West v. Lasership, Inc.

Background

This order concerns discovery in a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On April 4, 2024, the court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request for conditional certification of the proposed collective action. The court also ordered LaserShip, Inc. to produce, if the information was in its possession, custody, or control, the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of subcontractor drivers at LaserShip’s Queens, Mineola, and Port Chester locations from June 17, 2018, to the present.

The April 4 order directed the parties to meet and confer about the most efficient production format and a reasonable production schedule. It also required them to file a joint letter by May 6, 2024, reporting on the status of the contact-information production and any remaining discovery.

LaserShip’s Objection and Noncompliance

LaserShip filed an objection to the April 4 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). That objection was pending before District Judge Laura T. Swain. LaserShip’s objection did not request a stay, meaning a pause, of the discovery obligations. LaserShip also did not request a stay in the parties’ May 6 joint letter.

In that letter, LaserShip stated that it had not produced any contact information because of its objection. The letter also did not address the status of any remaining discovery. The court explained that an objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery order does not excuse compliance when no stay has been granted.

Ruling

The court held that LaserShip violated the April 4 order by failing to fulfill its discovery obligations. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to file, by May 14, 2024, a joint letter of no more than three pages reporting on two matters: LaserShip’s compliance with the April 4 discovery obligations and the status of any remaining discovery.