DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A.
DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ, ZION BRERETON, ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI AND ANDREYA CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-11463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rosario v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc., Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to file a deposition notice without resolving their dispute.
The named plaintiffs, Valentino U.S.A., Inc., and the parties’ ongoing discovery process were affected by the order requiring the disputed deposition notice to be filed on the docket. The order did not determine the parties’ broader discovery rights or the proposed classes.
What happened
In Rosario ex rel. Benitez, et al. v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc., the parties submitted a joint letter about a disagreement over the scope of a deposition seeking testimony from Valentino and over whether plaintiffs could use certain documents. Plaintiffs sought broader discovery related to possible classes of workers claiming unpaid overtime and permission to use documents marked “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
Valentino argued that the requested discovery was too broad and should be limited to the individual claims of certain named plaintiffs. It also argued that documents allegedly taken by Plaintiff Learmont should remain restricted except for documents relevant to the individual claims. The letter presents these competing positions but does not resolve them.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide the discovery or document-use dispute in this order. Instead, the court directed the parties to file the disputed deposition notice on the docket by February 25, 2022.
The detailed version
- DAMIANA ROSARIO AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JOSEFINA BENITEZ v. U.S.A. · No. 1:19-cv-11463
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
The parties filed a joint letter seeking a pre-motion conference about a discovery dispute. The dispute concerned the scope of the plaintiffs’ second amended notice for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate representatives to testify about specified topics. The dispute also concerned whether plaintiffs could use documents bearing the Bates prefix “ALearmont_Mis,” which Valentino had designated “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
The plaintiffs said their claims under Rule 23 remained active even though the court had denied their request for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They described proposed classes involving alleged misclassification and unpaid overtime, including employees allegedly paid compensatory time instead of overtime and “freelancers” allegedly treated as independent contractors. They sought testimony and documents concerning company-wide classification and pay practices.
The plaintiffs also asked to use more than 30,000 documents recovered from Plaintiff Alicia Learmont’s computer and cell phone. They argued that the documents were relevant, were not privileged after privileged materials had been returned and destroyed, and originated from Valentino’s possession, custody, and control. They asked the court to remove the “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation, subject to redactions of sensitive personal information.
Defendant’s Position
Valentino argued that the deposition notice was overbroad and sought information about employees and positions not involved in the named plaintiffs’ claims. It relied on an earlier ruling limiting an “at issue” waiver of privilege to the individual named plaintiffs asserting misclassification claims. Valentino asked that the deposition topics be limited to the affirmative claims of Plaintiffs Zion Brereton, James Choi, and Andreya Crawford.
Valentino also argued that most of the Learmont documents were confidential information concerning current and former employees and were not relevant to the individual claims. It asked that the documents remain designated “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” unless plaintiffs showed that particular documents related to the named plaintiffs’ claims.
The letter also discussed the deaths of Plaintiff Josefin[a] Benitez and Damiana Rosario, who had served as administratrix of Benitez’s estate. Valentino questioned whether plaintiffs’ counsel had authority to continue acting for Benitez’s estate until a new administrator was formally substituted. The opinion text does not report a ruling on that issue.
Court’s Action
The court did not decide the permissible scope of the deposition, whether the proposed classes could be certified, whether the disputed documents could be used, or whether the documents’ confidentiality designations should be removed. The court’s only stated action was to direct the parties to file the disputed deposition notice on the docket by February 25, 2022.
Disposition
The court issued a filing direction and did not grant or deny the parties’ underlying discovery requests in the text provided.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.