Aguilar v. United Floor Crew, Inc et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 45 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 2/25/2015. (ms01)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-61605-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
RAUL AGUILAR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED FLOOR CREW, INC.,
DENNIS LARIOS, PRESIDENTE
SUPERMARKET #18, and
PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET #27,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS UNITED FLOOR CREW, INC. AND DENNIS LARIOS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants United Floor Crew, Inc. and Dennis
Larios’ (the “UFC Defendants”) Motion for Leave of Court to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition (the
“Motion) (ECF No. 45). The Court has reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 47),
and Defendants Presidente Supermarket #18 and Presidente Supermarket #27’s (the “Presidente
Defendants”) Response (ECF No. 48), and is otherwise duly advised in the premises.
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 1 case in which Plaintiff has sued Defendants
under federal and state law to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages. See Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff claims that Defendants are jointly and severally liable
as his “joint employer.” Id. ¶ 16. Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s claims.
In preparing their defense, the Presidente Defendants have scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition
for March 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 48 at 4). Defense counsel estimates that she will need

1

29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.

approximately 6-8 hours to depose Plaintiff on behalf of her clients. (ECF No. 48 at 2). Because
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) limits depositions to one day of seven hours absent a
stipulation or leave of court, the UFC Defendants’ counsel is concerned that he will not have
sufficient time, if any, to depose Plaintiff on March 2nd on behalf of his clients within the sevenhour window. (ECF No. 45). The UFC Defendants thus seek leave to either: (1) exceed the sevenhour limit on March 2nd; or (2) take a separate deposition of Plaintiff at a later date. While the
Presidente Defendants support the UFC Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff opposes it.
Under Rule 30(d)(1), “[t]he court must allow additional time [for a deposition] consistent
with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or
any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(d)(1) (emphasis
added). In this case, it is not certain that the UFC Defendants will need additional time during the
March 2nd deposition to fairly examine Plaintiff.

Although Plaintiff has sued four separate

defendants, this FLSA litigation over alleged unpaid wages remains relatively straightforward. It
does not involve novel or complex issues, but rather routine issues such as who Plaintiff worked for
and reported to, the number of hours worked, what Plaintiff did as part of his job, how Plaintiff was
paid, etc.
Despite Defendants’ protestations, see, e.g., (ECF No. 45 at 3, n.1), there is likely to be
substantial overlap in the relevant areas of inquiry that both defense lawyers need to explore on
behalf of their clients. Nonetheless, in an effort to afford all Defendants sufficient time to fairly
examine Plaintiff—and to avoid additional litigation over what should have been a matter of
professional courtesy—the undersigned will grant in part and deny in part the UFC Defendants’
Motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the UFC Defendants’ Motion
for Leave of Court to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED IN PART and
2

DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s deposition will be limited to a total of nine (9) hours, excluding
breaks, over the course of one or more days, as agreed upon by the parties. To the extent nine hours
proves insufficient for both defense lawyers to fully and fairly examine Plaintiff on all relevant
issues, Defendants may seek leave from the Court for additional time to depose Plaintiff. Should
Defendants decide to seek additional time, Defendants’ motion must include a copy of the transcript
from the original nine-hour deposition and articulate specific, well-supported reasons why
Plaintiff’s deposition could not be completed within the nine-hour period.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on February 25, 2015.

____________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies provided to:
The Honorable Beth Bloom
All counsel of record

3