Severino v. Avondale Care Group, LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:21-cv-10720
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Severino v. Avondale Care Group, Judge Aaron partly granted and partly denied plaintiffs’ discovery motion and granted sealing of redacted information.
The order affected plaintiffs Keila Severino, Khady Gueye, and Delsa Jimenez; opt-in plaintiffs; and Avondale Care Group, LLC. It required Avondale to produce specified discovery and permitted sealing of redacted personal contact and patient information.
What happened
In Severino v. Avondale Care Group, LLC, Keila Severino, Khady Gueye, and Delsa Jimenez sued Avondale under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, individually and for others similarly situated.
The plaintiffs asked the court to require Avondale to provide documents and information about opt-in plaintiffs, former coordinators, other wage-and-hour litigation, and Avondale’s organizational structure. They also sought sealing of redacted information in two exhibits.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the discovery motion in part and denied it in part. He ordered Avondale to produce specified materials within 21 days, granted the request to seal the redacted information, and directed the parties to propose a revised discovery schedule.
The detailed version
- Severino v. Avondale Care Group, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-10720
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 12, 2023
Background
Keila Severino, Khady Gueye, and Delsa Jimenez brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Avondale Care Group, LLC, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court considered the plaintiffs’ letter motion to compel discovery.
Discovery Rulings
The court granted the letter motion in part and denied it in part.
1. For the first disputed issue—payroll records, duty sheets, caregiver notes, benefits, and compensation—the court ordered Avondale to produce the requested documents and information concerning all opt-in plaintiffs within 21 days. The court found those materials relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
2. For the second issue—coordinator job descriptions and contact information—the court ordered Avondale to provide the names and last-known contact information for former coordinators who supervised the plaintiffs within 21 days. The court found that the requests were permitted discovery and proportional to the needs of the case. Avondale had agreed to provide the coordinators’ job descriptions.
3. For the third issue—non-public documents from Avondale’s other wage-and-hour litigation—the court said the portion concerning court-filed actions was largely no longer disputed because of Avondale’s response. Avondale had to produce unredacted copies of certain Delfina Rodriguez deposition transcripts. It also had to produce interrogatory responses served by Avondale in the Rodriguez and Sanfo actions, but only if those responses contained substantive information beyond witness identities and damages calculations. If the responses contained only witness identities or damages calculations, Avondale could state that and would not have to produce them. For 19 identified arbitrations related to the Mejia action, Avondale had to produce arbitration demands, issued awards, and executed settlement agreements within 21 days, subject to the confidentiality order in this case. The court found these materials relevant and proportional.
4. For the fourth issue, the court ordered Avondale to produce the requested organizational chart within 21 days, finding it relevant and proportional.
Sealing and Further Schedule
The court granted the parties’ joint request to seal the redacted information in Exhibits 3 and 4. It found the redactions and sealing requests narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized dissemination of personal contact and patient information.
The parties were directed to meet and confer about a revised schedule for completing opt-in discovery and all other discovery. They had to file a proposed revised schedule by April 21, 2023. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the order on April 12, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.