Ortega v. Lee Salon 25 Corp.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-01844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ortega v. Lee Salon 25 Corp., Judge Wang overruled defense objections, ordered further deposition proceedings, and set briefing on Ortega’s expense request.
Rosa Bueno Ortega, Lee Salon 25 Corp., and Sophia Lee were affected. The parties had to meet and confer, continue Sang Lee’s deposition for up to five hours, and follow the schedule for briefing Ortega’s request for discovery-related expenses.
What happened
In Ortega v. Lee Salon 25 Corp., the defendants opposed Ortega’s request to compel discovery. They argued that Ortega had not first held the required good-faith discussion about the dispute and that questions about a different salon lawsuit were unrelated to this case.
The court overruled the defendants’ objections. It directed the parties to meet and confer by January 28, 2022, and to file a joint letter giving the date of Sang Lee’s deposition, which could continue for up to five hours.
Judge Ona T. Wang also set deadlines for briefing Ortega’s request for payment of expenses connected to the discovery dispute. The endorsement does not expressly state whether the motion to compel itself was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. Lee Salon 25 Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-01844
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
The defendants, Lee Salon 25 Corp. and Sophia Lee, submitted a letter opposing Rosa Bueno Ortega’s motion to compel discovery. The defendants argued that Ortega had filed the motion without first meeting and conferring in good faith, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the court’s individual practices.
The discovery dispute arose during the January 18, 2022, deposition of Sang Lee, who testified as the corporate defendant’s designated witness. The defendants argued that Ortega’s counsel did not conduct a separate in-person or telephone conference after the deposition before filing the motion.
The defendants also argued that the disputed questions concerned a separate lawsuit involving Black Label Salon. They contended that information about that lawsuit—including allegations about fabricated documents—was not relevant or proportional to Ortega’s claims that she was not paid all required wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law while employed by Lee Salon 25 Corp.
Court’s action
Judge Ona T. Wang overruled the defense objections and questioned whether they had been made in good faith. The court directed the parties to meet and confer by Friday, January 28, 2022. It also directed them to file a joint letter identifying the date of Sang Lee’s deposition, which was to continue for up to five hours.
The court set the following schedule for Ortega’s motion seeking payment of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5): Ortega was to file the motion by February 11, 2022; the defendants were to file their opposition by February 25, 2022; and Ortega was to file any reply by March 11, 2022.
Disposition and scope
The endorsement does not expressly state that the motion to compel was granted or denied. It does state that the defense objections were overruled, ordered additional deposition-related steps, and established briefing deadlines for Ortega’s expense request. The order addressed discovery procedure and did not decide the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.