White v. NTC Transportation, Inc. et al
Filing
83
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion for Discovery; terminating 76 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Jane M Virden on 1/31/2013. (sef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES WHITE
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11cv7-SA-JMV
NTC TRANSPORTATION, INC., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PLAN
This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for leave to propound individual
discovery to all opt in plaintiffs (#72) and the supplemental motion for such discovery (#67).
The court, having reviewed the record, the motion, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable
law, and having heard oral argument finds, for the reasons also announced in detail by the court
on the record at the conclusion of the motion hearing on January 28, 2013, as follows:
•
With regard to the initial plaintiff, Charles White, and two plaintiffs of defendants'
choosing who were made affiants in the motion to conditionally certify class, the
defendants are allowed the following individually prepared written discovery:
twenty interrogatories, twenty requests for production, twenty requests for
admission to each. Additionally, Mr. White and the two additional plaintiffs
selected by the defendants shall be made available for depositions, each not to
exceed two hours in length. This discovery must be complete by April 14, 2013.
•
With regard to the balance of the named opt-in plaintiffs, defendant may submit a
single set of the same written discovery to each as follows: three succinct
interrogatories (no sub-parts), two requests for production, and two requests for
admission. This discovery must be propounded by February 14, 2013 and
responded to by the plaintiffs within the time allotted by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
•
The defendants may take a maximum of five additional depositions of the opt-in
plaintiffs chosen at their discretion. These depositions shall be taken within a 100
mile radius of the resident location of the deponent. These depositions shall be
limited to one hour each and must be completed by April 14, 2013.
•
At the conclusion of the specified discovery on April 14, 2013, should defendants
wish to conduct additional discovery of the individual plaintiffs, a motion shall be
made for such discovery by April 20, 2013. This motion should clearly articulate
the need for additional discovery and include legitimate and practical reasons for
its necessity. The plaintiff shall have seven business days to file a response to any
such motion.
•
Plaintiffs (collectively) and defendants (collectively) are limited to five non-party
witness depositions each and plaintiffs ( collectively) will be allowed twenty
interrogatories, twenty requests for production and twenty requests for admission
as to each defendant. In addition, plaintiffs (collectively) shall be allowed to take
a 30(b)6 deposition of the corporate defendant’s designee(s) and a deposition of
each individual defendant in accordance with the FRCP.
•
Except as amended by virtue hereof, the CMO and its deadlines, including but not
limited to the discovery deadline, shall remain in effect and unchanged. Further,
the court being advised that the defendant has not yet satisfied its initial discovery
obligations as set out in the CMO (in particular, the obligation to provide the pay
and hours worked documentation related to the plaintiffs and opt-ins) and being
advised by defense counsel that the same can be provided forthwith, the court
orders that the documents shall be made available to plaintiffs’ counsel for
inspection and copying by 5:00 pm on February 4, 2013.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants’ motion for
leave to propound individual discovery to all opt in plaintiffs (#72) is GRANTED in part
pursuant to the aforementioned instructions.
This, the 31st day of January 2013.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?