Cabrera v. Anyelisa Rest. Corp. d/b/a Justine Restaurant

Background

Yvelisse Cabrera brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, alleging that Anyelisa Restaurant Corporation doing business as Justine Restaurant and Ruben Dichardo failed to pay overtime and minimum wages and failed to provide accurate wage notices and wage statements.

Defendants did not respond to the original complaint, and the court entered a certificate of default. Cabrera later filed an amended complaint but was unable to serve it. The process server found that the business was no longer operating at 28 East 167th Street. Information from an employee and Cabrera indicated that the restaurant had moved to 40 East 167th Street, but an employee and manager there said the business was called El Justine and was not affiliated with the defendants. City business-license records also did not list a restaurant at that address under the names Justine or Anyelisa.

Motion and legal standard

Cabrera moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) for permission to seek discovery before the defendants answered and before the parties held their required discovery-planning conference. She requested documents concerning the business entity operating El Justine, any sale between Justine and El Justine, and related asset transfers. She also requested a deposition of a representative who could testify about those entities and any sale.

Rule 26(d)(1) generally prohibits discovery before the parties’ required conference unless the court allows it. The court applied a flexible good-cause standard, considering whether Cabrera showed a plausible legal claim, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed to advance her claims, and whether the information implicated privacy interests.

Ruling

The court held that those requirements were satisfied for the document request. It found that the amended complaint made a sufficient initial showing of actionable harm, that the request was specific, that the information was needed to advance Cabrera’s claims, and that she had shown no alternative way to obtain it. The court therefore granted in part Cabrera’s motion and permitted her to serve a subpoena for documents.

The court denied the deposition request without prejudice. It explained that the documents might show either that El Justine was another business name for the defendants or that the defendants could be served at another address, in which case a deposition might not be necessary.

The court granted Cabrera’s requests to postpone the deadline for filing and serving her default-judgment motion and to extend the time for serving the papers. It scheduled a telephonic status conference for April 7, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., to set a new deadline. Judge Lewis J. Liman stated that the motion was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.