Yuwono v. 998LQ Sushi Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yuwono v. 998LQ Sushi, Judge Woods granted in part the parties’ request, scheduled a discovery conference, lifted the stay, and declined their proposed certification schedule.
The plaintiff and defendants in Yuwono v. 998LQ Sushi Inc.; the order affected discovery proceedings, the case’s stay, and the timing of the plaintiff’s conditional collective-certification motion.
What happened
In Yuwono v. 998LQ Sushi Inc., the plaintiff and defendants jointly asked the court to address a dispute about discovery before any class or collective group was certified, lift the case’s stay, and set deadlines for a motion seeking conditional collective certification. The defendants had objected to providing class-wide information before certification.
The court granted the request in part. It scheduled a telephone conference for January 13, 2023, to discuss the discovery dispute, allowed defendants to submit an optional legal letter of up to three pages by January 10, and lifted the stay. The parties also had to submit an updated discovery plan by January 10.
Judge Gregory H. Woods declined to use the parties’ proposed schedule for briefing the conditional collective-certification issue. Instead, he stated that the schedule would be set at the January 13 conference, so the plaintiff was not to file that motion before the conference. The clerk was directed to lift the stay on the docket and terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 37.
The detailed version
- Yuwono v. 998LQ Sushi Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00389
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 6, 2023
Background
The plaintiff and defendants jointly asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute, lift the stay in the case, and adopt a briefing schedule for the plaintiff’s motion for conditional collective certification. The plaintiff sought class-wide discovery, including responses to interrogatories, before the court decided whether to certify a class or collective group. Defendants objected that the requested discovery was not relevant because no class had yet been certified.
The parties had met and conferred but could not resolve the dispute. They also reported that mediation had not resolved the case. The plaintiff argued that pre-certification discovery was relevant to a future certification motion and proportional to the allegations in the complaint.
Court’s Action
The court granted the parties’ request in part. It scheduled a telephone conference for January 13, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the discovery issue. Defendants were permitted, but not required, to file a letter of no more than three pages explaining their view of the relevant law by January 10, 2023.
The court lifted the stay and directed the parties to submit a proposed updated discovery plan for review by January 10, 2023. The court declined to adopt the parties’ proposed briefing schedule for the conditional collective-certification issue. Instead, it anticipated setting that schedule during the January 13 conference and directed the plaintiff not to file the certification motion before the conference.
The clerk was directed to lift the stay on the docket and terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 37. The order addressed scheduling and the next steps for the discovery dispute; the text does not state that the court ordered defendants to produce the requested class-wide discovery.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.