De La Cruz v. Motiwala
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-10403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In De La Cruz v. Motiwala, Judge Willis denied sanctions, compelled one class list, extended discovery, and set briefing deadlines.
Rafael De La Cruz, the defendants, and their counsel; the order requires the defendants to produce the fourth-business class list or provide a sworn explanation, sets a discovery deadline, and sets briefing deadlines.
What happened
In De La Cruz v. Motiwala, Rafael De La Cruz asked for more time for fact discovery, a schedule for his planned motion to conditionally certify a collective action, and an order requiring the defendants to provide discovery or face sanctions. The defendants sought a limited discovery extension and sanctions against De La Cruz.
The court denied the defendants’ request for sanctions and denied De La Cruz’s request for the defendants’ tax returns. It granted De La Cruz’s request for documents about the defendants’ fourth business and ordered production of the related class list by April 18, 2024, or a sworn explanation. The court denied an eight-month extension but extended fact discovery to May 3, 2024. De La Cruz’s motion was granted in part, and the defendants’ motion was denied. The court also set deadlines for briefing on De La Cruz’s planned collective-certification motion.
Judge Willis stated that the court was disappointed with both sides’ counsel and warned that future requests could be denied if counsel did not confer in good faith. The order addressed discovery and scheduling; it did not decide whether the proposed collective action should be conditionally certified.
The detailed version
- De La Cruz v. Motiwala · No. 1:22-cv-10403
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 5, 2024
Background
Rafael De La Cruz asked the court to: (1) extend fact discovery from April 1, 2024, to December 1, 2024; (2) set a briefing schedule for his anticipated motion for conditional collective certification; and (3) compel discovery from the defendants or impose sanctions. The defendants opposed those requests, sought a limited discovery extension, and requested sanctions based on conduct during depositions.
Rulings on Sanctions and Discovery
The court denied the defendants’ request for sanctions. De La Cruz had agreed to appear for another deposition, and the court expected that deposition to occur during the discovery period. If the parties could not agree on a date, the court said it would set one without regard to counsel’s or the deponent’s schedules.
De La Cruz sought the defendants’ tax returns, including the returns of Bahit H. Motiwala. The court stated that tax returns may be ordered in civil litigation only when they are relevant and there is a compelling need because the information is unavailable from other sources. The court found that De La Cruz had not established relevance or need, so it denied the request for the tax returns.
De La Cruz also sought a complete class list for all four of the defendants’ disclosed businesses. The defendants were prepared to provide lists for three businesses but objected to producing information about a fourth business that they said had closed more than four years earlier and where De La Cruz had never worked. The court found that the fourth business’s list could be relevant because there was a factual dispute about whether De La Cruz began working for the defendants in 2017 or 2022. The court therefore granted the request to compel documents related to that business and ordered the defendants to produce the list by April 18, 2024, or provide a sworn affidavit explaining why they could not meet the deadline. The court warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Discovery Extension and Briefing Schedule
The court found no good cause for the requested eight-month extension. It nevertheless extended the fact-discovery deadline to May 3, 2024, because of the court-ordered discovery and the likelihood of a resulting dispute. The court stated that it was unlikely to grant another extension absent extraordinarily good cause.
The court set the following schedule for De La Cruz’s anticipated motion for conditional collective certification: the motion was due May 1, 2024; the defendants’ opposition was due May 29, 2024; and any reply was due June 12, 2024.
Disposition and Classification
The court stated that docketed motion 79 was GRANTED in part and motion 86 was DENIED. The order denied sanctions against the defendants, denied the request for tax returns, granted the request for the fourth-business class list, and granted only a limited discovery extension. It did not decide the anticipated collective-certification motion or the merits of the underlying claims. This is a procedural order concerning discovery, sanctions, and scheduling.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.