court explained that this requires showing why the requested discovery could not reasonably have been completed earlier despite diligence. The court considered factors including whether the request was opposed, whether reopening discovery would prejudice the other side, whether the requesting party acted diligently, whether the need for more discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery was likely to produce relevant evidence.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Gao had not shown good cause to reopen discovery. Although no trial date had been set, Defendants opposed the requests and the court found they would be prejudiced by additional legal fees for preparing for depositions and reviewing documents.
The court found that diligence weighed most heavily against Gao. The two additional Defendants identified in Gao’s letter had been added in January 2021, and Gao filed another amended complaint in March 2021—months before the discovery deadline. The court also noted that Gao did not seek an extension after the court granted part of her motion to certify a class on August 11, 2021. The court concluded that Gao had relevant information in time to pursue further discovery before the deadline.
The court found that Gao had not explained how the requested documents and depositions would uncover relevant evidence. Regarding the motion to compel, Defendants stated that they had produced all relevant documents in their possession, and the court said Gao had provided no evidence showing otherwise.
Disposition
The court DENIED Gao’s requests to reopen discovery and compel production. The court also DENIED Defendants’ requests for attorney’s fees because Defendants provided no legal basis or justification for an award.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.