*1 Dear Counsel:

This case was referred to me for all discovery and related scheduling on February 13, 2020. ECF No. 37. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel on June 17, 2020. ECF No. 56. In the process of meet and confer, the parties have narrowed the issue for the Court, specifically to the time period for disclosure of documents and responses. ECF No. 56. I have reviewed the pleadings in this case. This matter is fully briefed and there is no need for a hearing. Local Rule 105.6.

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and document requests required responses limited to the period of January 1, 2011, through the present. ECF No. 56-2 at 3. Defendant Transdev objected to the time period as not reasonable and offered to limit the time period to January 1, 2016, through July 19, 2019. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to specify why Plaintiffs’ time period is unreasonable and simply substituted their own time period without basis. Id. Defendant responds that Plaintiffs have the burden to establish relevancy and proportionality, relying on a decision of this Court. Bost v. Wexford Health Services Inc., No. ELH-15-3278, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66670, at *21(D. Md. Apr. 15, 2020).

Rule 26 provides that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). The Court agrees with Defendant. The party seeking discovery has the burden to establish its relevancy and proportionality, at which point the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to demonstrate why the discovery should not be permitted. Bost, supra. (first citing Mach. Sols. Inc. v. Doosan Infracore Am. Corp., 323 F.R.D. 522, 526 (D.S.C. 2018), then citing United Oil Co. v. Parts Ass'n, 227 F.R.D. 404, 411 (D. Md. 2005)).

The Court first looks to Plaintiffs to determine whether Plaintiffs have established the relevancy and proportionality of their requests with respect to the relevant time period at issue. In their motion, Plaintiffs incorrectly argue that the burden should be on Defendant to object more specifically to the time period. Plaintiffs allege that contracts and subcontracts at the heart of this case were executed before January 1, 2016, and certain Plaintiffs’ work began before January 1, 2016. ECF No. 56-2 at 4. Plaintiffs offer no further explanation and no specific dates for those contracts of employment periods.

Defendant argues Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish relevancy or proportionality. ECF No. 56-3 at 4. Defendant relies on the statute of limitations for this action, limiting the time period to the three years encapsulating the relevant time period. Id. Defendant also points out that the Conditional Certification for anyone as a driver under the subcontracts begins on November 18, 2016. Defendant has offered to open discovery from January 1, 2016, through July 19, 2016, giving Plaintiffs an additional 10 months of discovery. Id. Defendant asked Plaintiff to further justify their extended discovery period and Plaintiffs declined to respond. Id.

*2 In Reply, Plaintiffs argue that documents and information associated with the contracts and subcontracts created before January 1, 2016, are relevant and proportional because they may include information provided to governmental authorities to show compliance with living wage laws; bear on Defendant's status as a joint employer; bear upon the issue of willfulness under the FLSA; bear upon good faith and the potential existence or a bona fide dispute under Maryland law. ECF No. 56-4 at 3. More notably to the Court, Plaintiffs allege that some of the employees began their employment as early as October 2014. Id. at 4.

The conditions of employment at issue with respect to these earlier employed Plaintiffs are relevant. While the other arguments fall outside the statutory period and would otherwise not be relevant, the fact that there were Plaintiffs employed in the October 2014 through January 1, 2016, time period salvages those arguments as relevant to this litigation. Relevance however, is balanced with proportionality. Plaintiffs may discover the requested information from October 2014 through January 1, 2016, that is directly related to these earlier employed Plaintiffs. To be clear, Defendant must disclose documents and requested information that may include information provided to governmental authorities to show compliance with living wage laws; bear on Defendant's status as a joint employer; bear upon the issue of willfulness under the FLSA; bear upon good faith and the potential existence of a bona fide dispute under Maryland law as to these earlier employed Plaintiffs from October 2014. The Court is limiting these disclosures based upon Plaintiffs’ Reply which provided the only justification to extend the discovery period.

District courts have “wide latitude in controlling discovery and [their] rulings will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Ardrey v. United Parcel Serv., 798 F.2d 679, 683 (4th Cir. 1986); Middleton v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 10–2529, 2012 WL 3612572, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2012). The latitude given to district courts “extends as well to the manner in which [they] order the course and scope of discovery.” Ardrey v. United Parcel Serv., 798 F.2d 679, 683 (4th Cir. 1996).

Applying the standards set forth above, I find that Plaintiffs have met their burden, in part, as to the relevance and proportionality of the requested discovery. In reviewing the facts in this case and the pleadings, the relevant time period for disclosure is from October 2014 through July 19, 2019. In order to comply with proportionality, Plaintiffs requests regarding the period of October 2014 through January 1, 2016, should be confined to information related to these earlier employees. If the Plaintiffs had not provided the facts to support the employment of several of the Plaintiffs beginning in October 2014, the Court would have denied the motion to compel. The Court also notes there was no practical basis shown to support Plaintiffs’ original request for the time period beginning in 2011 through July 2019. The original request was not proportional to the needs of the case. The Court commends the parties on their hard work to limit the motion to compel to this single issue.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with this Order.

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and will be docketed accordingly.