Howard v. Second Chance Jai Alai LLC et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 48 Motion to Compel; granting 50 Motion to extend time to conduct mediation. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 4/8/2016. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER HOWARD and
JEFFREY GREENSTONE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly
situated
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-200-Oc-PRL

SECOND CHANCE JAI ALAI LLC
Defendant.

ORDER
This consent case is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Plaintiffs to Properly Respond to Prior Interrogatories (Doc. 48) and Defendant’s Motion to Extend
Time for Mediation and to Conduct Mediation via the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 50).
I.

Background

Plaintiffs worked as poker dealers for Defendant at its Ocala Poker & Jai-Alai
establishment. Plaintiffs bring this case pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
allege that Defendant created an invalid tip pool by sharing Plaintiffs’ tips with ineligible
employees. Plaintiffs allege that they were required to participate in a tip pool with various other
employees such as managers, vault personnel, floor personnel, and cashiers over at least the past
3 years.
II.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel

The first issue to be addressed is Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 48), to which
Plaintiff has responded.

(Doc. 49).

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have provided

insufficient, incomplete, and evasive answers to their interrogatories responses contrary to Rule
37(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant does not explain in its motion how
or why Plaintiff’s answers are insufficient, incomplete, or evasive, but instead refers the Court to
its “good faith” letter attached as exhibit. (Doc. 48, p. 6).
Defendant’s letter, dated March 14, 2016, requests that Plaintiffs supplement their
interrogatory responses. For example, Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff’s responses, and argues
Plaintiffs’ answers represent “ridiculous” or “preposterous” positions. (Doc. 48, p. 6).
Plaintiff argues in response, however, that Defendant’s motion to compel is untimely. As
set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order, “motions to compel brought
pursuant to Rule 37 must be filed no later than the close of discovery.” (Doc. 25, p. 2). Plaintiffs
state they responded to Defendant’s interrogatories on January 19, 2016, and Defendant did not
object to their answers for 55 days, until sending the letter of March 14, 2016. Plaintiff further
contends that Defendant’s letter was sent at 4:59 p.m., and unreasonably demanded receipt of
amended interrogatory answers by March 15, 2016 – the next day. The discovery deadline was
March 16, 2016. Defendant’s motion to compel was filed on March 23, 2016. (Doc. 48).
The Court agrees that Defendant’s motion to compel was untimely and is therefore due to
be denied. After receiving Plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers on or about January 19, 2016,
Defendant had ample time to communicate its objections, but failed to do so until near the close
of discovery. Defendant has offered no explanation for the delay in raising its objections, and the
time for filing its motion to compel expired on the deadline of March 16, 2016.
III.

Request Regarding Mediation

Defendant has also requested that the time for mediation be extended by 30 days, and to
conduct the mediation with the United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 50). Previously, upon the

-2-

parties’ consent, this case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to
conduct all proceedings, including trial and order the entry of final judgment in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (Docs. 21 & 23). Accordingly, the undersigned would
not conduct a mediation conference in this case. The parties are advised that, if they agree to
mediation before another magistrate judge, they should expect to travel to a different division
within the Middle District of Florida and participate in mediation there.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, it is ordered that:
(1) Defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. 48) is DENIED.
(2) If, in light of the information contained in this Order, the parties desire to schedule a
settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge, they may file an
appropriate motion. In the meantime, Defendant’s motion to extend the deadline for
mediation an additional 30 days (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on April 8, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-