Alvarado Balderramo v. Go New York Tours Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and New York labor laws. They alleged that Go New York Tours Inc. and Asen Kostadinov failed to pay bus drivers minimum and overtime wages.

Defendants noticed depositions of former bus drivers Kee Chye Chew, Andrew Wong, and Lai La Xue. Chew and Wong were party plaintiffs, while Xue was a class member. Defendants had already taken five depositions, including those of two class representatives and three other party plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs’ letter asked for a conference before seeking a protective order, which is an order limiting discovery to prevent undue burden, harassment, or expense. The court treated the letter as a motion for a protective order. The plaintiffs argued that the additional depositions would duplicate earlier discovery and expressed concern that defendants were targeting Chinese drivers and asking about immigration status. Defendants argued that the witnesses could provide relevant information about the wage claims and that earlier testimony and written discovery contained contradictions or insufficient substantive information.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court may limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative and may issue a protective order against annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

The court found that the three proposed deponents had worked as drivers during the relevant period and alleged that defendants had failed to pay their wages. Their information could therefore be relevant. Given the number of plaintiffs and the differing information obtained in the five earlier depositions, the court concluded that the proposed depositions were likely not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.

Chew and Wong

The court denied the request to forbid depositions of Chew and Wong. They were party plaintiffs, and the court found that the case’s approximately 20 opt-in plaintiffs were substantially fewer than the numbers in cases where courts required representative sampling instead of individualized discovery. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ general claims of harassment and excessive discovery did not justify preventing these depositions. The court noted that the concern about targeting Chinese drivers and questions about immigration status was serious, but concluded that the proposed witnesses likely had relevant information because they had worked as drivers during the relevant period.

Xue

The court granted the request to forbid Xue’s deposition. Xue was an absent class member, meaning a class member who was not a named party in the case. The court explained that discovery from absent class members is rarely allowed and that defendants carry a particularly heavy burden when seeking to depose one. Because defendants did not address that burden or provide additional reasons justifying Xue’s deposition, the court barred it.

Disposition

The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion was DENIED as to the proposed depositions of Chew and Wong and GRANTED as to the proposed deposition of Xue. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the plaintiffs’ motion, docket entry 324.