Beltran v. Noonan et al

Filing 969

ORDER on Depositions of FLSA Opt-In Class Members. Defendant Cultural Care's Motion for Clarification (Doc. # 924 ) is DENIED and Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. # 953 ) is GRANTED IN PART. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 04/04/2018. (athom, )

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-CBS
JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN,
LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI,
BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS,
ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ,
JULIANE HARNING,
NICOLE MAPLEDORAM,
LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ, and
SARAH CAROLINE AZUELA RASCON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTEREXCHANGE, INC.,
USAUPAIR, INC.,
GREATAUPAIR, LLC,
EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair,
EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS,
CULTURAL HOMESTAY INTERNATIONAL,
CULTURAL CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair,
AUPAIRCARE INC.,
AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a Au Pair Foundation,
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair in America,
AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair,
AGENT AU PAIR,
A.P.EX. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair,
20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC., d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange,
ASSOCIATES IN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAu Pair, and
GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER ON DEPOSITIONS OF FLSA OPT-IN CLASS MEMBERS
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cultural Care, Inc.’s (“Cultural
Care”) Motion for Clarification of Topics That Remain Open and Appropriate for
Depositions of FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs (Doc. # 924) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective
Order Regarding Defendant Cultural Care’s Depositions of FLSA Opt-In Class Members
(Doc. # 953). Having reviewed both Motions and related filings, it is hereby ORDERED
that Defendant Cultural Care’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. # 924) is DENIED and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. # 953) is GRANTED IN PART. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all questions asked of FLSA opt-in class members
shall be limited to the period when the deponent was recruited to join an au pair
program through the termination of the deponent’s J-1 visa. Cultural Care may inquire
into hours worked, tasks performed, wages and other compensation paid, and joint
employer indicia (“Relevant Issues”) outside of this period only if the questions pertain
solely to the deponent’s au pair experience. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no questions about a deponent’s personal life or
subjective state of mind may be asked, except those concerning the deponent’s present
state of mind at the time of a statement or writing concerning a Relevant Issue, provided
that the deponent’s state of mind is probative either of the accuracy or reliability of that
statement or writing, or the accuracy or reliability of the deponent’s testimony during the
deposition. It is

2

FURTHER ORDERED that questions about a deponent’s background shall not
address the deponent’s romantic relationships, marital status, friendships, immigration
status, and current or past employers (unless related to proper questioning about
Relevant Issues). Questions should not ask the deponent to provide information about
the names, locations, and statuses of his/her friends and family. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Cultural Care shall not ask questions
regarding its preemption defense, including questions about a deponent’s motivations
for participating in the program. See (Doc. # 924-1 at 2.) This Court already concluded
that “Plaintiffs’ claims under state wage laws are not, in fact, preempted by some kind of
amorphous ‘federal framework,’” (Doc. # 258 at 29), when it affirmed and adopted
United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya’s finding that Defendants’
preemption argument “has no support in federal law,” see (Doc. # 240 at 32).
Moreover, were the Court to entertain Defendants’ position on preemption, the
deponents’ beliefs and experiences would have no bearing on the Court’s legal analysis
of Congress’s intent. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that opt-in class members residing in countries that
restrict depositions shall not be required to travel internationally to be deposed.
The Court understands that counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants have an
ethical responsibility to zealously represent their clients. However, the Court reminds
counsel that they are also officers of the court. Moving forward, the Court expects that
both sides will abide by the Golden Rule and conduct themselves with professionalism

3

and integrity, and that they treat one another in the manner that they would like to be
treated by opposing counsel.

DATED: April 4, 2018

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4