*1 On September 27, 2020, plaintiff Feng Cai Wang commenced this action as a putative class and collective action against corporate defendants You Garden Dumpling Inc., d/b/a Shanghai You Garden; You Garden Xiao Long Bao Inc., d/b/a Shanghai You Garden; Golden Roast, Inc., d/b/a Corner 28; and Gao and Yuen 28 LLC, and individual defendants Yuen Fan, Alan Gao, Shukwan Li, a/k/a Shu Kwan Li, Xiaoyun Shang, a/k/a Xiao Yun Shang, and Victoria Fan-Li, a/k/a Victoria Fan, a/k/a Victoria Li (collectively, “defendants”), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 190 et seq. and 650, et seq. (Compl.[1]) On November 30, 2020, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, naming as additional corporate defendants Shanghai You Garden, Inc. d/b/a Shanghai You Garden Dumpling House, You Garden Inc. also d/b/a Shanghai You Garden Dumpling House, Dumpling Times Inc. d/b/a Shanghai You Garden, and Roast 28 Inc. d/b/a Corner 28, and individual defendants Xiu Feng Gao and Yang Gao (together with the original defendants, collectively “defendants”). (Am. Compl.[2])[3]

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants operate various restaurants, that they coordinate and for which they share employees. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 40). Plaintiff herself worked as a pastry maker at Shanghai You Garden and Shanghai You Garden Dumpling House. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 34). Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to pay similarly situated workers an accurate minimum wage, spread of hours pay, and an overtime rate for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours each week, and failed to provide them with wage notices and statements. (See id. ¶¶ 90, 111, 117, 123, 128, 133, 137).

On November 1, 2021, this Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action. (Collective Order[4]). In that Order, the Court conditionally certified a collective “limited to employees who worked as pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs in the You Garden Restaurants,” which are defined as the Shanghai You Garden Dumpling House, located at 135-33 40th Road, Flushing, NY 11354, and the Shanghai You Garden, located at 41-07 Bell Boulevard, Bayside, NY 11361. (Id. at 17–19). The “Corner 28 Restaurants” refer to those restaurants located at 135-24 40th Road, Flushing, NY 11354, and 5124 8th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11220, which were excluded from the collective. (Id. at 18–19). According to the docket, no additional plaintiff has since opted in.

*2 Several discovery disputes have now arisen. On August 19, 2022, plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking to compel defendants’ responses to a deficiency letter and requesting permission to conduct pre-class discovery. (Pl.’s Aug. Ltr.[5]). Thereafter, plaintiff wrote to the Court in November, seeking an extension of time until January 15, 2023 to complete additional depositions. (Pl.’s Nov. Ltr.[6]). Each of these issues will be dealt with in turn.

I. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

On August 19, 2022, plaintiff filed her motion to compel. In moving to compel additional responses to her discovery requests, plaintiff explains that she filed the first set of requests on April 5, 2021,[7] and received defendants’ responses on May 20, 2021. (Pl.’s Aug. Ltr at 1). Plaintiff complains that defendants improperly relied on boilerplate objections to her requests. (Id.) She also complains that defendants failed to provide separate responses for each defendant and that their responses were unverified and had no certificate of translation or similar statement. (Id. at 2). In plaintiff's deficiency letter dated August 9, 2022, addressed to defendants, and attached as Exhibit 1 to plaintiff's letter to the Court, plaintiff details specific responses, explaining why plaintiff finds them to be deficient. (Id. at Ex. 1). On August 9, 2022, defendants indicated that they would not be providing amended or supplemental responses based on the plaintiff's delay in complaining about the deficiencies. (Id. at Ex. 2).

II. Analysis

As part of her motion to compel, plaintiff makes a request for pre-class discovery; specifically, plaintiff complains that defendants have yet to produce any class discovery. (Id. at 3). According to plaintiff, defendants repeatedly objected to her requests on the grounds that the requests were “premature as no collective or class action has been certified.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff cites cases for the proposition that courts in this Circuit generally allow discovery to enable plaintiffs to satisfy Rule 23's requirements for class certification. (Id. at 3–4).

Defendants filed their opposition on August 31, 2022. (Defs.’ Aug. Resp.[8]). Defendants argue that plaintiff has no basis to now compel pre-certification discovery given her delay in seeking additional information and given the fact that no additional plaintiffs have opted-in to the collective action. (Id. at 1). Defendants also argue that they already produced “all the putative class members[’] contact information,” so requiring them to produce all records for individuals who chose not to opt-in is unnecessarily burdensome this late in discovery. (Id. at 2). Defendants cite cases for the proposition that plaintiff must seek out information through normal devices to demonstrate her entitlement to pre-class discovery. (Id. at 2–3).

“[T]he federal rules give district courts broad discretion to manage the manner in which discovery proceeds.” In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 2003) (Sotomayor, J.). The scope of discovery is set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 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). “Information is relevant if: ‘(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.’ ” Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 CV 5088, 2016 WL 616386, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). “Once the requesting party establishes that its discovery request meets this [relevance] standard, the burden shifts to the responding party to demonstrate that discovery is improper.” Sadofsky v. Fiesta Prods., LLC, 252 F.R.D. 143, 151 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). “A court must limit discovery if ‘the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.’ ” Beaton v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., No. 20 CV 672, 2020 WL 6449235, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)).

A. The Scope of Pre-Class Discovery

*3 In their letter to the Court, replying to plaintiff's motion to compel additional discovery responses, defendants failed to address plaintiff's asserted deficiencies with any specificity, simply stating that they were unwilling to provide plaintiff with unauthorized pre-class discovery. (See Defs.’ Aug. Resp.) As previously discussed, this Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective, certifying a collective “limited to employees who worked as pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs in the You Garden Restaurants.” (Collective Order at 19).

In her Amended Complaint, plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of a class of “all other current and former non-exempt workers employed by Defendants over the six years preceding the filing of this Complaint, through entry of judgment in this case.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 84). Thus, in seeking pre-class discovery, plaintiff seeks to gain information about parties and claims related to those beyond her own or those of the certified collective. Certainly, by virtue of the Court's prior Order, plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to the members of the preliminarily certified collective action. See Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d 474, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (holding that “[b]ecause the Court hereby grants Benavides’ motion for conditional collective action certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees of defendants who worked at Serenity Spa NY within three years of the complaint, Benavides is entitled to production of contact information, documents relating to compensation, and text messages”).

