Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-02778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chapman v. City Winery NY-Pier 57, Judge Garnett partly granted and partly denied a discovery request, compelling three depositions and extending fact discovery.
Opt-in plaintiffs Anthony Santana, Denise Luna, and Prescilla Perkins were ordered to appear for depositions and confirm their availability. City Winery NY-Pier 57, LLC received additional time for those depositions and permission to request alternate depositions and claim dismissals if a compelled plaintiff does not comply.
What happened
In Chapman et al. v. City Winery NY-Pier 57, LLC, the defendant asked the court to require opt-in plaintiffs Denise Luna, Anthony Santana, and Prescilla Perkins to attend depositions. It also asked for more time to complete depositions, permission to depose replacement opt-in plaintiffs if necessary, dismissal with prejudice if the three did not participate, and a later conference date.
The defendant said it had tried to schedule the depositions but could not confirm the availability of Luna, Santana, and Perkins. Plaintiff’s counsel opposed extending the deadline, saying the circumstances did not meet the court’s standard for an extension. The defendant said the depositions were needed for anticipated motions for summary judgment and to end the collective-action treatment of the case.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the request in part and denied it in part. She ordered Santana, Luna, and Perkins to appear for depositions and to confirm their availability at least three days before each deposition. She extended fact discovery until May 31, 2024, only to complete those depositions, and moved the post-discovery conference to June 27, 2024. The court warned that their claims may be dismissed if they do not comply, but only after they have an opportunity to be heard; it also allowed the defendant to request depositions of alternate opt-in plaintiffs and dismissal of claims if a compelled plaintiff does not confirm or attend.
The detailed version
- Chapman v. City Winery NY - Pier 57, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02778
- Garnett
- Apr. 25, 2024
Background
The defendant submitted a letter concerning a discovery dispute in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The defendant had noticed depositions of six opt-in plaintiffs: Anthony Santana, Daniel Brooks, Denise Luna, Julines Irizarry, Prescilla Perkins, and Jason Vogel. The letter states that Irizarry withdrew from the case on April 4, 2024.
The parties confirmed deposition dates for Brooks, Luna, and Vogel, but the defendant said plaintiff’s counsel could not confirm Santana’s availability and did not respond about Perkins. The previously scheduled deposition of Luna was also canceled after counsel said they had been unable to contact her. The defendant then asked the court to compel Luna, Santana, and Perkins to appear, extend the opt-in discovery deadline from April 22 to May 22, allow an alternate opt-in plaintiff to be deposed for each nonappearing plaintiff, and dismiss the nonappearing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
The defendant characterized this as its second request to extend the opt-in discovery deadline. It said the depositions were needed for an anticipated motion for summary judgment and a motion to decertify the collective. Plaintiff’s counsel opposed the requested extension, according to the letter.
Court’s orders
The court marked the discovery request “GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” It ordered Santana, Luna, and Perkins to appear for depositions and to confirm their availability at least three days before any scheduled deposition.
The court extended fact discovery until May 31, 2024, solely to complete the depositions of those opt-in plaintiffs. This was a different deadline from the defendant’s requested May 22 extension. The court also adjourned the post-discovery conference from May 23 to June 27, 2024.
The court warned that the claims of a compelled opt-in plaintiff who does not appear may be dismissed, but stated that the plaintiff would have an opportunity to be heard before dismissal. The court ordered defense counsel to promptly request permission to depose an alternate opt-in plaintiff and to seek dismissal of the nonappearing plaintiff’s claims if a compelled plaintiff does not confirm the deposition as ordered or does not appear. The order does not itself dismiss any plaintiff’s claims.
Classification and scope
This is a procedural discovery order, not a decision on the merits of the underlying claims. The provided order text is partially garbled in places, but its stated disposition and the listed directives are clear.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.