Ebbs, et al v. Orleans Parish Sch
Filing
301
ORDER & REASONS that Plaintiffs' 229 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE's Order Denying Motion for Extension of Written Discovery Cut Off Date of August 27, 2010 and Its Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 7/25/12. (dno, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GERALDINE EBBS, ET AL.
*
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
*
NUMBER 04-1198
ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
*
SECTION “L” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court has pending before it Plaintiffs’ Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Denying Motion
for Extension of Written Discovery Cut Off Date of August 27, 2010 and Its Denial of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 229). The Court has reviewed the briefs and now issues
this Order and Reasons.
I.
BACKGROUND
This collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act was filed by Geraldine
Ebbs and others against the Orleans Parish School Board. All Plaintiffs were non-exempt
employees of Defendant, and all allege that they worked more than 40 hours per week without
receiving the required overtime compensation.
A brief procedural history of this case follows. The Complaint (Rec. Doc.1) was initially
filed in April 2004. After some delays caused by Hurricane Katrina, the class was conditionally
certified in July 2007. (Rec. Doc. 57). A notice for potential collective action members was
approved in August 2008 (Rec. Doc. 113), and a motion to amend that notice was approved in
June 2009 (Rec. Doc. 128). There are currently about 1,500 individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
moved for a protective order limiting discovery to a representative sample (Rec. Doc. 179), but
the Court denied that motion (Rec. Doc. 202).
In December 2010, this Court set a deadline of March 31, 2010 for Plaintiffs’ signed
responses to Defendants’ interrogatories. (Rec. Doc. 144). In April 2010, Defendant’s status
report (Rec. Doc. 175) suggested a deposition deadline of August 31, 2010 and a written
discovery deadline of September 30, 2010, but this Court did not adopt that suggestion. (Rec.
Docs. 183, 193). Magistrate Judge Shushan began conducting regular status conferences for this
case in June 2010. (Rec. Docs. 201, 203). Later that month, Judge Shushan extended the
deadline for the remaining written discovery responses until August 27, 2010 . (Rec. Doc. 206).
Judge Shushan’s order stated: “Failure of the claimants to meet that deadline will result in a
recommendation by the undersigned judge that the claims asserted by those individuals
will be dismissed.” Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs indicate that they submitted
approximately 1,029 responses before that deadline, leaving approximately 500 claims
remaining. (Rec. Doc. 229-1 at 3).
On August 31, 2010, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion for Extension of the Written
Discovery Cut-Off Date of August 27, 2010 (Rec. Doc. 221). On September 7, 2010, Magistrate
Judge Shushan denied that motion. (Rec. Doc. 222). Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of that order (Rec. Doc. 223), which Judge Shushan denied on September 17,
2010 (Rec. Doc. 226).
II.
PRESENT MOTION
Plaintiffs now appeal Magistrate Judge Shushan’s denial of both motions to this Court.
(Rec. Doc. 229). Despite the denial of their motion to limit discovery, Plaintiffs continue to
argue that written discovery from all plaintiffs should not be required. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
argue that they relied on Defendant’s proposed September 30, 2010 deadline, and that a deadline
of August 27, 2010 required them to produce 1,300 responses in just two months from June 29,
2
2010, when the extension was granted. Plaintiffs also argue that an extension of 30 days would
not prejudice defendants, and that dismissal of the remaining 500 claims would be an
unreasonably harsh remedy.
Defendant responds that Plaintiffs had a year, not two months, to produce the written
discovery responses, and that Plaintiffs failed to meet the original deadline because they failed to
submit responses on a rolling basis, as they had originally indicated they would. Defendant
argues that the order extending original deadline from March 31 to August 27 specifically
provided that failure to meet the new deadline would result in dismissal of claims. Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant’s September 30 proposal was unreasonable because
all status conferences and minute entries referred to the August 27 deadline set by Magistrate
Judge Shushan.
The standard of review for non-dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge is
extremely deferential. A magistrate judge’s written order on such an issue must stand unless
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Castillo
v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Plaintiffs must clear a high hurdle for this
Court to grant the instant motion.
Plaintiffs cannot make the required showing. It is evident that Magistrate Judge
Shushan—in both in the original order and the order denying reconsideration—gave due
consideration to Plaintiffs’ arguments before ruling against Plaintiffs. Indeed, rather than
pointing to any specific errors in either of Magistrate Judge Shushan’s orders, Plaintiffs’ motion
largely restates Plaintiffs’ original arguments in favor of granting the original motions. This
Court cannot properly consider such arguments under its deferential standard of review.
3
Plaintiffs do argue that it was unreasonable for Magistrate Judge Shushan to assert that an
extension of discovery deadlines would prejudice Defendant when no trial date has been set.
However, considering the large scale of this case, the amount of time and resources already
expended by both parties, and the fact that the discovery deadline had already been extended
once, this assertion is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of July, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?