Thus, to the extent that defendants have objected to providing responses to interrogatories or producing documents related to plaintiff or general practices at the You Garden Restaurants, this objection is not well founded and they are Ordered to respond, subject to the Court's rulings on their other objections as detailed below.

With respect to plaintiff's discovery requests that relate to a broader class of employees, as a preliminary matter, the Court's narrowing of the collective for conditional certification purposes is not dispositive on the issue of whether plaintiff is entitled to pre-class discovery related to a broader class. Cf. Thompson v. Global Contract Servs., LLC, No. 20 CV 651, 2021 WL 1103029, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2021) (explaining that “[e]ven if Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective were denied, Plaintiff would be entitled to discovery on her class claims”). However, courts have required some explanation or some showing that plaintiff is entitled to the class discovery it seeks before so granting. See, e.g., Heras v. Metropolitan Learning Inst., No. 19 CV 2694, 2021 WL 3269056, at *2 (E.D.N. Y July 30, 2021) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel where “plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the discovery relevant to her Rule 23 motion could not be obtained through alternative means, such as interrogatories concerning defendants’ policies and practices ... and/or Rule 30(b)(6) depositions”); Beaton v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 20 CV 672, 2020 WL 6449235, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2020) (denying with leave to renew a motion to compel discovery related to those employees who held a different job title than plaintiff or who worked at other employment locations and ordering plaintiff to conduct preliminary discovery to demonstrate an entitlement to the broader, class discovery plaintiff sought).

Although plaintiff cites to authority for the proposition that she is entitled to pre-class discovery, she fails to offer any real explanation, based on the facts of her case, as to why she should be entitled to all of the broad class discovery she seeks. (See Pl.’s Aug. Ltr. at 2–4). “ ‘Any class discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the case and bear some relationship to the claims of the named Plaintiff[ ].’ ” Flores v. Stanford, No.18 CV 2468, 2021 WL 4441614, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Dupres v. Houslanger & Assocs., PLLC, No. 19 CV 6691, 2021 WL 2373737, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2021)). At the same time, pre-certification class discovery “ ‘must be sufficiently broad in order that the plaintiffs have a realistic opportunity to meet [the Rule 23(a)] requirements,’ while ensuring that defendants are ‘protected from discovery which is overly burdensome, irrelevant, or which invades privileged or confidential areas.’ ” Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d at 490–91 (quoting Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., No. 6 CV 6198, 2007 WL 1521117, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2007)). “Courts have repeatedly stated that [the FLSA]’s ‘similarly situated’ requirement is ‘considerably less stringent’ than the requirements for class certification under Rule 23.” Avila v. Northport Car Wash, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 450, 454 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Rodolico v. Unisys Corp., 199 F.R.D. 468, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)).

*4 In light of the Court's earlier determination limiting plaintiff's collective action to only those employees who were employed as pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants, and finding the plaintiff had failed to meet even this “considerably less stringent” requirement with respect to other employees, the Court has closely scrutinized the potential burden and relevance of plaintiff's requests aimed at a broader class. However, given the defendants’ blanket objections to producing information related to any claims beyond those of the named plaintiff, see Thompson v. Global Contract Servs., LLC, 2021 WL 1103029, at *1 (explaining that “following [Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)], a blanket refusal to provide class and collective discovery would be inappropriate”) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court finds that some limited pre-certification class discovery is warranted. As detailed below, the Court finds that plaintiff is not only entitled to receive discovery relevant to her specific individual claims but that she may seek information sufficient to determine whether her claims are similarly situated to those of a larger class. See Chow v. SentosaCare, LLC, No. 19 CV 3541, 2020 WL 559704, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2020) (explaining that courts “place appropriate limits on class discovery to tie it to the claim and proof of the named plaintiff”).

B. Defendants’ Responses and Objections Generally

Defendants have also raised general objections to plaintiff's discovery requests, including burden, relevance, privilege, and that the information sought is proprietary and confidential.

In their email response to plaintiff's deficiency letter, defendants complained about the lapse in time between when they served their responses to when they received plaintiff's deficiency letter as their basis for not agreeing to supplement their responses. However, in reviewing defendants’ initial responses to plaintiff's requests, it is clear that defendants withheld plainly relevant information responsive to plaintiff's own individual claims, even prior to receiving the deficiency letter, and at times raised inappropriate objections.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to supplement their responses if they are incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Thus, regardless of when the plaintiff's deficiency letter was sent, defendants were required to update and supplement their responses if they became aware of additional responsive material. More importantly, in this case, defendants raised a number of ‘boilerplate’ objections. “ ‘[G]eneral and conclusory objections as to relevance, overbreadth, or burden are insufficient to exclude discovery of requested information.’ ” North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. Multiplan, Inc., 325 F.R.D. 36, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Lindsey v. Butler, No. 11 CV 9102, 2017 WL 4157362, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2017)); see also Neogenix Oncology, Inc. v. Gordon, No. 14 CV 4427, 2017 WL 4233028, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017) (explaining that “ ‘[b]oilerplate objections that include unsubstantiated claims of undue burden, overbreadth and lack of relevancy,’ while producing ‘no documents and answer[ing] no interrogatories ... are a paradigm of discovery abuse’ ”) (quoting Jacoby v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254 F.R.D. 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)); see Barella v. Village of Freeport, 296 F.R.D. 102, 105 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (explaining that “[t]he party objecting to the discovery demands must, with some degree of specificity, illustrate the nature and extent of the burden of production”).

In their initial responses, defendants explicitly recognized their continuing discovery obligations. (See, e.g., RFP Resp.,[9] general objection 12 (“responses are given with the express reservation of all rights of supplementation or amendment”); Int. Resp.,[10] general objection 13 (“Defendants’ responses and objections are set forth without prejudice to Defendants’ rights to assert additional objections or otherwise supplement its objections and responses”), general objection 14 (“Defendants are continuing to search for information responsive to these requests and reserve the right to supplement and amend its response with additional information and/or documentation if and when it becomes available”)).

