Acosta et al v. Tyson Foods

Filing 131

ORDER granting 109 Motion to Compel and 113 Motion to Show Cause as set forth herein. On or before August 17, 2012, the plaintiffs shall serve responses or supplemental responses to the defendant's interrogatories and requests for production, without objection, or show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against them. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MANUEL ACOSTA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TYSON FOODS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:08CV86

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to
Answer Interrogatories and Document Requests, or in the Alternative to Dismiss Plaintiffs
for Failure to Respond to Discovery (Filing No. 109) and Motion to Show Cause Why
Plaintiffs Who Have Failed to Respond to Discovery Requests Should not be Dismissed
(Filing No. 113). The plaintiffs did not respond to the defendant’s motion to compel.

BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs are current or former employees who worked some time during the
period March 1, 2004, to the present, at the defendant’s Madison, Nebraska, meat
processing facility. See Filing No. 1 - Complaint ¶¶ 3, 14. The case was filed as a class
action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq., and state law regarding pay for pre- and post-production line activities, including
“donning and doffing,” and other activities in connection with job functions. The plaintiffs
seek relief for alleged violations of state and federal wage-and-hour laws, including alleged
failures to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for uncompensated job-related
activities.
The plaintiffs filed the instant action on February 29, 2008. See Filing No. 1. The
defendant filed an answer on June 4, 2008.

See Filing No. 10.

The matter was

temporarily stayed while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reviewed, then denied,
the defendant’s motion to transfer the case. See Filing Nos. 18 and 20. On November 6,
2008, the court dissolved the stay and the parties were free to begin discovery. See Filing
No. 24. Due to the volume of class certification discovery materials, the parties were

granted several extensions of time to complete such discovery. See, e.g., Filing No. 53.
On March 30, 2011, the court certified the plaintiffs’ class, pursuant the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
for those employees who were paid under a “gang time” compensation system in the Kill,
Cut, or Conversion departments. See Filing No. 73 - Order. The plaintiffs have not sought
conditional certification of a class in relation to the FLSA collective action claims.
On November 23, 2011, the court entered a progression order scheduling trial for
January 14, 2013. See Filing No. 94. At the parties’ request, on June 8, 2012, the court
extended the deadline for completing discovery to June 22, 2012, and for filing motions for
summary judgment to July 27, 2012. See Filing No. 160 - Text Order. On June 22, 2012,
the plaintiffs requested a two-week extension of time, until July 6, 2012, serve responses
to discovery requested by the defendant. See Filing No. 108. The court granted the
plaintiffs’ request. See Filing No. 112.
Also on June 22, 2012, the defendant filed the instant motion to compel. See Filing
No. 109. In the motion, the defendant seeks an order compelling the plaintiffs who have
not yet responded to discovery to provide responses and the plaintiffs who have provided
arguably inadequate discovery to supplement their responses. See Filing No. 110 - Brief.
The parties conferred but were unable to resolve the discovery issues without court
intervention. Id. at 6-7. On July 18, 2012, the defendant filed the motion to show cause.
See Filing No. 113. The defendant states many, but not all, of the plaintiffs have now
provided discovery responses, however the responses received suffer the same
inadequacies as the responses received by June 22, 2012. Id. The plaintiff did not
respond to the motion to compel.

ANALYSIS
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense . . . [or] appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Broad discovery is an important tool
for the litigant, and so ‘[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’”
WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Family Support, Inc., 628 F.3d 1032, 1039 (8th Cir.
2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). However, “[t]he District
2

Court does have discretion to limit the scope of discovery.” Credit Lyonnais v. SGC Int’l,
Inc., 160 F.3d 428, 431 (8th Cir. 1998).
Once the requesting party meets the threshold relevance burden, generally “[a]ll
discovery requests are a burden on the party who must respond thereto. Unless the task
of producing or answering is unusual, undue or extraordinary, the general rule requires the
entity answering or producing the documents to bear that burden.” Continental Ill. Nat’l
Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 684-85 (D. Kan. 1991) (citation
omitted). The party opposing a motion to compel has the burden of showing its objections
are valid by providing specific explanations or factual support as to how each discovery
request is improper. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198
F.R.D. 508, 511-12 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (objecting party has the burden to substantiate its
objections). The party resisting discovery has the burden to show facts justifying its
objection by demonstrating that the time or expense involved in responding to requested
discovery is unduly burdensome. See Wagner v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 606, 610
(D. Neb. 2001). This imposes an obligation to provide sufficient detail and explanation
about the nature of the burden in terms of time, money, and procedure required to produce
the requested discovery. See id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 provides:
An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired
into under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable
merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates
to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order
that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated
discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some
other time.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).
Generally, “[t]he responding party must serve its answers and any objections within
30 days after being served with the interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “Each
interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in
writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). If an objection is made, “[t]he grounds for
objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a
timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 allows a party to request of another party
production of documents for inspection and copying. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The rule
applies to such documents that are “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or
control.” Id. Rule 34(b)(2) further provides that “[t]he party to whom the request is directed
must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2).
The parties are under a continuing obligation to supplement or correct any
disclosure, including an initial disclosure, response to an interrogatory, and response to a
request for production, that is, or becomes, incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

A.

