Perez v. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-01533
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Perez v. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine, Judge Woods granted a request for a telephone status conference about discovery disputes and terminated the pending motion.
Perez and the defendants Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc., Everything Cuban LLC, MM Restaurant Enterprises LLC, Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Franchising, Inc., Sofia Luna, Manuela Matos, and Patricia Luna; the order also scheduled a conference for the parties and their counsel.
What happened
Perez v. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc. involved disagreements about discovery, including the employer named in the lawsuit, unidentified defendants, requests for information and documents, and class-related discovery.
Perez asked the court to intervene, while the defendants argued that the requests were too broad and that Perez should first add 401 East 68th Street Holding LLC, which they identified as Perez’s employer, to the case. The defendants also asked for additional time to respond to discovery.
Judge Woods granted the application for a telephone status conference, set for August 12, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 30. The court did not resolve the underlying discovery disputes in this order.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01533
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 10, 2022
Background
The parties jointly asked the court for a conference concerning discovery disputes. Discovery is the process by which parties obtain information and documents relevant to a lawsuit. The letter identified four areas of disagreement: whether discovery could proceed before 401 East 68th Street Holding LLC was added as a party; identifying entities listed as John Doe defendants; the scope and timing of interrogatories and document requests; and the scope of discovery related to a possible class or collective action.
Parties’ Positions
Perez said the existing defendants had access to the requested information and should not refuse discovery because 401 East 68th Street Holding LLC had not yet been named. Perez also sought the identities of the John Doe entities so the complaint could be amended. Perez said the discovery was relevant to determining whether class certification was appropriate and that some interrogatories had already been withdrawn.
The defendants said 401 East 68th Street Holding LLC was the only entity that employed Perez and that Perez had known its identity before filing the case. They argued that the discovery requests were overbroad, burdensome, exceeded applicable limits, and sought information about entities and workers unrelated to Perez’s employment. The defendants also disputed Perez’s description of their position on pre-certification class discovery and requested a protective order delaying their responses until after the complaint and discovery requests were amended.
Court’s Action
The court granted the application for a telephone status conference concerning the disputes. The conference was scheduled for August 12, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. The parties were directed to follow the court’s emergency rules concerning telephone conferences and to comply with Rule 2(C) of those rules. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 30.
The order did not decide whether the discovery requests were proper, whether 401 East 68th Street Holding LLC should be added, whether the John Doe entities had to be identified, or whether the requested class discovery had to be produced.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.