Santos v. Nuve Miguel Corp.

Background

This order resolves discovery disputes submitted at Dkt. 49–50 in a wage-and-hour case. The disputes were submitted before the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Despite that denial, the plaintiff sought discovery to support a possible class-action motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Class discovery

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class discovery. It recognized that collective actions and Rule 23 class actions use different procedures and standards, but noted concerns that pre-certification discovery about potential class members could be used to identify new clients rather than to establish whether certification is proper. The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations and statements were inadequate and conclusory, and therefore did not establish that the requested discovery was relevant or proportionate.

Requests for production

For Request for Production (RFP) 8, concerning prior settlements, the court found the request relevant to whether the defendants acted willfully but overbroad and disproportionate. The defendants must produce settlement agreements with employees in wage-and-hour disputes involving allegations of time-shaving, spread-of-hours violations, or failure to provide wage notices and statements. For non-public settlements, the defendants may redact the plaintiff’s name and the specific settlement terms.

For RFP 9, concerning compliance with labor laws, the court similarly found the request relevant to willfulness but overbroad and disproportionate. The defendants must produce non-privileged documents that expressly refer to wage-and-hour-law requirements or the defendants’ compliance or noncompliance concerning minimum wage, maximum wage, time-shaving, spread-of-hours, or wage notices and statements.

For RFP 10, concerning litigation with employees, the defendants must produce complaints filed by employees asserting wage-and-hour violations involving time-shaving, spread-of-hours, or failure to provide wage notices and statements.

For RFPs 12, 13, and 14, concerning financial statements, sales records, and tax filings, the court found that the requests might be relevant but were overbroad and disproportionate. If the defendants stipulate that the corporate entity had gross revenues exceeding $500,000 per year for each relevant year, they do not have to produce those documents. If they do not make that stipulation, they must produce documents sufficient to show gross revenues for each relevant year.

For RFPs 15, 16, and 17, concerning loans, leases, real-property leases, and vendor contracts, the court found that the requests might be relevant but were overbroad and disproportionate. If the defendants stipulate that they own and control the corporate defendant, they do not have to produce the requested documents. If they do not stipulate, they must produce the requested leases and contracts to the extent they concern the store location where the plaintiff was employed.

For RFP 19, concerning electronic discovery and proposed search terms, the court found the request overbroad and disproportionate. The defendants do not have to use the requested search terms, but they must produce electronic documents responsive to other non-objectionable requests.

Interrogatories and disposition

The court sustained the objections to Interrogatory 1, concerning class discovery, consistent with its denial of class discovery. It sustained the objections to Interrogatory 5, concerning past investigations and nonpayment; Interrogatory 6, concerning other businesses owned; and Interrogatory 12, concerning banks.

The court overruled the objections to Interrogatory 7 in part. The defendants must identify the entities used by the corporate defendant for accounting, payroll services, printing, and banking. The plaintiff may not issue third-party discovery requests without prior court approval and may do so only after showing that the requested material cannot be obtained from the defendants.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger therefore denied class discovery, required specified discovery subject to the conditions described above, sustained several objections, and overruled the objection to Interrogatory 7 in part.