Failure to Respond
The defendant served the plaintiffs, specifically the three named plaintiffs and 53

opt-in plaintiffs, with interrogatories and requests for production on May 4, 2012. See Filing
No. 111 - Ex. 1 Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Designated Plaintiffs and
Defendant’s First Request for Production of Documents to Designated Plaintiffs.1
According to the defendant,
Thirty-six of the Plaintiffs served timely objections on June 5 or
6, 2012, and 10 of them included substantive answers. An
additional 10 of the timely objectors served substantive
answers on June 21, 2012. The remaining 16 timely objectors
have not yet provided substantive answers. Another 20
Plaintiffs untimely served objections on June 19, 2012 and still
have not provided any substantive answers.
See Filing No. 110 - Brief p. 3-4 (internal citations to evidence omitted).
The defendant notes that on June 22, 2012, after the motion to compel was filed,
five additional plaintiffs served interrogatory responses. See Filing No. 113 - Reply p. 2
¶ 5. On June 25, 2012, three additional plaintiffs served interrogatory responses. Id. at
3 ¶ 11. On July 6, 2012, eight additional plaintiffs served interrogatory responses. Id. at
4 ¶ 13. On July 11, 2012, four additional plaintiffs served interrogatory responses. Id. at
7 ¶ 23. On July 12, 2012, one additional plaintiff served interrogatory responses. Id. at 8
¶ 27. On July 16, 2012, two additional plaintiffs served interrogatory responses. Id. ¶ 28.

1

The court notes no Certificate of Service was filed for either the requests or responses as is
required by NECivR 33.1(e) and 34.1, however because the plaintiffs do no dispute when the defendant
served the discovery requests, the court will assum e they were served on May 4, 2012.
4

As of July 18, 2012, thirteen plaintiffs had not provided interrogatory responses and thirtyfive had not provided responses to requests for production. Id. at 9 ¶ 32.2
Although the plaintiffs sought additional time, until July 6, 2012, to provide discovery
responses, the plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion to compel, substantiated
their objections, or provided any explanation for failure to timely serve all of their responses
as they agreed to do. Accordingly, the defendant’s motions to compel and show cause will
be granted with regard to the plaintiffs with outstanding unanswered interrogatories and
requests for production.

The plaintiffs who have not yet served responses to the

defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production shall provide answers and
responses, without objection, or show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against
them, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and (d).

B.

Requests for Production
The defendant served the same two requests for production on each of the named

and designated plaintiffs.
Request No. 1: All documents that relate or refer to your
employment with Tyson. This request includes, but is not
limited to, all documents that you created, or which Tyson
Foods gave to you, relating to your employment application,
hiring, orientation, initial training, subsequent training or
meetings of any kind, pay stubs, or notes documenting facts
relevant to the activities at issue.
Request No. 2: All documents that related to, that plaintiffs
contend support, or that may refute the allegations in the
Complaint.
See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 1 p. 15 Requests for Production.
The plaintiffs who responded to these requests gave the following response to both
requests:
Information responsive to this request are in the possession of
the Defendant and plaintiff exercises Federal Rule 33(d) to
refer Defendant to its own business records, its own employee
time and attendance system, and Plaintiff’s personnel file in
Defendant’s possession.
2

No Certificates of Service were filed indicating service of additional responses to date.
5

