Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC

Background

Plaintiff’s letter states that this is a proposed collective and class action asserting wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York law. Plaintiff worked as a server for City Winery and alleges that the defendant improperly calculated overtime pay, failed to pay for all hours worked, improperly used the tip credit when employees performed substantial non-tipped work, and failed to provide legally compliant wage statements. The opinion text also states that Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the wage-statement claim were pending.

Discovery dispute

Plaintiff served discovery requests on June 27, 2023. After written responses and document production, Plaintiff raised alleged deficiencies and eventually met with defense counsel on September 26, 2023. The parties resolved some issues, with the defendant agreeing to produce certain documents by October 6, 2023, if they existed. The unresolved disputes concerned information about proposed class members and documents relevant to the defendant’s asserted good-faith defenses.

Plaintiff asked the court to require production of information and documents concerning the identities and number of proposed class members, their pay and time records, schedules, job duties, non-tipped work, timekeeping practices, managers, complaints, investigations, other wage-and-hour claims, and materials on which the defendant relied in deciding that its pay practices were lawful. Plaintiff also renewed a request for a 30-day discovery extension after the later of October 6 or another deadline set for the defendant’s production. Plaintiff acknowledged that the court had denied an earlier extension request on September 27, 2023.

Order

The provided text shows an order stating: “Defendant shall file a response, not to exceed three pages, by October 4, 2023.” Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order on October 2, 2023. The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied Plaintiff’s discovery requests, entered the parties’ proposed agreement, or ruled on the requested discovery extension. It therefore reflects a direction for a response rather than a decision on the underlying claims or the disputed discovery.