KNOX et al v. JONES GROUP et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting IN PART Defendants' 81 Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 10/18/2016. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KIMBERLEE KNOX,
KAYLA BRATCHER on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JONES GROUP,
AVON WINGS, LLC doing business as
BUFFALO WILD WINGS,
BW WINGS MANAGEMENT LLC,
COLDWATER WINGS, LLC,
COLONIAL WINGS, LLC,
COOL WINGS, LLC,
DANVILLE WINGS II, LLC,
GREENCASTLE WINGS, LLC,
MECHANICSVILLE WINGS, LLC,
SHELBYVILLE WINGS, LLC,
VINCENNES WINGS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-01738-SEB-TAB

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
This case is before the Court on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [Filing No. 81]
of this Court’s September 16, 2016, order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel. [Filing No. 80.]
For reasons explained below, the Court corrects two factual errors, finds no legal error, and
clarifies the information Defendants must produce. However, this order provides Defendants
with no substantive relief.
Defendants’ motion first points out that the Court erred in stating that Defendants failed
to produce the addresses or phone numbers for 40 individual witnesses. Upon reconsideration,
the Court acknowledges that Defendants’ initial disclosures provided this contact information.

[Filing No. 56-1.] The first sentence on page 22 should have only stated, “It is undisputed that
Defendants identified three categories of witnesses, but failed to produce their names, addresses,
or phone numbers.” [Filing No. 80, at ECF p. 22.]
Second, Defendants’ motion points out that the Court erred in stating that Defendants’
response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel was untimely. On reconsideration, the Court
acknowledges that Defendants’ brief was indeed timely. However, timeliness was not the basis
of the Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The basis of the Court’s decision
was that certification entitled Plaintiffs to the information. The perceived untimeliness of
Defendants’ brief was merely further support for the order, as the Court stated. [Filing No. 80, at
ECF p. 22.]
Defendants next argue that the Court erred in stating Defendants’ objection was mooted
by the conditional certification. Defendants allege the Court failed to consider all aspects of their
objection. On reconsideration, the Court disagrees. All aspects of Defendants’ objection were
considered, including whether Defendants were required to identify individuals within the
categories of witnesses. “Merely because a fact or argument has not been explicitly laid out does
not mean that it has not been given serious consideration by the court.” McDonald v. Vill. of
Winnetka, 371 F.3d 992, 994 (7th Cir. 2004). As the September 16 order reflects, once the Court
certified the action, Defendants were required to identify those individuals. This leads to the
final issue on reconsideration: clarification of whether all individuals need to be identified.
Defendants’ initial disclosures provided contact information for 40 individual witnesses
and identified four categories of witnesses: (1) general managers at the 34 restaurants, (2)
managers at the 34 restaurants, (3) all opt-in Plaintiffs, and (4) all front-of-house employees and
kitchen staff that may have discoverable information. [Filing No. 56-1.] The opt-in Plaintiffs

2

will be identified as they consent to join this action. However, there was no content for the
remaining three categories of witnesses. In certifying this action, the Court ordered Defendants
to “supplement their initial disclosures within 30 days by producing the names, addresses, and
phone numbers for the witnesses identified in their initial disclosures.” [Filing No. 80, at ECF p.
22.]
Defendants ask the Court for clarification and guidance for whom they must provide
contact information. Defendants highlight that they did not use the word “all,” and explain that
these categories preserve their right to supplement initial disclosures. Defendants contend they
are therefore uncertain whether they must identify and disclose the contact information for all
individuals belonging to these categories, or whether disclosure should be narrowed, for
example, by knowledge, time period, defenses, or discovery. Notably, Defendants pose this
question to the Court without offering background information or reasons for narrowing
disclosures. Certainly Defendants created these placeholder categories with individuals in mind.
Who did Defendants intend to include? Who do Defendants want to exclude? The answers are
unclear. The Court did not create these categories and the Court will not narrow these categories
by guessing at the answers. Accordingly, the Court instructs Defendants to identify and disclose
the contact information for all individuals belonging to their categories.
The standard of relevance applied in discovery is very broad, and the Court has broad
discretion in matters relating to discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Patterson v. Avery Dennison
Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002). So too, the Court takes a broad view of Defendants’
categories. Upon reconsideration, the Court clarifies that Defendants must identify (1) all
general managers at the 34 restaurants, (2) all managers at the 34 restaurants, and (3) all front-ofhouse employees and kitchen staff that may have discoverable information.

3

For the above reasons, Defendants’ motion for partial reconsideration [Filing No. 81] is
granted in part. Defendants’ response [Filing No. 61] was timely and 40 individual witnesses
were identified in the initial disclosures. All aspects of Defendants’ objection were considered in
the Court’s prior ruling. The Court clarifies that Defendants must identify all individuals that
belong in the three categories of witnesses listed in their initial disclosures. The 30-day time
period for supplementation begins upon entry of this order.
Date: 10/18/2016
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Paul DeCamp
JACKSON LEWIS LLP
[e-mail]
Craig W. Wiley
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Melissa K. Taft
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Jamie G. Sypulski
LAW OFFICE OF JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
[e-mail]
Douglas M. Werman
WERMAN SALAS PC
[e-mail]
Zachary C. Flowerree
WERMAN SALAS PC
[e-mail]
4