See, e.g., Filing No. 111 - Ex. 2 Responses to Requests for Production p. 16.
Further, the defendant states that although five of the plaintiffs admitted in
interrogatory responses they kept or have pay stubs, these plaintiffs did not produce them
despite the plain language of Request for Production No. 1 seeking any pay stubs
maintained by the individual plaintiffs. See Filing No. 110 - Brief p. 4.
The defendant has met the threshold burden of showing the requests for production
of documents seek relevant discovery. More specifically, the court finds the defendant’s
request for pay stubs retained by the plaintiffs bears on the plaintiffs’ claims and the
defendant’s defenses in this matter. The pay stubs may contain codes indicating certain
categories of pay for activities at issues in this case. Id. at 12. Accordingly, the burden
shifts to the plaintiffs to substantiate any objections to production. The plaintiffs did not
object to the requests. Rather the plaintiffs reference Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) and indicate
the defendant should already have access to the documents sought. To the extent the
plaintiffs’ response can be read as an objection to production of documents, it is overruled.
The plaintiffs do not deny they have documents responsive to the defendant’s
requests. In fact, some of the plaintiffs admit they have, or may have, responsive
documents such as pay stubs. Moreover, an objection based on information that the
moving party is already in possession of documents it seeks to obtain by inspection, is an
insufficient response to requests for production; a party is required to produce documents
in its possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether it believes the requesting party
already has those documents. See Ragan v. Jeffboat, LLC, 149 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1061
(S.D. Ind. 2001); Walt Disney Co. v. DeFabiis, 168 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D. Cal. 1996);
Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 161 F.R.D. 103, 105 (D. Colo. 1995); Fort Washington
Resources, Inc. v. Tannen, 153 F.R.D. 78, 79 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (“[I]t is not a bar to the
discovery of relevant material that the same material may be in the possession of the
requesting party or obtainable from another source.”). Finally, Rule 33(d) does not apply
to the circumstances here because the documents are the information sought, rather than
an answer requiring computation, summarization, or examination of information contained
in documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to compel
will be granted such that the plaintiffs shall, without objection, supplement their responses

6

to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 2 to provide the discovery requested to the extent
the discovery requested is in each “responding party’s possession, custody, or control.”

C.

Interrogatories
The defendant seeks relief from the court with regard to several specific

interrogatories. While the defendant received the same response from all plaintiffs as to
Interrogatory No. 2, the defendant only challenges particular individual’s responses as to
Interrogatory Nos. 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22.

The court will address each of the

interrogatories below.

1.

Interrogatory No. 2

The defendant served Interrogatory No. 2 on each of the named and designated
plaintiffs. Interrogatory No. 2 seeks:
For each position identified in response to Interrogatory No.13
above, identify each item (other than undergarments or street
clothes) that you put on or wore in connection with your work
for Tyson. Identify the activities associated with these items
for which you contend that should have been paid but were not
paid. List each item in the order in which you put on the item
and identify the location at which you put it on before the start
of the shift (i.e., at home, in the locker room, in the cafeteria,
etc).
See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 1 p. 4 Interrogatories.
The plaintiffs responded with the following objection:
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly
broad. It is vague in its request to “identify the activities
associated with these items”. Plaintiff objects to this
interrogatory as Defendant has much more accurate and
detailed information regarding what it requires its employees
to do “in connection with their work for Tyson.” Defendant has
in its possession, custody and control all relevant information
on Plaintiff’s job titles, areas worked and dates, equipment

3

Interrogatory No. 1 states: “Identify each position you held during your em ploym ent with Tyson,
including but not lim ited to: the position title; the dates you held each position; the departm ent and line in which
you held each position; the nam e(s) of your supervisor(s) in each position; and the persons you supervised,
if any, in each position.” See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 1 Interrogatories p. 4.
7

required for such job throughout the entirety of plaintiff’s
employment with Defendant.
See, e.g., Filing No. 111 - Ex. 2 p. 5 Rosales’ Response.
The defendant argues, “Interrogatory No. 2 seeks information that is at the heart of
this case–namely, the items that Plaintiffs claim they were required to wear in connection
with their work.” See Filing No. 110 - Brief p. 12. The defendant agrees with the plaintiffs
that it has certain information, however the defendant seeks to understand the plaintiffs’
perspective in an attempt to narrow the issues for trial and determine the amount of time
each plaintiff spent donning and doffing that is actually in dispute. Id. at 13. The
defendant contends it is entitled to discovery about the plaintiffs’ version of the facts absent
a stipulation from the plaintiffs about the items, activities, and timing referenced in the
interrogatory. Id.
The defendant has met the threshold burden of showing Interrogatory No. 2 seeks
relevant discovery. Information about the items worn and activities engaged in by the
plaintiffs is central to the plaintiffs’ claims and the defendant’s defenses. Accordingly, the
burden shifts to the plaintiffs to substantiate any objections to production. The plaintiffs
objected to the interrogatory based on overbreadth and vagueness. Further, the plaintiffs
indicate the defendant should already have accurate information about the plaintiffs.
Ideally an interrogatory should be a single direct question
phrased in a fashion that will inform the other party what is
requested. . . . Rather general language has been permitted
so long as the interrogatory gives the other party a reasonably
clear indication of the information to be included in its answer.
8B Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2168 (3d ed. 2012).
“Only rarely is it held that an interrogatory is so unclear that the other party cannot
reasonably be required to answer it.” Id.; see Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.,
230 F.R.D. 611, 625 (D. Kan. 2005) (noting overly broad requests “require the respondent
either to guess or move through mental gymnastics to determine which of many pieces of
[information] may conceivably contain some detail, either obvious or hidden, within the
scope of the request”). A party who is concerned about uncertainty in the meaning of the
interrogatory may qualify its answer. 8B Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2168; see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).

