Alequin v. Darden Rests., Inc.
Alequin v. Darden Rests., Inc.
2013 WL 12036382 (S.D. Fla. 2013)
November 18, 2013
Seltzer, Barry S., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Compel as moot, and sustained Defendants' objections to certain requests for production and Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Topics. Discovery was limited to personnel files, work schedule data, clock in and clock out data, food and drink order data, cash out data, and wage compensation data in Microsoft Excel or similarly usable format. The parties were directed to confer to reach agreement on the methodology and size of the discovery sample.
Additional Decisions
Nicole Alequin, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., Defendants
v.
Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., Defendants
CASE NO. 12-61742-CIV-ROSENBAUM/SELTZER
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division
Signed November 18, 2013
Counsel
Alex Pisarevsky, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Hermann & Knopf, LLP, NJ, Barbara E. Olk, Stan Gutgarts, Ted Trief, Caitlin Duffy, Trief & Olk, Shelly L. Friedland, Rief and Olk, New York, NY, David Adelsberg, Peter S. Pearlman, Erika R. Piccirillo, Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Hermann & Koopf, LLP, Saddle Brook, NJ, David Henry Lichter, Lichter Law Firm PA, J. Paxton Marshall, Higer, Lichter & Givner, Aventura, FL, David Adelsberg, Erika R. Piccirillo, Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Hermann & Koopf, LLP, Saddle Brook, NJ, for Plaintiffs.Aaron Jarett Reed, Jessica Theresa Travers, Patrick Gerald Deblasio, III, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Miami, FL, Amy S. Ramsey, Michael J. Lehet, John A. Ybarra, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Matthew J. Gagnon, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Chicago, IL, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Anne M. Mellen, Breanne M. Sheetz, Elizabeth Tempio Clement, Holly E. Rich, Jennifer Schilling, Kevin Little, Leigh Ann Bigley, Melissa L. McDonagh, Paul Weiner, Stephen B. Rotter, Carlos Jimenez, E. Ashley Sims, Catherine S. Lindemann, Littler Mendelson, P.C., for Defendants.
Seltzer, Barry S., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 THIS CAUSE came before the Court on a hearing related to the parties' discovery motions: Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of ESI by Defendants and for Related Relief (Dkt. 608); Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants and for Related Relief (Dkt. 623); Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Withdrawal of Defendants' 30(b)(6) Objections (Dkt. 250); Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 245); Defendants' Amended Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 625); Defendants' Motion to Compel (Dkt. 304) and Defendants' Amended Motion to Compel (Dkt. 626); and for a hearing on the parties' proposed methods for determining the number of opt-in plaintiffs in the representative sample for purposes of proceeding with document discovery related to the individual plaintiffs and the parties' proposed methods for selecting the particular representatives on October 28, 2013 (Dkt. 436, 525). The Court having reviewed the file and considered arguments from the parties, and being otherwise duly advised, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order at Dkt. 245 is denied as moot by Defendants' Amended Motion for Protective Order at Dkt. 625.
2. Defendants' Motion to Compel at Dkt. 304 is denied as moot by Defendants' Amended Motion to Compel at Dkt. 626.
3. Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 5(a-m, q-v, y), 6, 7(a-b, h), and 42, and Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Topics 1, 4(a-m, q-v, y), 5, 6(a-b, h), 26, and 28 as mooted by the parties' enterprise coverage stipulation (Dkt. 303) are sustained.
4. Discovery is limited to those Opt-In Plaintiffs who are part of the sample set ultimately agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the Court (“Sample Opt-In Plaintiffs”). This discovery specifically includes, but is not limited to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 12 and 13 and Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Defendants agreed to produce the following documents and data sets for each Sample Opt-In Plaintiff: (i) personnel files in PDF format, (ii) work schedule data, in Microsoft Excel or similarly usable format; (iii) clock in and clock out data, in Microsoft Excel or similarly usable format; (iv) food and drink order data, in Microsoft Excel or similarly usable format; (v) cash out data, in Microsoft Excel or similarly usable format; and (vi) wage compensation data, in Microsoft Excel or similarly usable format. Defendants' objections are sustained with respect to the following categories of documents which Defendants need not produce (i) work schedule data for Opt-Ins except for the Sample Opt-In Plaintiffs, and (ii) schedule data for Plaintiffs and Opt-Ins before July 2012. In addition to responding to the foregoing requests as they relate to the Sample Opt-In Plaintiffs, Defendants agreed to respond to Plaintiffs' October 21, 2013 correspondence regarding the manner in which they calculated wages owed, or allegedly owed, to specific Opt-In Plaintiffs.
*2 5. Discovery in connection with manager discipline and termination is limited to managers who supervised Sample Opt-In Plaintiffs during the relevant period. This discovery specifically includes, but is not limited to: Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production No. 28; and Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Topic 18.
6. Discovery in connection with internal complaints and investigations, as well as state department of labor investigations, is limited to the restaurant locations where Sample Opt-In Plaintiffs worked during the relevant period. This discovery specifically includes, but is not limited to: Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 25 and 32; and Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Topics 15 and 21.
7. With regard to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production No. 8, Plaintiffs are directed to review the supplemental organization charts produced by Defendants, which Defendants agreed to produce on or before November 1, 2013. Plaintiffs shall review these organizational charts and meet and confer with Defendants on those positions for which they believe job descriptions are critical to additional relevant discovery in this matter.
8. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Withdrawal of 30(b)(6) Objections at Dkt. 250, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of ESI at Dkt. 608, Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Dkt. 623, Defendants' Amended Motion for Protective Order at Dkt. 625, and Defendants' Amended Motion to Compel at Dkt. 626 are otherwise denied as moot by this Order. If the parties believe any issues in these motions are not moot, they shall continue to meet and confer in good faith to resolve them. To the extent not mooted by this Order and not resolved by continued meet and confer, the parties may renew their motion(s) to raise the issues with the Court.
9. With regard to discovery sampling, the parties are directed to confer with their experts and with one another in an attempt to reach agreement as to the methodology to be employed and the acceptable size of the discovery sample of Opt-In Plaintiffs (the parties have agreed that number will be between 350 and 1,000), and the factors to be applied to determine the make-up of the sample. The parties will also consider how to address any recalcitrant Sample Opt-In Plaintiffs (i.e., those that cannot or refuse to participate), and whether a “cushion” is needed beyond the ultimate sample size selected by the parties. These issues shall be decided by the Court if the parties cannot agree. After the close of the opt-in period, the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery order similar to the order entered by the court in Jewell v. Aarons, Inc., 1:12-cv-00563-AT (N.D. Ga.).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of November, 2013.