*5 Thus, the Court finds that regardless of when plaintiff sent her deficiency letter, defendants were under a continuing obligation to provide proper responses and to supplement their responses if they became aware of additional information. Any lapse in time between the defendants’ service of responses and the deficiency letter does not excuse defendants from their discovery obligations under the Federal Rules.

Among their other general objections, defendants refused to produce documents on the grounds that the requests sought information from all defendants even though certain defendants claimed that they never employed plaintiff. (See, e.g., Int. No. 4 (objecting that the requests “seek[ ] information of Defendants who did not employ Plaintiff”)). Defendants also objected in every response, asserting that the requests were “overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome” and in many responses that the requests were “seek[ing] privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information of Defendants.” (Id.)

First, if defendants believed that a request was overbroad in scope, they were still obligated to produce any non-objectionable and plainly relevant material responsive to the request. In the alternative, they were required to meet and confer with plaintiff in an effort to narrow the scope of the request, if appropriate, or at the very least explain the nature and extent of the burden. See Chow v. SentosaCare, LLC, 2020 WL 559704, at *3 (explaining that “[d]efendants cannot, in response to a motion to compel, rest on objections of burden and expense that fail to provide specific details about the cost or time necessary to obtain information”). At times, defendants refused to produce any relevant information, even from those defendants who did employ plaintiff, on the ground that the information was sought from additional defendants as well; this was not a proper response.

Second, if defendants were concerned about confidential or proprietary material, they should have attempted to negotiate a protective order or sought one from this Court rather than unilaterally withholding relevant information. Cf. Sullivan v. StratMar Sys., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 17, 19–20 (D. Conn. 2011) (granting a motion to compel over defendant's objection that plaintiff may use the information to “sabotage its business interests” because “[a] protective order limiting [plaintiff's] use of these materials would provide ample protection against the sabotage about which [defendant] is concerned”). Moreover, if defendants were concerned about the production of potentially privileged information, they were required to provide a privilege log, specifying the privilege being claimed and containing, “ ‘[a]s to each document, ... specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed.’ ” See McNamee v. Clemens, No. 09 CV 1647, 2014 WL 1338720, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2014) (quoting Golden Trade, S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., No. 90 CV 6291, 1992 WL 367070, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1992)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Failure to provide a privilege log risks a waiver of the applicable privilege. See McNamee v. Clemens, 2014 WL 1338720, at *3 (explaining that “[w]ithholding privileged materials without including the material on a privilege log pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5) ‘may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or protection’ ”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(5) advisory committee's note to 1933 amendment). It does not appear as if defendants produced a privilege log in this matter. (See, e.g., Pl.’s Deficiency Ltr.[11] at 19 (complaining that defendants’ “[r]esponse fails to show how the request is protected by privilege and fails to provide a privilege log”)). Thus, this constitutes a waiver of any objection based on privilege.

C. Interrogatories and Verification

*6 Plaintiff complains that defendants’ responses “contain neither a certificate of translation or a statement that the Answer was translated to the Defendants, and is moreover a singular document despite Plaintiff's demand for separate responses to Interrogatories by each Defendant.” (Pl.’s Aug. Ltr. at 2). In their letter, defendants do not dispute plaintiff's characterization, and are therefore Ordered to provide verified responses to plaintiff's interrogatories. Defendants are also Ordered to supplement their responses to make clear which defendants are responding to which discovery requests. If the requests have been translated, defendants should produce a certificate of translation or similar document.

D. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25

In Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25, generally, plaintiff seeks information that would reveal potential witnesses with high level information about the defendants’ policies and the interrelationship, if any, between all defendants – specifically the defendant restaurants. At the preliminary collective certification stage, defendants produced declarations contesting the relationship between the You Garden Restaurants and the Corner 28 restaurants. They raise a similar objection to these Interrogatories “to the extent [they] seek[ ] information of Defendants who did not employ Plaintiff.” (See, e.g., Int. No. 5). In her Amended Complaint, plaintiff has alleged that certain of the defendants are involved in more than one of the Corporate Defendants and that their wage and hour policies may be the same or substantially similar. As the case law indicates, plaintiff is entitled to obtain pre-certification class discovery that is “ ‘sufficiently broad in order that the plaintiffs have a realistic opportunity to meet [the Rule 23(a)] requirements,’ while ensuring that defendants are ‘protected from discovery which is overly burdensome, irrelevant, or which invades privileged or confidential areas.’ ” Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d at 490–91. Although plaintiff may not be entitled to the records of each of the individual employees who worked for restaurants other than You Garden Restaurants, information responsive to these more general interrogatories may be relevant to plaintiff's claims that the restaurants and individual defendants are sufficiently interrelated to satisfy the elements necessary for Rule 23 class certification. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to limited discovery into that relationship.

In particular, plaintiff seeks information relevant to identify: (a) each officer and director of “Corporate Defendants”[12] (Int. No. 4); (b) each corporation, partnership, subsidiary, or other business owned or operated by the Corporate Defendants (Int. No. 5); (c) each business license issued to defendants (Int. No. 6); (d) each person responsible for managing employees at the Corporate Defendants (Int. No. 7); (e) employees of the Corporate Defendants responsible for submitting employee information to any third-party payroll companies (Int. No. 9); (f) employees or other persons responsible for preparing tax filings for Corporate Defendants (Int. No. 10); (g) persons on behalf of Corporate Defendants responsible for preparing or keeping accounting or financial records for defendants (Int. No. 11); (h) persons with authority to hire or fire employees of defendants or discipline employees of Corporate Defendants (Int. No. 18); (i) each person with knowledge of the Corporate Defendants’ policies and practices with respect to paying their employees (Int. No. 19); (j) any and all real property owed by Corporate Defendants or in which defendants have a financial interest (Int. No. 22); (k) each person including legal counsel “who participated in or has knowledge of any transaction, including real estate, business, or its interest to which Corporate Defendants was [sic] a party” (Int. No. 23); and (l) each person to which Corporate Defendants have transferred debts or liabilities over $50,000 in value. (Int. No. 25).

*7 To the extent that plaintiff seeks such information relating to the You Garden Restaurants, defendants’ refusal to respond is not warranted and they are Ordered to respond. To the extent that plaintiff seeks this information relating to the Corner 28 restaurants, the Court finds that the information sought is not only relevant but sufficiently limited in scope to protect defendants from overly burdensome, irrelevant, or privileged discovery, while still providing plaintiff with the necessary information to determine if she can demonstrate the elements needed for Rule 23 class certification.