8

The court finds the defendant gave adequate guidance to determine the proper
scope of Interrogatory No. 2. The interrogatory includes a sufficiently specific category of
information rather than large or general categories, which may or may not have anything
to do with this lawsuit. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ objections are overruled. The plaintiffs
shall supplement their responses to include complete answers, without objection.

2.

Interrogatory No. 7

Similar to Interrogatory No. 2, Interrogatory No. 7 states: “For each position
identified in response to Interrogatory 1 above, identify each activity you allege constitutes
part of the ‘continuous workday’ for which you were not compensated and the amount of
time spent on each activity on a daily basis.” See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 1 Interrogatories p.
6.

The defendant states every plaintiff who provided substantive responses to

interrogatories answered Interrogatory No. 7, except two. See Filing No. 110 - Brief p. 5,
13. The plaintiffs Cesar Gonzalez and Josefina Rodriguez objected as follows:
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly
broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome. Information
responsive to this request are in the possession of the
Defendant and plaintiff exercises Federal Rule 33(d) to refer
Defendant to its own business records, its own employee time
and attendance system, and Plaintiff’s personnel file in
Defendant’s possession. Plaintiff further objects to this
interrogatory as it calls for several legal conclusions.
See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 2 p. 267 Josefina Rodriguez’s Interrogatory Responses and Ex.
3 p. 262-263 Cesar Gonzalez’s Interrogatory Responses.
The court finds Interrogatory No. 7 does seek relevant information and the
defendant gave adequate guidance to determine the proper scope of Interrogatory No. 7.
The interrogatory includes a sufficiently specific category of information rather than large
or general categories, which may or may not have anything to do with this lawsuit.
Additionally, the plaintiffs fail to explain why this interrogatory may be unduly burdensome
for these two plaintiffs. As discussed above, an argument the defendant may already
possess the information does not relieve the plaintiffs of their burden to produce the
information sought. Finally, although the interrogatory may seek information about an
application of facts to the law, the plaintiffs are in a position to answer the interrogatory
9

without further delay. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ objections are overruled. The plaintiffs
Cesar Gonzalez and Josefina Rodriguez shall supplement their responses to include
complete answers, without objection, to Interrogatory No. 7.

3.

Interrogatory No. 15

Interrogatory No. 15 states: “Describe in detail any lawsuit, administrative claim,
grievance, or any other adversarial proceeding (hereinafter ‘action’) to which you have
been a party, including but not limited to any adversarial proceeding arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, . . . .” See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 1 Interrogatories p. 7. The defendant
states every plaintiff who provided substantive responses to interrogatories answered
Interrogatory No. 15, except six. See Filing No. 110 - Brief p. 5, 14. The plaintiffs Andres
Arreguin, Maria Fortin, Maria Martinez, Jose Millan, Josefina Rodriguez, and Sergio Arrauz
objected as follows:
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly
broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome. This request calls
for a legal conclusion. Moreover, this request is excessive in
temporal scope. Other lawsuits, administrative claims,
grievances are irrelevant to the claims in this case. Moreover,
this request is vague as to “any other adversarial pleading” and
calls for legal conclusions by Plaintiff.
See, e.g., Filing No. 111 - Ex. 2 p. 271 Josefina Rodriguez’s Interrogatory Responses.
The defendant contends the information sought by this interrogatory would establish
whether the plaintiffs have made similar claims against prior employers and would also
shed light on the plaintiffs’ motives for participating in this litigation. See Filing No. 110 Brief p. 14. The defendant denies the interrogatory is burdensome. Id.
The court finds the defendant has met its burden of establishing the relevance for
only responsive information related to claims made against the plaintiffs’ prior employers.
In all other respects, the interrogatory is overly broad. The court finds a reasonable
limitation on the temporal scope of the interrogatory is appropriate. Accordingly, the court
will limit Interrogatory No. 15 to information from March 1, 1994, the period starting ten
years prior to the beginning of the class period. The court overrules the plaintiffs’
objections as to vagueness and calling for legal conclusions because the interrogatory is
reasonably clear and the plaintiffs may qualify their answers as needed. The plaintiffs
10

