Pierre v. City Of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-05116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pierre v. City of New York, Judge Carter received plaintiffs’ request to limit opt-in depositions to 2.5 hours; no ruling appears.
Burbran Pierre, the 388 people identified as having opted into the case, the nine people whose depositions were at issue, and the defendants involved in the requested discovery.
What happened
In Pierre v. City of New York, plaintiffs asked the court for an order limiting depositions of nine people who joined the case to 2.5 hours each. They said the defendants had agreed the depositions would be part of representative discovery but then planned to conduct seven-hour depositions.
Plaintiffs argued that shorter depositions would reduce unnecessary burden, duplication, harassment, and wasted time. They also said most of the nine people worked only a small number of shifts for some of the defendants and had already submitted declarations.
The filing identifies Judge Andrew Carter in the case information, while the letter is addressed to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. The court directed defendants to respond, but the provided text contains no ruling on the request.
The detailed version
- Pierre v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05116
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 6, 2022
Document and requested relief
The provided text is a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel, not a decision resolving the requested protective order. Plaintiffs Burbran Pierre and 388 people who had opted into the case asked for an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) limiting depositions of opt-in plaintiffs to 2.5 hours each.
Background
Plaintiffs said the parties had agreed that nine scheduled opt-in depositions would be part of representative sampling. According to the letter, plaintiffs then scheduled 2.5-hour depositions, but defendants stated that they intended to conduct full-day, seven-hour depositions instead.
Plaintiffs argued that the case could eventually include thousands of opt-in plaintiffs and that lengthy depositions would create excessive burden, harassment, duplication, and cumulative discovery. They also asserted that most of the nine people had worked only a small number of shifts for some of the defendants, and that several had already provided sworn declarations.
The letter further argued that these opt-in plaintiffs should not be treated differently because they joined before collective certification. Plaintiffs cited decisions limiting representative opt-in discovery and referred to a prior ruling that allowed one hour of questioning per defendant for the named plaintiff. They also criticized questioning during Burbran Pierre’s deposition, claiming it included repetitive requests for information contained on timecards and interruptions of his answers.
Court action shown in the text
The text shows that the court directed defendants to file a response by a specified Friday. It does not show whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on plaintiffs’ request for a protective order. The case information identifies Judge Andrew Carter, while the letter is addressed to and signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo; the provided materials therefore do not clearly identify which judge was responsible for the response directive or any later ruling.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.