Mbaye v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-02967
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mbaye v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Judge Ho ordered defendants to respond by May 30 to plaintiffs’ discovery letter, without deciding the requests.
The order affects the plaintiffs and defendants in Mbaye v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. by setting a deadline for defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ discovery letter; it does not resolve the underlying discovery requests.
What happened
In Mbaye v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants to produce Mostapha Diop, also known as Modou Thiam, for a deposition and to provide fuller answers to three interrogatories. The discovery concerns bathroom attendants and defendants’ alleged classification practices.
The plaintiffs argued that Thiam was a managing agent who could testify for defendants because of his alleged authority over bathroom attendants and his relationship with defendants. They also sought information about bathroom attendants at nightclubs outside New York, which they said was relevant to a possible nationwide collective or class action.
Judge Dale E. Ho did not decide the discovery requests in this order. Instead, the court allowed defendants to file a response of no more than four pages by May 30, 2024.
The detailed version
- Mbaye v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02967
- Ho
- May 24, 2024
What the plaintiffs requested
The plaintiffs submitted a letter asking the court to compel two forms of discovery:
1. They asked defendants to produce Mostapha Diop, also known as Modou Thiam, for a deposition. 2. They asked defendants to provide full, non-objection-based responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, and 5.
Arguments about Mr. Thiam
The plaintiffs argued that Thiam qualified as a “managing agent” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1). A managing agent is an individual whose authority, responsibilities, and connection to a company may permit the opposing party to take the individual’s deposition without treating the person as an ordinary outside witness.
The plaintiffs relied on defendants’ court filings, discovery responses, text messages, and statements by defendants’ counsel. According to the plaintiffs, those materials showed that Thiam had scheduled and assigned bathroom attendants, had significant responsibility for them, and was currently an employee responsible for scheduling them. The plaintiffs also asserted that Thiam had exclusive or primary knowledge about the bathroom attendants’ work and that there was no evidence his interests were adverse to defendants’ interests.
The letter described these points as support for a preliminary conclusion that Thiam was defendants’ managing agent. The court did not decide that issue in the order.
The interrogatories and requested information
The plaintiffs said the interrogatories sought information about bathroom attendants who worked at defendants’ businesses, including their names, schedules, pay rates, job descriptions, and managers’ identities. The plaintiffs stated that defendants’ counsel had said defendants would not produce discovery about bathroom attendants who worked at nightclubs outside New York.
The plaintiffs argued that information from all of defendants’ nightclubs was important to developing the factual basis for a possible nationwide collective action or class action. The court did not decide whether defendants had to provide the requested information or whether any objections were valid.
What the court did
The order did not grant or deny the motion to compel. Judge Dale E. Ho directed that defendants may file a response, limited to four pages, by May 30, 2024. The supplied text contains no later ruling on the requested deposition or interrogatory responses.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.