Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc.

Background

Twelve former employees sued Ramen-Ya Inc. and Y&S International Corp. doing business as Ramen-Ya under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage-and-hour law, and New York Labor Law. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It had already ruled that the two companies operated as a single integrated enterprise; that several individual defendants were employers; and that defendants violated record-keeping, tip-credit, tip-distribution, overtime, and New York spread-of-hours rules. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages under either the federal or state law, but not both, and would be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.

The issues remaining for trial concerned damages and whether Yasuko Negita was an employer under the federal or state wage laws. The parties agreed that the only issue remaining for the scheduled trial was whether Yasuko Negita was an employer. The plaintiffs had subsequently dismissed their claims against Kobayashi.

Trial subpoenas

Defendants subpoenaed all twelve plaintiffs to attend the pretrial conference and every day of trial. At least five plaintiffs lived outside the United States, and some plaintiffs held minimum-wage jobs that made taking time off difficult. The parties did not dispute that the plaintiffs had no direct contact with Yasuko Negita and no knowledge or other evidence relevant to whether she was an employer. The plaintiffs’ counsel offered to stipulate to those facts.

The court held that a subpoena could not require a plaintiff to attend trial unless the plaintiff lived, worked, or regularly conducted business in the locations allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1). The court therefore quashed the subpoenas to the extent they required attendance by plaintiffs outside the court’s territorial power.

The court also applied Rule 45’s requirement that a subpoena be quashed or modified when it creates an undue burden. It found that the plaintiffs had persuasively shown they lacked testimony relevant to the sole issue for trial, while defendants had not explained what relevant testimony the plaintiffs could provide or why that testimony could not be obtained through depositions. The court noted that defendants had other methods available, including taking depositions and using deposition testimony at trial. It characterized defendants’ use of the trial subpoenas, without identifying relevant testimony, as appearing to be in bad faith and potentially intended to impose substantial economic costs.

Late requests for admission

Defendants served requests for admission on March 30, 2022. The court held that the requests were untimely because discovery had closed on July 13, 2020. It granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order, meaning protection from having to respond, and ruled that the plaintiffs were not required to answer the requests.

Immigration-status questioning

The plaintiffs moved to prevent defendants from questioning any plaintiff who testified at trial about immigration status. The court granted that motion. It explained that people may bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act regardless of immigration status and that immigration-status evidence is generally irrelevant and impermissible in such cases.

Defendant Negita argued that immigration information could be used to challenge the plaintiffs’ credibility based on alleged use of other people’s Social Security numbers and shift-related conduct. The court rejected that justification. It held that the risk of unfair prejudice and the chilling effect on workers seeking to enforce wage rights outweighed any limited value the evidence might have for credibility.

Facts established by earlier summary-judgment rulings

The plaintiffs also sought to prevent testimony inconsistent with the court’s prior summary-judgment rulings or with undisputed facts in the record. Defendant Negita stated that she did not intend to relitigate those rulings. The court directed the parties to submit, within one week, the facts on which they could stipulate, including facts based on the court’s prior orders.

Disposition

The order resolved the pending motions at Docket Numbers 440, 446, 450, and 453 and directed the clerk to close them. The opinion excerpt expressly states that the trial subpoenas were quashed to the extent they exceeded the court’s subpoena power, that the protective order concerning the late requests for admission was granted, and that the motion to bar immigration-status questioning was granted.