De Henriquez v. William James Bushell Corp.

Background

Kevin de Henriquez brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. He alleged that, during his employment from approximately March 17, 2022, through January 5, 2023, he worked more than 40 hours each week but received straight-time pay rather than overtime pay for hours over 40. He brought the case as a proposed federal wage collective action and a proposed class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The clerk entered a certificate of default against William James Bushell Corp. d/b/a Radiant Solar on August 24, 2023. The court then directed the plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment by October 4, 2023, if the defendant had not appeared. The plaintiff moved under Rule 26(d) for permission to begin discovery before the parties held their required discovery-planning conference. He requested records concerning the business, current and former employees, timesheets, payroll, and tax information; testimony from a company representative; and subpoenas to the defendant’s bank, payroll vendor, and other entities.

Court’s analysis

Rule 26(d)(1) generally prohibits discovery before the parties’ required conference unless the court authorizes it. The court applied a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard and found that the plaintiff met that standard. The complaint appeared to adequately allege overtime violations under the federal and New York laws. The plaintiff also alleged that similarly situated employees were paid in the same way.

The court explained that a defaulting defendant does not automatically concede that a proposed class should be certified. Before entering default judgment on behalf of a class, the court must independently determine whether the requirements for class certification are met. The court therefore found good cause for limited discovery to identify potential class members, address the class-certification requirements, and determine damages.

The court limited the discovery. It concluded that the plaintiff had not shown why the requested information could not be obtained through written records alone. The court therefore denied the motion to the extent it sought a deposition of a company representative under Rule 30(b)(6). The opinion also noted that the complaint referred to both federal and New York wage-law claims, but the two formal claims for relief alleged only federal-law violations.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for early discovery. It stayed the effect of the order until October 4, 2023, to give the defendant time to appear and seek to set aside the entry of default. For good cause, the court relieved the plaintiff from having to file a default-judgment motion by October 4. The court stated that it would set discovery limits and a deadline for a default-judgment motion at the October 4 hearing.