Totenberg, Amy, United States District Judge
Trial court denied defendant’s motion for court approval of discovery requests where defendant requested that an entire class of 87 plaintiffs produce every social media posting over a period of four years. The court found that the burden imposed on plaintiffs the far outweighed the possibility of relevant information that the defendants hoped to find.
Plaintiffs were all employees of Aaron’s, Inc. and alleged that they did not receive bona fide meal periods as required by statute because plaintiffs “had too many work pressures.” Aaron’s, Inc. was anonymously informed that named plaintiff Jewell often posted to Facebook during work hours. Defendant requested the following of the other 86 plaintiffs to prove that they posted on social media sites while on lunch break:
All documents, statements, or any activity available that you posted on any internet Web site or Web page, including, but not limited to, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, or a blog from 2009 to the present during your working hours at an Aaron’s store.
Plaintiffs responded that this request for production was unduly burdensome, in part because they would have to compare the times of the posts with the plaintiffs’ schedules for each day for four years. The court called upon it’s ability to limit discovery where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit and held that:
[E]xemplar evidence of Kurtis Jewell’s Facebook activity does not persuade the Court that the Facebook postings will show, contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, that they were not forced to work through their meal periods. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that whether or not an opt-in plaintiff made a Facebook post during work may have no bearing on whether or not the opt-in plaintiff received a bona fide meal period as defined [by statute].
v.
AARON'S, INC. Defendant
Counsel
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Lazzaro Law Firm, Cleveland, OH, Gary B. Andrews, Jr., Andrews & Stembridge, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Jason Robert Bristol, Cohen, Rosenthal & Kramer, Cleveland, OH, Thomas Andrew Downie, Thomas A. Downie, Attorney at Law, Chagrin Falls, OH, for Plaintiff.Brett Christopher Bartlett, Jeffrey Lawrence Glaser, Jeffrey Lawrence Glaser, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.
ORDER
Answer. If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
*4 [a] court can limit discovery if it determines, among other things, that the discovery is: (1) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; (2) obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. The district court enjoys broad discretion when resolving discovery disputes, which should be exercised by determining the relevance of discovery requests, assessing oppressiveness, and weighing these factors in deciding whether discovery should be compelled.
[g]iven the prevalence of social media today and the ability to post on personal social media accounts and blogs from personal smart phones, it is likely that many of the opt-in plaintiffs have made posts ... Some of the posts may directly show that the poster was taking a lunch break at the time. The date and time stamp of other posts may indicate that the poster spent a chunk of 30 minutes or more during the work day engaged in a series of successive personal posts such that there is a 30 minute period of that opt-in plaintiff's work day that, regardless of whether the opt-in plaintiff actually ate a meal, is appropriately excluded from the compensable time of that opt-in plaintiff.”