Defendants object to each of these interrogatories on the grounds of burden. However, defendants, as they do throughout their responses, failed to specify the extent of the burden or why, for example, they are unable to identify the officers and directors, or managers of the Corporate Defendants. It is hard to imagine that defendants do not know who their officers and directors are, or who communicates with the payroll and tax preparer for the Corporate Defendants. Pegoraro v. Marrero, 281 F.R.D. 122, 128–29 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (explaining that “[a] party resisting discovery has the burden of showing ‘specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, ... by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden’ ”) (quoting Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)).

Given that defendants have failed to provide this Court with any basis upon which to evaluate the issue of burden, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to alleviate any burden. If the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit from a party representative explaining why defendants are unable to respond to these interrogatories and why it is too burdensome to provide the requested information.[13]

Defendants also object to all of these interrogatories, except numbers 18 and 19, on the basis that they seek confidential information. To the extent that defendants believe certain responsive information may be proprietary or should remain confidential, the parties are directed to enter into a confidentiality stipulation to limit the use of this material to the current litigation. Defendants raise a separate objection to interrogatory number 18 as seeking a legal conclusion. In fact, what plaintiff is asking for is a factual matter -- namely, which individuals have the power to hire and fire employees. Defendants’ objection to this interrogatory is not well-founded and defendants are directed to respond.

Defendants also object to interrogatory number 22 for being premature and seeking information related to collecting a judgment, and to number 23 as invading defendants’ attorney-client privilege. While these requests may be relevant for collection purposes, this information may also demonstrate any interrelationship among defendants. To the extent defendants object on privilege grounds, they have waived their right to invoke privilege by not producing a privilege log.

E. Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory 8

*8 Interrogatory 8 generally asks defendants to identify all current and former employees during the relevant time period. According to defendants, plaintiff has “all the putative class members[’] contact information.” (Defs.’ Aug. Resp. at 2). Based on their position as stated in their letter, presumably defendants mean to say that plaintiff has all the putative collective members’ contact information. To the extent that plaintiff seeks information related to employees other than pastry, dim sum, steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants, courts are generally wary of disclosing the identities of potential class members and their contact information at the pre-certification stage “ ‘out of a concern that plaintiffs’ attorneys may be seeking such information to identify new clients, rather than to establish the appropriateness of certification.’ ” Beaton v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 2020 WL 6449235, at *3 (quoting Jin Yun Zheng v. Good Fortune Supermarket Grp. (USA), Inc., No. 13 CV 60, 2013 WL 5132023, at *8 n. 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2013)); see also Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d at 491 (explaining courts have denied request for class members’ names and contact information “where a plaintiff has not demonstrated that ‘[p]lantiffs’ ability to demonstrate commonality, predominance and typicality will ... necessarily require obtaining discrete employment information from any individual class members’ ”) (quoting Gordon v. Kaleida Health, No. 08 CV 378S, 2012 WL 432885, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2012)). Accordingly, the motion to compel an additional response to Interrogatory 8 is denied at this time without prejudice. If plaintiff develops information sufficient to support a broader class of affected employees, she may renew her request to compel a supplemental response from defendants. Cf. Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. at 492 (granting plaintiff's motion to compel individual class employees’ wage and hour discovery but not yet granting their contact information where plaintiff made even just “a cursory argument” that “the discovery she seeks is likely to support her claims that the putative class meets Rule 23's requirements” by “focusing on the ways in which the evidence she has already procured supports her class allegations”).

F. Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory 12

In Interrogatory 12, plaintiff asks the defendants to identify their “Gross Volume of Sales during the Relevant Time Period,” along with information related to how defendants calculated those values. Defendants, in their Answer, denied that their operation had a gross annual revenue in excess of $500,000 per year, which is one of the elements required under the FLSA. (Ans.[14] ¶ 41). Defendants object that such information is burdensome to provide or is “confidential.” Not only have defendants failed to explain with specificity what the “burden” would be to produce these documents, but to the extent there is a concern about confidentiality, as previously directed, the parties are Ordered to confer on a confidentiality agreement. Accordingly, defendants are ordered to respond to the interrogatory or provide responsive records sufficient to respond to this interrogatory for the You Garden Restaurants. In the alternative, the parties are to meet and confer in an attempt to address the issue of burden. If the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit from a party representative explaining why defendants are unable to respond to these interrogatories and why it is too burdensome to provide the requested information.

As to information about the Corner 28 Restaurants, plaintiff's motion to compel production of this information is denied without prejudice to renew in the event plaintiff can establish that there is evidence that there are similarly situated employees at the Corner 28 Restaurants or employed in different capacities.

G. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 13 and 14

These interrogatories seek to have defendants identify the banks or financial institutions in which defendants have an account in their name, along with account information (Int. No. 13), as well as each account in which defendants have transferred assets from any of the defendant business or corporate entities. (Int. No. 14). Plaintiff objected to defendants’ use of boilerplate objections in responding to these interrogatories, but she provided no justification for seeking this sensitive information, stating only in a conclusory fashion that “[t]his is relevant to the issue in this case.” (Pl.’s Deficiency Ltr. at 8–9). The Court denies plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to respond to interrogatories 13 or 14 without prejudice to plaintiff providing additional explanation as to the relevance of the information sought.

H. Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory 15

*9 This interrogatory asks defendants to identify where and/or how defendants recorded and stored employee payroll and contact records. (Int. No. 15). Such information is potentially relevant and would assist plaintiff in identifying and verifying her own payroll records. Defendants again object on grounds of burden or confidentiality. Given that defendants’ objections are improper in that they have failed to provide a basis for evaluating the burden objection and there is no explanation as to why such information would be confidential, defendants are ordered to respond or provide responsive records sufficient to respond to this interrogatory for the You Garden Restaurants. Similarly, the general policies for Corner 28 restaurants may illustrate whether or not defendants are interrelated and share common policies as plaintiff alleges. Given that defendants have failed to provide this Court with any basis upon which to evaluate the issue of burden, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to alleviate any burden. If the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit from a party representative explaining why defendants are unable to respond to these interrogatories and why it is too burdensome to provide the requested information.

I. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 16 and 17

These interrogatories ask defendants to explain how overtime pay (Int. No. 16) and wage supplements or deductions were “calculated and accounted for.” (Int. No. 17). Defendants restate their same general objections to these requests but also object to answering the interrogatories on the basis that they call for legal conclusions. These interrogatories are not seeking a legal conclusion nor do they ask defendants to give their interpretation of the law; they are simply asking the defendants for the factual basis and mathematical calculations upon which defendants determined overtime pay, wage supplements and deductions. Cf. Jindan Wu v. Seoul Garden, Inc., No. 16 CV 3613, 2018 WL 507315, at *9 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018) (ordering defendants to respond to requests for admission related to whether they provided a notice required by the Hospitality Industry Wage Order or had confirmation that the notice had been provided because the requests “ask for an application of the facts to the law and not for a pure interpretation of the law”). Also, these general policies as they relate to Corner 28 restaurants may illustrate whether or not defendants are interrelated and share common policies as plaintiff alleges.

Thus, defendants are ordered to respond or provide responsive records sufficient to respond to these interrogatories. Given that defendants have failed to provide this Court with any basis upon which to evaluate the issue of burden, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

J. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 20 and 24

These interrogatories seek the identity of each person who Corporate Defendants may use as an expert witness (Int. No. 20) and each person who participated in preparing defendants’ answers or responses to plaintiff's discovery requests. (Int. No. 24). With respect to the identity of expert witnesses, defendants responded by stating that: “Defendants have not yet retained any expert witnesses. If and when such witnesses are retained, Defendants will disclose such information in accordance with the Federal Rules.” (Int. No. 20). Defendants also responded that “Yang Gao” participated in or was consulted in connection with defendants’ answer or discovery responses. (Int. No. 24). Although plaintiff labels these responses as insufficient, the Court finds these responses to be sufficient and plaintiff's motion to compel any further response is denied.

K. Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory 21

Plaintiff asks defendants to identify the email addresses used by Corporate Defendants and/or their employees used to communicate about any business conducted by defendants, including about issues related to payroll and wages. To the extent these email addresses are used by upper-level management of the Corporate Defendants and not other persons who plaintiff would seek to represent in this litigation, such information is relevant to identifying possibly additional relevant information and to verify information likely already provided. Defendants object that such information is burdensome to provide or confidential, but these objections are without merit; generally, an email address used to conduct business is not confidential nor proprietary.

*10 Defendants are ordered to respond or provide responsive records sufficient to respond to this interrogatory. Also, as to the email addresses used by upper-level management of the Corner 28 restaurants to communicate business matters such as payroll and wages, this information may illustrate whether or not defendants are interrelated and thus is relevant and should be produced.

L. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 1

In its first document request, plaintiff seeks corporate records, including articles of incorporation. Defendants objected that the request was burdensome and sought confidential information. However, they responded that “[n]otwithstanding the above objections and without waiver of some, annexed hereto is all relevant, non-privileged and otherwise discovery material responsive to the demand that is in the custody and control of Defendants.” (RFP No. 1). To the extent that defendants have withheld any documents responsive to this request on privilege grounds, their failure to provide a privilege log constitutes a waiver of this objection. As to their burden objection, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

M. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 2

This document request seeks all documents concerning the board of directors’ meetings, annual meetings, or formal meetings. Defendants responded that no such documents exist. Although plaintiff contests the sufficiency of defendants’ response, the Court finds defendants’ representation that no documents exist sufficient and no further response will be ordered.

N. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Plaintiff requests documents relating to: (a) the sale or transfer of any of Corporate Defendants’ business assets or debts (RFP No. 3); (b) copies of Corporate Defendants’ federal, state, and local income tax returns (RFP No. 4); (c) copies of Corporate Defendants’ Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return (Form 941) (RFP No. 5); (d) copies of Corporate Defendants’ New York State tax form, Quarterly Combined Withholding, Wage Reporting, and Unemployed Insurance Return (RFP No. 6); and (e) copies of Corporate Defendants’ Form 720, 1099, and 1096. (RFP No. 7). Defendants object to these requests as burdensome, seeking confidential information, and represent that “the information sought can be obtained by less intrusive means and there is no compelling need for such documents in this case.” (See, e.g., RFP No. 4)

With respect to Document Request No. 3, plaintiff has not identified any specific deficiencies with defendants’ response to request number 3 and so no further production will be ordered. With respect to the other requests, plaintiff disputes defendants’ objections on the grounds of proportionality, arguing that these records can be produced in a cost-effective manner but not explaining the relevance or the plaintiff's need for the records. The law is clear that when tax records are requested, “[p]laintiff, as the ‘party requesting tax returns, bears the burden of establishing both relevancy and a compelling need for the tax returns.’ ” Sali v. Zwanger & Pesiri Radiology Grp., LLC, No. 19 CV 275, 2022 WL 1085508, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2022) (quoting SEC v. Collector's Coffee Inc., 464 F. Supp. 3d 665, 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)) (internal quotation marks omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 819178 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2022); see also Sadowsky v. Fiesta Pros., LLC, 252 F.R.D. at 149 (explaining that “[i]n order for a requesting party to prevail on a motion to compel the production of tax returns ..., the requesting party must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) the tax returns must be relevant to the subject matter of the action, and (2) a compelling need must exist because the information is not readily obtainable from a less intrusive source”). The Court denies plaintiff's motion to compel defendants’ production of these records without prejudice to her providing the additional information necessary to establish relevancy and need.

O. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 8, 9, 10, 11, and 86

*11 These requests seek: (a) all documents used in the preparation of taxes concerning Corporate Defendants’ Gross Volume of Sales (RFP No. 8); (b) any and all Corporate Defendants’ bank statements from all corporate accounts (RFP No. 9); (c) all documents not otherwise included in another request, concerning Corporate Defendants’ Gross Volume of Sales (RFP No. 10); (d) any and all information relating Corporate Defendants’ point of sale system (RFP No. 11); and (e) “all documents concerning the sale of goods produced or handled by Plaintiffs in any business or entity controlled by Defendants.” (RFP No. 86). As previously mentioned, defendants in their Answer denied plaintiff's allegation that their gross annual revenue was in excess of $500,000 (see Ans. ¶ 41) and they also denied that they were engaged in interstate commerce (id. ¶ 42), making these issues directly relevant to the applicability of the FLSA to plaintiff's claims. Although defendants object that these requests are overly broad, seek confidential information, defendants have put these issues into contention and have made it relevant. Thus, defendants are ordered to respond or provide responsive records sufficient to respond to these interrogatories. Given that defendants have failed to provide this Court with any basis upon which to evaluate the issue of burden, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

As to information about the Corner 28 Restaurants, plaintiff's motion to compel production of this information is denied without prejudice to renew in the event plaintiff can establish that there is evidence that there are similarly situated employees at the Corner 28 Restaurants or employed in different capacities.

P. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 12, 13, 16, 22, 46, and 81

Plaintiff seeks electronic data showing all employees’ names, positions, job titles, salary levels, job location, social security numbers, compensation information, contact information, and job assignment information. (RFP No. 12). Plaintiff also seeks all documents that refer or relate to compensation of employees not captured by the previously described request. (RFP No. 22). Additionally, plaintiff seeks any information not identified in the previous request that would show any other information about the employees. (RFP No. 13). In that same vein, plaintiff also seeks production of all documents showing the work sites and their addresses where any employees worked (RFP No. 16), any record of the amount of time worked by class or collective members (RFP No. 46), and contact information for all employees. (RFP No. 81). Defendants object to these requests in part in that they are burdensome, are “premature as no class or collective has been certified,” and seek information about employees not similarly situated to plaintiff.

Contrary to defendants’ statement, this Court previously entered an Order of conditional collective action certification and also Ordered defendants to produce the contact information and work location of each putative collective member. (Collective Order at 26). This Court also issued an Order that plaintiff would not be entitled to putative collective or class members’ social security numbers without showing an inability to contact potential class members through the information already provided. (Id. at 26–27). Plaintiff has made no such showing. Plaintiff therefore is still not entitled to the putative class or collective members’ social security numbers. To the extent any of the other information requested in these requests has not yet been produced with respect to members of the collective, defendants are Ordered to produce such information.

For the reasons already stated, the Court does not Order the production of any individualized information as to employees at either the You Garden or Corner 28 restaurants that are not members of the collective. If plaintiff develops information sufficient to support a broader class of affected employees, she may renew her request to compel a supplemental response from defendants.

With respect to Document Requests 13 and 22, these requests are overly broad and vague. Therefore, the motion to compel responses to these requests is denied.

With respect to Document Request 16, to the extent this request seeks information simply to establish the different work locations operated by defendants where employees worked and does not seek a list of all employees and their assigned work locations, the motion to compel a further response is granted.

Q. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 14 and 15

*12 These requests seek all documents concerning the position of individual defendants and other managers, such as an organizational chart (RFP No. 14); the number of employees who work in each state; and the number of employees assigned to each location and job. (RFP No. 15). Although defendants objected to each request as burdensome, among other reasons, defendants did respond by representing that they “are not in possession of any material responsive to [these] demand[s].” Plaintiff objects to these responses, but the Court finds that defendants’ representation that they have no responsive documents is sufficient and no further production will be ordered.

R. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 23, 24, 25, and 47

Document Request 23 seeks all documents that refer or relate to statements by defendants regarding employees’ rates of pay, frequency of pay, and length of workweek. (RFP No. 23). Document Request 24 seeks documents related to any practices or policies related to the compensation of employees who work fewer than 40 hours, practices or policies related to the accrual of time off, and other payment practices like bonuses for work at particular times, or particular lengths of time, or based on performance. (RFP No. 24). Document Request 25 seeks communications between defendants and accountants or persons performing accounting services for defendants concerning compensation or accounting of defendants’ employees. (RFP No. 25). Document Request 47 seeks documents related to any practices or policies for tracking or recording the employees’ hours. (RFP No. 47).

In addition to objecting that plaintiff seeks information for those not similarly situated to her, defendants object again that these requests are burdensome and seek confidential information. These requests seek statements, communications and information relating to defendants’ policies concerning the compensation and calculation of wages for defendants’ employees. (RFP Nos. 23, 24, 25, 47). This information bears not only on plaintiff's claims but also on class certification in that it is well-calibrated to seek information that would demonstrate plaintiff's entitlement to further pre-certification discovery as discussed.

Defendants are Ordered to produce responsive documents as to the You Garden Restaurants and Corner 28 Restaurants.

Communications related to the compensation of pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants must also be produced. To the extent that plaintiff seeks this information for other workers at the You Garden Restaurants and Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer in an effort to narrow the requested information and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden or are Ordered to otherwise produce responsive records.

S. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 26, 27, and 33

These document requests relate to plaintiff's own claims.[15] Plaintiff seeks: (a) all documents that refer or relate to plaintiff (RFP No. 26); (b) all documents concerning any written employment offers to and acceptance of such offers by plaintiff (RFP No. 27); and (c) all plaintiff's employment records including information related to start and end dates, payroll records, job duties, documents given to plaintiff reflecting policies, etc. (RFP No. 33).

*13 Defendants object to these requests as burdensome. In response to request number 26, defendants respond both that “[n]otwithstanding the ... objections, ... all non-privileged, and otherwise discoverable documents responsive to this request, to the extent they are in Defendants’ possession, custody, and/or control, will be produced upon a completion of a search of Defendants[’] records” and “attached hereto is all relevant, non-privileged and otherwise discoverable material responsive to the demand that is in the custody and control of Defendants as it relates to plaintiff.” In response to request number 27, defendants respond both that “[n]otwithstanding the ... objections, ... all non-privileged, and otherwise discoverable documents responsive to this request, to the extent they are in Defendants’ possession, custody, and/or control, will be produced upon a completion of a search of Defendants[’] records” and that no responsive documents are in defendants’ possession. Also in response to request number 33, defendants answer by attaching “all relevant, non-privileged and otherwise discoverable material responsive to the demand that is in the custody and control of Defendants as it relates to plaintiff.”

In complaining about defendants’ response to request number 27, plaintiff objects that “it is unclear whether Defendants may have some additional documentation responsive to this request that is outside their immediate possession but that may still be obtained with regard to their legal right or authority.” (Pl.’s Deficiency Letter at 38). The Court agrees. It is unclear from defendants’ response what if any documents are being withheld on the basis of defendants’ objections, or invocation of privilege that as previously stated has since been waived, or because the documents are in the control of third parties. Defendants are Ordered to clarify whether any responsive documents are being withheld and on what grounds. Defendants are also Ordered to supplement their responses if their searches for responsive documents have uncovered additional discoverable material. To the extent that defendants have provided all responsive documents, the motion to compel is denied.

T. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 48, 49, and 52

These requests seek all documents: (a) that refer to the amount of time required for employees to perform a given task (RFP No. 48); (b) that relate to policies or practices regarding the recommended number of employees required to work a given assignment on a given day, week, or other period of time (RFP No. 49); and (c) that relate to studies regarding workload limits for employees. (RFP No. 52). In the absence of further specificity as to the relevance of this information, the Court denies the plaintiff's motion to compel these responses.

U. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 50, 51, and 54

These requests seek documents that: (a) refer to work schedules for any class or collective member (RFP No. 50); (b) relate to communications from defendants to any individual class member regarding a request for overtime or discussing an overtime policy (RFP No. 51); and (c) all documents that record compensation due or received for any overtime worked by employees. (RFP No. 54). Defendants object that these requests are burdensome, seek confidential information, and seek information for employees not similarly situation to plaintiff.

Overtime records and communications for pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants are plainly relevant to this action. Defendants are directed to provide such information.

As to information involving other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, plaintiff's motion to compel production of this information is denied without prejudice to renew in the event plaintiff can establish that there is evidence that there are similarly situated employees at the Corner 28 Restaurants or employed in different capacities.

V. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 53

Plaintiff seeks documents that relate to the functioning of any timekeeping system that captures information regarding hours worked by employees. (RFP No. 53). Defendants object that this request is burdensome, seeks confidential information, and relates to employees not similarly situated to plaintiff. This request, however, is relevant to plaintiff's own wage and hour claims. Defendants are ordered to respond to Request 53 for the You Garden Restaurants.

*14 As to information about the Corner 28 Restaurants, plaintiff's motion to compel production of this information is denied without prejudice to renew in the event plaintiff can establish that there is evidence that there are similarly situated employees at the Corner 28 Restaurants or employed in different capacities.

W. Responses to Document Requests 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64

Documents generally related to the hiring, training, monitoring, supervising, or evaluating of employees are not relevant to the Amended Complaint, which only alleges wage and hour claims. However, to the extent that there are documents that contain instructions or guidance related to hours worked, tracking hours, receiving overtime authorization or pay, etc., such documents are plainly relevant to plaintiff's wage and hour claims. If such responsive documents exist for pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at You Garden Restaurants, defendants are Ordered to produce them. As to job description and monitoring information that pertains to wage and hour issues for other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer in an effort to narrow the requested information and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

X. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 65

Plaintiff requests all documents that relate to employees’ compliance with industry work standards. (RFP No. 65). Defendants object that this is burdensome, that it seeks information related to employees not similarly situated to plaintiff, and that it asks for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to this document request is denied because it is not clear what relevance this has to plaintiff's claims, but it also vague and seems to require a legal interpretation.

Y. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 66, 67, and 69

These requests all relate to employees’ exempt status. They seek: (a) all documents sufficient to show each employee's exempt or nonexempt classification status (RFP No. 66); (b) all documents that relate to the decision to classify employees (RFP No. 67); and (c) all documents that refer or relate to communications between defendants and employees regarding their entitlement to overtime pay or exemption. (RFP No. 69). Defendants object that these requests are burdensome, that they seek information related to employees not similarly situated to plaintiff, and that they ask for a legal conclusion. Defendants also contend that they seek information covered by the attorney-client privilege. However, defendants have waived any claim to privilege as mentioned. Defendants’ legal conclusion objections are also not proper because these requests seek factual information and relate to the application of law to fact. All such records related to pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants must be produced. As to the issue of the burden of producing this information for other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

Z. Defendants’ Responses to Document Request 68

*15 This request seeks “[a]ll documents that refer and relate to whether Class or Collective Members are exempt from entitlement to overtime pay under state and/or federal law, including all communications within Defendants, between Defendants and any other corporation or organization, and between Defendants and any advisor or consultant.” (RFP No. 68). To the extent that defendants object to this request as requiring a legal conclusion, the request simply asks for any preexisting documents in which the issue of exemption is addressed or discussed. Defendants are Ordered to respond with all such records related to pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants must be produced. As to the issue of the burden of producing this information for other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

AA. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 70, 71, 73, 74, and 75

In these requests plaintiff seeks: (a) all documents that relate to audits and investigations related to defendants’ compliance with wage and hour requirements and recordkeeping (RFP No. 70); (b) all documents that relate to or refer to grievances related to wage and hour issues filed by defendants, their employees, or government bodies (RFP No. 71); (c) all documents that relate or refer to lawsuits and administrative agency actions related to overtime pay or employee classification as exempt from overtime pay (RFP No. 73); (d) all documents that relate to requests by defendants or their trade groups submitted to agencies or government entities related to whether employees are exempt (RFP No. 74); and (e) all documents that relate to decisions rendered by agencies about employees’ exemption status. (RFP No. 75).

Defendants object to these requests as burdensome and seeking information related to employees not similarly situated to plaintiff. With respect to document request number 70, defendant objects also that the request calls for a legal conclusion and infringes on attorney-client privilege. This request asks defendants for all documents referring to audits “by Defendants or any third party, including any consultant, business partner, independent auditor, organization, law firm, union, or governmental agency, during or before the relevant period.” (RFP No. 70 (emphasis added)). As the Court has already held, defendants waived their right to privilege by failing to produce a privilege log. Thus, defendants are Ordered to respond. As to the issue of the burden of producing this information for other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

BB. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 72

In this request, plaintiff seeks all documents that relate or refer to defendants’ compliance with wage and hour laws and defendants’ failure to pay or record all wages due or hours worked. Defendants are Ordered to respond with all such records related to pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs at the You Garden Restaurants. As to the issue of the burden of producing this information for other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, defendants are Ordered to provide a detailed Affidavit explaining the burden.

