Cooper et al v. Parker Promotions, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for Protective Order Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 08/29/2018 (CCL)

Case 4:17-cv-00116-CDL Document 36 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
ROBERT F. COOPER, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

vs.

*

PARKER PROMOTIONS, INC. and
NICHOLAS PARKER,

*

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-116 (CDL)

*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiffs worked at an establishment called Club Fetish.
Club Fetish is owned by Defendant Parker Promotions, Inc., which
is owned by Defendant Nicholas Parker.

Plaintiffs assert that

they were employees of Defendants, and they seek to recover
unpaid overtime from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”).
To

prove

their

FLSA

claims,

Plaintiffs

must

establish,

among other things, that they were “employed in an enterprise
engaged in commerce.”

29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

Plaintiffs may

establish this element of their claim by proving that they were
employed in an enterprise “whose annual gross volume of sales
made

or

business

done

29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii).

is

not

less

than

$500,000.”

Plaintiffs seek discovery on this

topic from Master Tax Solutions, which prepared tax returns for
Nicholas Parker and Parker Promotions, Inc.

Case 4:17-cv-00116-CDL Document 36 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 3

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to
discovery on the revenue of Parker Promotions, Inc.—including
the tax returns of Parker Promotions, Inc., documents used in
the preparation of those tax returns, and communications between
Nicholas Parker and his tax preparer related to the revenue of
Parker

Promotions,

discovery

of

Inc.

Nicholas

Defendants,

Parker’s

however,

individual

object

finances,

and

to
they

seek a protective order prohibiting this discovery.
Plaintiffs argue that Club Fetish was part of an enterprise
controlled

by

Nicholas

Parker

and

that

the

enterprise

also

included revenue-generating equipment at Club Fetish that was
owned by Nicholas Parker individually.

This equipment included

gaming machines, automatic teller machines, and billiard tables.
Defendants
Nicholas

do

not

Parker

seriously

derived

Plaintiff’s claims.

from

dispute
this

that

any

equipment

is

revenue

that

relevant

to

The Court denies Defendants’ motion for a

protective order as to evidence of the revenue generated from
this equipment.
Plaintiffs also argue that Club Dreams, another club owned
by Nicholas Parker, was part of the Club Fetish enterprise and
that

Plaintiffs

should

be

permitted

to

regarding revenue generated at Club Dreams.
argument,

Plaintiffs

Robert Cooper.

pointed

to

the

discover

evidence

In support of this

Declaration

of

Plaintiff

Defendants, however, represent that they have

2

Case 4:17-cv-00116-CDL Document 36 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 3

not had an opportunity to depose Cooper regarding the matters
addressed in his Declaration.

Plaintiffs shall not be permitted

to discover evidence regarding income from Club Dreams until
Defendants have had an opportunity to depose Cooper about the
connection between Club Fetish and Club Dreams and the Court is
satisfied that there is at least a genuine fact dispute as to
whether Club Dreams and Club Fetish were part of one enterprise.
Any deposition of Cooper must be conducted before the close of
discovery.
In summary, Defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF
No. 29) is denied as to revenue that Nicholas Parker derived
from

equipment

automatic

teller

at

Club

Fetish,

machines,

and

including

billiard

gaming

tables.

machines,
Defendants’

motion is otherwise granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of August, 2018.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3