Toxqui v. The Jade Farm LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-07899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Toxqui v. The Jade Farm LLC, Judge Woods granted a discovery-dispute conference and directed termination of the pending motion.
The plaintiff and defendants in Toxqui v. The Jade Farm LLC were affected because the court scheduled a conference to address their discovery disputes and directed termination of the pending motion; the court did not resolve the disputes themselves.
What happened
Toxqui v. The Jade Farm LLC involved disagreements about discovery in a wage-and-hour case. The plaintiff sought additional wage records, documents concerning the arbitration agreement, and a date for a deposition. The defendants said they were providing available records, would provide a post-mediation deposition date, and had not waived attorney-client privilege by producing a limited document.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants had not produced time records, wage statements, and tip records, and had improperly delayed the deposition. The plaintiff also argued that the defendants waived attorney-client privilege by selectively producing a communication about arbitration agreements. The defendants disputed those points and said the parties were working on supplemental discovery responses.
The court granted the request for a conference, scheduled a telephone conference for January 31, 2023, to address the issues, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 28. Judge Gregory H. Woods did not decide the underlying discovery disputes in this order.
The detailed version
- Toxqui v. The Jade Farm LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07899
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 22, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint pre-motion letter requesting a conference about discovery disputes. The case involved wage-and-hour claims and a pending dispute over an arbitration agreement. The court had previously ordered limited discovery concerning the arbitration agreement and had issued a mediation referral order requiring production of specified employment records.
Plaintiff’s requests
The plaintiff said the defendants had not produced all requested time records, wage statements, or daily and weekly tip sheets. The plaintiff also challenged the defendants’ responses to document requests concerning their policy of requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had produced a potentially privileged email while reserving the right to withhold other communications, and the plaintiff argued that this selective production waived the attorney-client privilege.
The plaintiff further sought an order requiring the defendants to provide at least three dates within two weeks for the deposition of the defendants’ witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which permits an organization to designate a witness to testify about specified subjects. The plaintiff wanted the deposition before the scheduled mediation.
Defendants’ response
The defendants said they had provided all available employment records and were obtaining additional paystubs and tip sheets. They objected to holding the deposition before mediation, citing the limited scope of discovery, the lack of a need to incur additional costs before mediation, and counsel’s scheduling limitations. They agreed to provide dates for a deposition after mediation.
The defendants also argued that producing the email did not waive attorney-client privilege because the production was made in response to the court-ordered limited discovery and the email did not provide legal advice. Alternatively, they asked that any waiver be limited. The defendants also stated that the parties had agreed to supplement discovery requests and responses, while reserving their right to raise continuing problems with the plaintiff’s interrogatory responses.
Court’s action
The court granted the request for a conference and scheduled a telephone conference for January 31, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. to address the issues raised in the letter. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 28. The opinion does not resolve whether additional documents must be produced, whether attorney-client privilege was waived, or when the deposition must occur.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.