Rodriguez v. River Strand Golf & Country Club, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER: The Court mandates that Plaintiff file full, direct, and complete answers to the Court's interrogatories by July 6, 2018, failing which the Court will be inclined to dismiss the case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/2/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FREDDY RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO:

8:18-cv-1130-T-33AEP

RIVER STRAND GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff's
Notice of Serving Answers to Court's Interrogatories (Doc.
20), filed on June 29, 2018.

#

The Court requires additional

information as explained below.
Discussion
Plaintiff

Freddy

Rodriguez

filed

this

Fair

Labor

Standards Act case against River Strand Golf & Country Club on
May 8, 2018.

The Court entered its FLSA Scheduling Order

(Doc. # 10) on May 24, 2018.

That Order is narrowly tailored

to facilitate the speedy resolution of FLSA cases.

The first

step of the Order requires the parties to exchange information
regarding the alleged unpaid wages.
Order

contemplates

Plaintiff

The second step of the

filing

sworn

Interrogatory

Answers and Defendant filing a Verified Summary based on the
aforementioned document exchange. After the document exchange

and the sworn filings are completed, the case is poised for a
successful

mediation

conference

with

the

Court's

chosen

mediator.
Here, Defendant was required to provide to Plaintiff by
June 14, 2018: "All time sheets and payroll records in
Defendant's possession, custody or control that pertain to
work performed by Plaintiff during the time period for which
Plaintiff claims unpaid wages." (Doc. # 10 at 2).

The Order

then called upon Plaintiff to file Interrogatory Answers by
June 29, 2018. (Id.).
On

June

29,

2018,

Plaintiff

timely

filed

sworn

Interrogatory Answers, but some of his answers are incomplete.
For

instance,

in

response

to

Interrogatory

7,

Plaintiff

describes working 25 hours of overtime on some weeks during
his employment from September 9, 2015, to October 25, 2017;
however he does not provide a "total amount claimed." (Doc. #
20 at 3).

Instead of stating the amount of his claim, which

is the most important piece of information when it comes to
formulating a settlement offer, Plaintiff postulates: "Records
concerning the number of hours actually worked by Plaintiff
and pay records are in the exclusive possession, custody and
control of the Defendants, and therefore, Plaintiff is unable
to state at this time the exact amount due.
2

Payroll records

from Defendants may satisfy this issue." (Id.).
Here,

all

payroll

provided to Plaintiff.
the

payroll

synthesized

records,
the

records

should

have

already

been

Either Defendant failed to turn over
or

Plaintiff

information

to

has

not

formulate

accessed

an

and

appropriate

response to the Court's inquiry.
In addition, Plaintiff has provided a non-answer to
Interrogatory

9,

which

asks

Plaintiff

to

"specify

all

attorney's fees and costs incurred to date" including "the
hourly rate(s) sought and the number of hours expended by each
person who has billed time to this case." (Id.).
providing

this

basic

(and

essential)

Rather than

information

about

attorney's fees and costs, Plaintiff states that he has
entered

into

a

contingency

fee

agreement.

While

the

information regarding the fee agreement has some relevancy to
the case, it certainly does not state the number of hours
billed

to

the

file

or

the

hourly

rate

of

the

billing

attorneys.
A large percentage of the Court's docket is comprised of
FLSA cases, and the Court has developed a specific, costeffective method for the early resolution of these cases. The
Court has previously noted that "[d]ue to the volume of cases
based on the FLSA," the Court expects "strict adherence" to
3

the requirements of the FLSA scheduling Order and "[f]ailure
to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including
but not limited to the dismissal of the case and the striking
of pleadings."

(Doc. # 10 at ¶ 12).

Although the Court is not inclined to impose sanctions at
this juncture, the Court will require Plaintiff to supplement
the Interrogatories by July 6, 2018.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
The Court mandates that Plaintiff file full, direct, and
complete answers to the Court's interrogatories by July 6,
2018, failing which the Court will be inclined to dismiss the
case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd
day of July, 2018.

4