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, Judge Vyskocil referred a discovery dispute to Judge Lehrburger and extended fact discovery to May 18, 2022.
The named plaintiffs, Valentino U.S.A., Inc., and the parties’ discovery schedule were affected. The dispute was referred to Judge Lehrburger for further handling.
What happened
In Rosario ex rel. Benitez v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc., the parties disagreed about the scope of a deposition seeking testimony from Valentino and whether certain documents could be used. The plaintiffs sought broader information related to possible classes and use of documents from Alicia Learmont’s devices; Valentino argued the requests were too broad and the documents should remain restricted.
The letter did not resolve the parties’ dispute. The plaintiffs said their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and proposed class claims justified the discovery, while Valentino argued that discovery should be limited to the individual claims of certain named plaintiffs.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil referred the dispute to Judge Lehrburger because it partly arose from his earlier order. She also extended fact discovery from April 8, 2022, to May 18, 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
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
The parties filed a joint letter requesting a conference about a discovery dispute. The dispute concerned the scope of the plaintiffs’ second amended notice for a deposition of Valentino under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate representatives to testify about specified topics. It also concerned whether the plaintiffs could use documents bearing the Bates prefix “ALearmont_Mis.”
The plaintiffs said they intended to seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for two proposed classes involving unpaid overtime and alleged employee misclassification. One proposed class involved corporate employees whom the plaintiffs said Valentino had uniformly misclassified; the other involved “freelancers” whom the plaintiffs said Valentino had uniformly treated as independent contractors. The plaintiffs argued that discovery supported examining company-wide classification and overtime policies.
The plaintiffs also asked to use documents obtained after Alicia Learmont consented to forensic imaging of her personal computer and cell phone. They said more than 30,000 documents were produced, that privileged documents had been returned and destroyed, and that the remaining documents were relevant to the claims and defenses. They asked the court to rescind Valentino’s “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation, subject to necessary redactions.
Parties’ Positions
Valentino argued that the deposition notice was overbroad, disproportionate, and sought information about employees and positions unrelated to the claims actually asserted. Valentino relied on an earlier ruling that had limited an “at issue” waiver of privilege to certain individually named plaintiffs asserting misclassification claims. Valentino agreed to produce representatives on topics relevant to the affirmative claims of Brereton, Choi, and Crawford, but requested that specified topics be limited accordingly.
Valentino also argued that documents allegedly taken by Learmont should be limited to those related to the individual plaintiffs’ claims and should remain marked “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” unless the plaintiffs could show their relevance. Valentino further raised an issue concerning continued litigation on behalf of the estates of Benitez and Rosario after their deaths and before an effective substitution, but the court’s order did not resolve that issue.
Court’s Action
The court did not decide the parties’ underlying discovery arguments in this order. Judge Vyskocil stated that the dispute arose in part from Judge Lehrburger’s previous order and referred the dispute to Judge Lehrburger by separate order. The court also extended fact discovery from April 8, 2022, to May 18, 2022.
Disposition
The discovery dispute was referred to Judge Lehrburger, and fact discovery was extended to May 18, 2022. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the plaintiffs’ requested discovery or ruled on whether the Learmont documents could be used.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.