Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 6, 2023

Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-02778
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
DiscoveryClass ActionFlsa
In one sentence

In Chapman v. City Winery, Judge Schofield ordered some wage-case discovery, denied other requests without prejudice, and extended fact discovery.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the one opt-in plaintiff, the defendant City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC, and potential class members affected by the discovery deadlines and production orders.

What happened

Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC is a wage-and-hour case brought by a server under federal and New York law. The plaintiff sought information about other employees and the defendant’s possible good-faith defenses while the case’s class and collective-action issues remained pending.

The court ordered the defendant to produce seven categories of documents it had agreed to provide. It denied without prejudice, as premature, the request for discovery about potential class members, but granted the request for discovery concerning the defendant’s good-faith defenses.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield required the defense-related discovery by October 19, 2023, extended the fact-discovery deadline to November 17, 2023, and stated that no further extensions would be granted absent compelling circumstances.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02778
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 6, 2023

Background

The plaintiff filed a proposed collective and class action alleging that City Winery violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York law. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant improperly calculated overtime using the New York tip-credit minimum wage, failed to pay for all overtime and other hours worked, used the tip credit when tipped employees performed too much non-tipped work, and failed to provide legally compliant wage statements.

The plaintiff served discovery requests on June 27, 2023. After the defendant provided written responses and documents, the plaintiff raised deficiencies and the parties met and conferred. The defendant agreed to produce seven categories of documents, including schedules, communications through the scheduling application, timekeeping manuals and instructions, records of time-record adjustments, non-privileged statements about the claims and defenses, the document-retention policy, and a privilege log.

Disputed Discovery

Two categories remained disputed. First, the plaintiff sought information about putative class members, including their identities, pay and time records, schedules, job duties, side work, managers, and possible releases of claims. The plaintiff argued that this information was relevant to whether the proposed class met the requirements for certification, including whether employees experienced common pay and timekeeping practices.

Second, the plaintiff sought documents related to the defendant’s good-faith affirmative defenses. These requests concerned other wage-and-hour claims or actions, employee complaints, wage-and-hour investigations, and legal rulings or government decisions on which the defendant relied in assessing its compensation practices. The plaintiff also argued that any attorney-client privilege objection had been waived by asserting those defenses.

Ruling

The court ordered the defendant to produce the seven categories of documents it had agreed to produce by October 6, 2023. The court denied without prejudice as premature the plaintiff’s request to compel discovery relating to putative class members. The court granted the plaintiff’s request to compel discovery relating to the defendant’s good-faith defenses and ordered production by October 19, 2023.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield extended the fact-discovery deadline to November 17, 2023. The court stated that an amended case-management plan would issue separately and that no further extensions would be granted absent compelling circumstances.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.