CC. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 76

Plaintiff requests all discovery previously produced by defendants in any litigation involving the exempt status of all employees for both during and before the relevant time period. (RFP No. 76). Defendants object that this request is burdensome and they decline to produce documents related to employees that are not similarly situated to plaintiff. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to determine whether there have been any prior lawsuits in which the issue of the exempt status of the You Garden Restaurants’ pastry, dim sum, and steamer chefs has been litigated, that information is relevant. Defendants are to provide information regarding any such litigation and whether any conclusion was reached as to the exempt status of these classes of employees. As to the relevance of this information for other categories of workers at the You Garden Restaurants or workers at the Corner 28 Restaurants, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and, if the parties continue to disagree, plaintiff is to supplement her motion with legal authority for requiring defendants to produce all discovery previously provided in prior wage and hour cases brought against defendants.

DD. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 77

*16 This is a request for “[a]ll documents that refer or relate to any systems or applications used by Defendants during the relevant period to bill a client or an entity within Defendants (including a subsidiary or division) for work performed by any Class or Collective Member, whether such billing results in payment or not.” (RFP No. 77). It is unclear why defendants’ client billing procedure for employees’ work would be relevant. Therefore, the motion to compel is denied as to this request.

EE. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 79

This request seeks all applicable insurance agreements under which an insurer may be liable for any judgment entered in this litigation. (RFP No. 79). Although defendants objected on grounds that the request was burdensome and sought confidential information, defendants responded that they do not carry insurance that covers these claims. Plaintiff protests in her deficiency letter, but the Court finds that this response is sufficient and no further response will be ordered.

FF. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 80

Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning policies related to data retention for defendants’ computers and electronic data. (RFP No. 80). Defendants object that the request is burdensome and seeks confidential information. This is relevant to plaintiff's own wage and hour claims. Defendants are Ordered to respond to this request for the You Garden Restaurants. At this time, the Court denies the motion to compel with leave to renew insofar as it relates to the Corner 28 Restaurants.

GG. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 82

Plaintiff requests all documents identified in any of defendants’ responses to plaintiff's interrogatories. (RFP No. 82). Defendants object that this request is burdensome and seeks documents related to employees that are not similarly situated to plaintiff. The motion to compel production of documents used to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories is granted, subject to any rulings in this Order narrowing or denying plaintiff's motion as to specific interrogatories.

HH. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 83

Plaintiff seeks all written or recorded statements under oath or otherwise made by plaintiff or defendants concerning the subject of this litigation. (RFP No. 83). Defendants object on the basis of burden but respond that they are not in possession of any material responsive to this demand as it relates to plaintiff. Plaintiff complains that defendants have not clarified whether they are withholding documents or aware of such documents that exist but that they do not define as within their control. Defendants are ordered to clarify their response accordingly.

II. Defendants’ Responses to Document Requests 84, 85, and 88

Plaintiff seeks: (a) all documents related to the movement and transfer of supplies between the locations owned or businesses controlled by defendants (RFP No. 84); (b) all documents concerning the purchase or sale of any businesses or shares to or from defendants and its buyers and sellers (RFP No. 85); and (c) all documents regarding the chain of title at 135-33 40th Road, Flushing, NY, 11354, 41-07 Bell Boulevard, Bayside, NY 11361, and 5124 8th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11220. (RFP No. 88). As previously discussed, plaintiff is entitled to limited discovery related to her claim that the defendant entities are interrelated. Defendants object that the information sought is burdensome and seeks confidential information. The parties are directed to meet and confer.

JJ. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 87

*17 This request seeks “[a]ll documents concerning the posting of any required notices to employees, such as those required by the New York State Dept. of Labor and the U.S. Dept. of Labor.” (RFP No. 87). Defendants object that this is burdensome and seeks a legal conclusion. Defendants are Ordered to respond as to what notices have been posted in the You Garden Restaurants. At this time, the Court denies the motion to compel with leave to renew insofar as it relates to the Corner 28 Restaurants.

KK. Defendants’ Response to Document Request 89

This request seeks “[a]ny documents not already produced in response to any request above, in the custody or control of any of the Defendants.” (RFP No. 89). Defendants object to this as unduly burdensome and overly broad. The Court agrees. The motion to compel a response to this request is denied.

III. Plaintiff's Request to Extend Discovery for Additional Depositions

In a separate letter motion, dated November 1, 2022, plaintiff seeks additional time to complete depositions. As of the date of the letter, plaintiff had only conducted a deposition of Mr. Gao and the four corporations he represented, but she seeks to depose the other individual defendants and three more corporations. (Pl.’s Nov. Ltr. at 1). Defendants opposed the extension, clarifying that Mr. Gao represented the You Garden Restaurants where plaintiff worked and the defendants for which this Court conditionally certified the collective action. (Defs.’ Nov. Resp.[16]) Defendants further assert that plaintiff's counsel's behavior in plaintiff's own deposition derailed the proceeding and if discovery were to be reopened for additional depositions, the only deposition that should be allowed to proceed is that defendants should be given an opportunity to depose plaintiff again. (Id. at 2).

According to plaintiff's November discovery extension request, plaintiff was only able to depose defendant Yang Gao, who served as the corporate representative for the You Garden Restaurants. (Pl.’s Nov. Ltr. at 1, Dfs.’ Nov. Resp. at 1). Based on the foregoing discussion, in light of the fact that so many relevant documents related to plaintiff's own claims have not been produced, and because a 30(b)(6) deposition is a useful precertification discovery device, this request is granted in part. The Court will grant an extension of time to complete the exchange of documents and to conduct further depositions. At this time, the Court does not rule on the propriety of any particular deposition but will consider any objections at such time as the parties serve notices upon each other. Defendants are also Ordered to respond to plaintiff's post-deposition discovery demands if they have not already.

For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. The parties are Ordered to meet and confer on the issues outlined in this Order by April 14, 2023. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of burden as it relates to some of these issues, defendants are Ordered to submit an Affidavit or Affidavits by April 23, 2023 detailing with specificity their asserted burden that prevents them from producing responsive documents. Plaintiff may respond to defendants’ submission by April 30, 2023.

With respect to Document Request 76, if the parties cannot agree on the scope of the request, plaintiff may submit supplemental briefing by April 23, 2023. Defendants may respond to plaintiff's submission by April 30, 2023.

*18 Notwithstanding the issues where the parties must meet and confer, all other supplemental responses to discovery requests must be produced to plaintiff by May 1, 2023.

SO ORDERED.