Butler v. The All American Bar on First Avenue Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-00164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Butler v. The All American Bar, Judge Cave denied defendants’ requests to compel documents, interrogatory answers, and tax returns.
The order affected plaintiffs Alla Butler and Ian Hannah and the defendant entities and individuals because it denied the defendants’ requests to compel additional discovery and set deadlines for further discovery-related filings and a conference.
What happened
In Butler v. The All American Bar on First Avenue Inc., the defendants asked the court to require Alla Butler and Ian Hannah to provide more documents, answer additional interrogatories, and produce their tax returns during discovery.
The court denied all three requests. It found that the plaintiffs had produced documents, that many of the interrogatories did not comply with the court’s limits on interrogatories, and that the defendants had not shown the required need for the tax returns.
Judge Sarah L. Cave also ordered the parties to submit a joint letter about any further discovery needed because of the amended complaint and scheduled another telephone conference.
The detailed version
- Butler v. The All American Bar on First Avenue Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00164
- Sarah Cave
- Feb. 25, 2022
Background
This order addresses discovery disputes in a case brought by Alla Butler and Ian Hannah against The All American Bar on First Avenue Inc., 58 E. 34th St. Wings Lodge Inc., Robert J. Gerola, Jr., Robert O’Rourke, Claudine M. O’Rourke, and Louise DeMarco. The defendants asked the court to compel the plaintiffs to provide additional discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel attended the scheduled telephone conference, but defense counsel did not appear.
Rulings
The court denied the defendants’ request to compel the plaintiffs to supplement their responses to requests for production. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had not produced documents, but conceded that documents had been produced and that the plaintiffs’ responses referred to them. The court also noted that the defendants had not established a basis to believe additional documents existed. It stated that the defendants could ask about additional documents at the plaintiffs’ depositions and make further requests afterward if appropriate.
The court denied the request to compel answers to interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, and 14–17. It found that the interrogatories did not comply with Local Civil Rule 33.3, which generally limits interrogatories—written questions used in discovery—to information such as knowledgeable witnesses, damage calculations, and relevant documents unless the court approves broader questioning. The court stated that depositions would be a more efficient way to obtain the requested information.
The court denied the request to compel the plaintiffs’ tax returns. It applied a two-part test requiring the returns to be relevant and requiring a compelling need because the information could not otherwise be readily obtained. The court found that the defendants failed to satisfy both requirements. It explained that the plaintiffs’ subjective views about how they classified their work status were not relevant to whether they were employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. It also stated that any relevant information about how the plaintiffs filed their taxes could be obtained through depositions.
Additional schedule
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by March 14, 2022, addressing any additional discovery required in light of the amended complaint. It scheduled another telephone conference for March 16, 2022. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.