Camp v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc

Filing 95

ORDER granting in part 79 Motion to Compel; denying 82 Motion for Protective Order. See attached order. Telephonic status conference set for 1/18/2012. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/22/11. (Nichols, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DOREEN CAMP ET AL.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:10CV1403(RNC)

RULING ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS
The plaintiffs bring this collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act claiming entitlement to unpaid overtime
wages. Pending before the court are the defendant's Motion to
Compel depositions of all opt-in plaintiffs, doc. #79, and the
plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order, doc. #82, to preclude
or limit further depositions.

District Judge Robert N. Chatigny

referred the motions to the undersigned for a ruling.
#81, #83.)

(Docs.

The court heard oral argument on the motions on

November 8, 2011.
A.

Motion to Compel; Motion for Protective Order

The defendants seek to depose all of the 30 opt-in
plaintiffs in light of the small size of the class and the
failure of plaintiffs' counsel to raise objections to any
deposition until the discovery period was near its close.
plaintiffs object, contending that a sufficient sample of

The

plaintiffs has been deposed and further depositions would be
unnecessarily burdensome to geographically distant plaintiffs.
The "pooling of resources" and "efficient resolution" of
claims were among Congress's purposes in authorizing collective
actions under the FLSA.

See Lynch v. United Services Auto.

Ass'n, 491 F. Supp. 2d 357, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989)).
Accordingly, some courts have limited depositions to a
representative sample.

See, e.g., Higueros v. New York State

Catholic Health Plan, Inc., No. 07cv418, 2009 WL 3463765, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2009) (declining to allow depositions of all
opt-in plaintiffs where defendant had deposed 10 of 47
plaintiffs in addition to receiving answers to interrogatories
and document requests).

Other courts have permitted depositions

of all opt-in plaintiffs where "a class is small and the
deposition is related to the question of whether the individual
plaintiffs are similarly situated within the meaning of the
FLSA."

Hill v. R±L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, No. 09cv1907,

2010 WL 3769247, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2010).
Here, although a third of the plaintiffs have been deposed,
those deponents were not selected by the defendant and there is
no measure by which to verify that they constitute a
representative sample of the class.

The court permits the

defendant to take the depositions of 9 more opt-in plaintiffs.
2

Any such depositions must be completed no later than January 13,
2012.1
With respect to hardship, the parties agree that
depositions can be facilitated if deponents are not required to
travel to Hartford.

The parties are encouraged to resolve this

issue without further intervention by the court.

If they cannot

reach a resolution by December 1, 2011, they either may contact
Judge Martinez for assistance in reaching a compromise or file
appropriate motions.
B.

Status Conference

A telephonic status conference with Judge Martinez will be
held on January 18, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

Counsel for the

plaintiffs shall initiate the call to chambers at [phone]
with all counsel on the line.
C.

No Settlement Conference Scheduled

Based on the parties' current positions, it does not appear
that a settlement conference would be productive at this time.
If these circumstances change and parties wish to schedule a
settlement conference, they may contact chambers.

1

This extended deadline applies only to the 9 additional
depositions. The deadline for all other discovery has passed.
3

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 22nd day of
November, 2011.

___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

4