Jean-Louis et al v. Clear Springs Farming, LLC et al

Filing 134

ORDER re 130 Memorandum in support filed by Judes Petit-Frere, Shelene Jean-Louis, 131 Memorandum in opposition filed by Jack Green, Jr., Clear Springs Farming, LLC, Florida Gold Citrus, Inc., 58 MOTION for protective order regarding absent class member discovery filed by Judes Petit-Frere, Shelene Jean-Louis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli on 8/19/2015. (FDM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS, JUDES
PETIT-FRERE, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 8:13-cv-3084-T-30AEP

CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING, LLC, a
Foreign Limited Liability Company,
FLORIDA GOLD CITRUS, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, JACK GREEN
JR., individually, and HOWARD LEASING,
INC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order Regarding
Class Member Discovery (Dkt. 58), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law on Absent Class Member
Discovery (Dkt. No. 130), and Defendants’ Memorandum Regarding, and in Response to,
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law on Absent Class Member Discovery (Dkt. No. 131). On
January 16, 2105, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order regarding
discovery sought for damage mitigation, deferring issues relating to damages discovery. (Dkt.
No. 70.)
In the interim, the Honorable James S. Moody, Jr. denied Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate
and lifted any stay regarding damages discovery. (Dkt. No. 128.) Pursuant to the Court’s June
24, 2015 Order, a hearing was noticed for August 6, 2015, to cover the unaddressed aspects of

damages discovery. At the hearing, the undersigned heard argument on Defendants’ request to
serve interrogatories on absent class members, as well as the appropriateness of discovery
relating to class member immigration status. These matters were taken under advisement.
Upon further review of the parties’ memoranda, the Court concludes that the requested
absent class member discovery is appropriate. While class member discovery cannot be
employed as a tactic to threaten, harass, or reduce class size, individual discovery directed to
passive or absent class members is not per se inappropriate and may, even if rarely, be proper.
See Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. (“Cox”), 784 F.2d 1546, 1556 (11th Cir. 1986); accord
Brennan v. Midwestern United Life Ins. Co., 450 F.2d 999, 1004 (7th Cir. 1971) (discussing the
spirit of Rule 23 as it relates to absent class members submitting to discovery); see also § 7B
Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1796.1 (3d ed.). Plaintiff contends the Eleventh Circuit’s four-part test
weighs against, and even precludes, discovery in this instance. This argument, however, lacks
merit on two grounds. First, the Eleventh Circuit in Cox did not endorse, nor did it otherwise
create, a four-part test. See Cox, 784 F.2d at 1556 (“We cannot conclude that the interrogatories
served upon plaintiffs in this case would satisfy Brennan and Clark, were we to follow those
rulings.”) (emphasis added). Second, even if such a balancing test or one similar to it were
employed in this instance, the facts at hand do not weigh against discovery. The proposed
interrogatories at issue are simple, non-technical, and, if translated into the appropriate
languages, do not require professional assistance to understand. Moreover, the Court does not
find that the request is a tactic designed to take undue advantage of class members or reduce the
size of the class. Instead, the proposed interrogatories are helpful to the proper presentation and
correct adjudication of the principal suit in that they are designed to elicit information regarding
damages mitigation—information this Court has already deemed simple and relevant to

2

Plaintiffs’ prayer for compensatory damages. See Order, July 15, 2015, 4, ECF No. 128. The
undersigned agrees that the subject information is appropriate to assist in preserving Defendants'
right to conduct a thorough and adequate defense in this case. Therefore, while the Court may
ultimately be bridled in levying sanctions for absent class member noncompliance, it
nevertheless concludes that Defendants are entitled to serve the proposed interrogatories
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Cox, 784 F.2d at 1556-57 (declining to
approve the use of the discovery sanction of dismissal against passive class members in a class
action suit, even to the extent allowed for by other Circuits).
Turning next to the proposed question regarding absent class member immigration
status—the Court finds the question appropriate for discovery purposes. The Supreme Court’s
analysis in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (“Hoffman”) appears to support the
proposition that a plaintiff’s claim for back-pay under Title VII may be subject to that plaintiff’s
immigration status and ability to work legally in the country. See 535 U.S. 137, 152 (2002). As
Defendants argue, several district courts have either directly ruled on this issue or have intimated
that the logic employed in Hoffman is transferrable. See, e.g., Escobar v. Spartan Sec. Serv., 281
F. Supp. 2d 895 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (finding claim to back-pay under Title VII foreclosed as a
matter of law under Hoffman); Iweala v. Operational Techs. Servs., 634 F. Supp. 2d 73, 80
(D.D.C. 2009) (noting that immigration and employment status may limit remedies under Title
VII); De La Rosa v. N. Harvest Furniture, 210 F.R.D. 237 (C.D. Ill. 2002) (declining to hold
Hoffman’s analysis dispositive but finding immigration status to be potentially relevant from
post-termination to the date the employee is offered reinstatement).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated on record at the hearing, and upon further review of
the parties’ memoranda, it is hereby

3

ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Proposed Absent Class Member Interrogatories (Doc. 131, Ex. A) are
APPROVED. Plaintiffs shall bear the cost of administrating the discovery requests with
the exception of costs relating to language translation, which shall be paid by Defendants.
2.

Defendants shall serve the subject interrogatories within seven (7) days of the date of
this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida this 19th day of August, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

4