Mangahas v. Eight Oranges Inc.

Background

Jessy Mangahas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and fourteen opt-in plaintiffs brought wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiffs moved for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, asking the court to limit written discovery served by the defendants. The defendants had served 60 requests for production of documents and 25 interrogatories on each of the 15 plaintiffs.

Court’s analysis

Rule 26 permits a court to limit discovery when it is not proportional to the needs of the case, when its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit, or when it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. The court held that the size of the group did not make written discovery from every opt-in plaintiff impracticable or overly burdensome. It also held, however, that some interrogatories sought information beyond what Local Civil Rule 33.3 ordinarily permits and that the defendants had not shown why broader interrogatories were a more practical way to obtain that information.

The court permitted Interrogatories 2, 3, 13, 21, 23, 24, and 25, with limits. Interrogatory 3 was limited to identifying people with whom a plaintiff had spoken about the allegations. For relevant documents, the plaintiffs had to identify the documents’ existence, custodian, location, and general description, but did not have to produce those documents with their interrogatory answers. The plaintiffs also had to answer the part of Interrogatory 14 asking whether they were currently employed by the defendants. The remaining interrogatories sought information beyond Local Civil Rule 33.3(a), and the defendants had not shown that interrogatories were the most practical method of obtaining it.

The court found that Requests for Production 16 and 23 improperly sought tax-return information because the defendants had not shown a compelling need for it. Requests 12 and 13, seeking broad communications and telephone-call records during alleged work hours, were disproportionate and unduly burdensome. Requests 24 and 25 were overbroad, and the defendants had not shown the relevance or need for Request 33 concerning unemployment insurance and other benefits. Requests 34, 35, and 37 sought information about later employment, job-search efforts, and later income; the court found that information generally irrelevant and potentially intimidating or harassing. Request 36 was permitted only for resumes submitted to the defendants. Requests 41, 45, and 46 were also overbroad.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for a protective order against responding to Requests for Production 12, 13, 16, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35, 37, 41, 45, and 46. For Request 36, the plaintiffs only had to produce resumes provided to the defendants. The motion was otherwise denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entry 46.