Andres Arreguin, Maria Fortin, Maria Martinez, Jose Millan, Josefina Rodriguez, and Sergio
Arrauz shall supplement their answers to Interrogatory No. 15 with the addition of the
following limiting language below:
Describe in detail any lawsuit, administrative claim, grievance,
or any other adversarial proceeding (hereinafter ‘action’)
involving one of your prior employers and initiated on or
after March 1, 1994, in which you have been a party, including
but not limited to any adversarial proceeding arising under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, . . . .
4.

Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18

Interrogatory No. 17 states:
State the amount of monetary losses you claim you have
experienced as a result of Tyson’s actions as alleged in the
Complaint. Specify each calculation that you performed to
arrive at the amount stated in your response, including the
relevant dates of your alleged monetary losses, the positions
you held, the hours you worked, and the amounts of time for
which you seek overtime pay.
Interrogatory No. 18 states:
Identify each person who you believe has knowledge or claims
to have knowledge of facts relating to, supporting, or
contradicting any allegation in the Complaint, including but not
limited to persons you will or may call as witnesses at trial. For
each such person, please describe in detail the knowledge you
believe he or she possesses relevant to, supporting, or
contradicting the Complaint and identify all documents
(including formal or informal statements) that evidence,
describe, or refer to his or her knowledge.
See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 1 Interrogatories p. 8.
Several of the plaintiffs responded to these two interrogatories:
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome, vague, and harassing.
See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 2 p. 271-272 Josefina Rodriguez’s Interrogatory Responses; Ex.
3 p. 188-189 Enrique Dominguez Cruz’s Interrogatory Responses, p. 227 Delfina Duque’s
Interrogatory Responses, p. 267-268 Cesar Gonzalez’s Interrogatory Responses, and p.
306 Ana Vivas’ Interrogatory Responses.

11

The defendant contends the amount of the monetary losses allegedly suffered by
the plaintiffs based on their claims against the defendant and those persons with
knowledge about the facts alleged in the Complaint are relevant and discoverable. See
Filing No. 110 - Brief p. 14-15.

The defendant seeks supplemental responses to

Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18 from the plaintiffs Ana Vivas, Cesar Gonzalez, and Enrique
Dominguez Cruz. Id. at 5, 14. The defendant also seeks supplemental responses to
Interrogatory No. 18 from the plaintiff Delfina Duque. Id. The court finds the information
sought is relevant. The plaintiffs fail to substantiate their objections. The objections are
overruled. Accordingly, the plaintiffs Ana Vivas, Cesar Gonzalez, and Enrique Dominguez
Cruz shall supplement their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18, without objection,
and the plaintiff Delfina Duque shall supplement her responses to Interrogatory No. 18,
without objection.

5.

Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22

The defendant argues the plaintiff Andres Arreguin should be required to
supplement his responses to Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22. See Filing No. 110 - Brief p.
6, 15. Interrogatory No. 21 states: “How long did you typically retain your pay stubs from
Tyson, and do/did you typically review your pay stubs from Tyson?” See Filing No. 111 Ex. 1 Interrogatories p. 9. As a follow-up question, Interrogatory No. 22 asks: “Do you
have in your possession, custody, or control any stubs or other documents you received
during your employment with Tyson or any other documents relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims
or Defendant’s defenses?” Id. at 10. Andres Arreguin responded to both interrogatories
by stating: “Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome,
vague, and harassing.” See Filing No. 111 - Ex. 3 p. 326 Andres Arreguin’s Interrogatory
Responses.
The court has already determined discovery related to the pay stubs is relevant to
the parties’ claims and defenses. Similarly, the court finds Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22
seek relevant discoverable information. The interrogatories are reasonably clear by
indicating what information should be included in the answers. Further, the plaintiff fails
to substantiate how the interrogatories would be unduly burdensome or harassing.

12

Accordingly, the plaintiff Andres Arreguin shall supplement his responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 21 and 22, without objection. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Answer Interrogatories and

Document Requests, or in the Alternative to Dismiss Plaintiffs for Failure to Respond to
Discovery (Filing No. 109) is granted as set forth herein.
2.

The defendant’s Motion to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs Who Have Failed to

Respond to Discovery Requests Should not be Dismissed (Filing No. 113) is granted as
set forth below. The defendant’s motion is denied, without prejudice, with regard to the
plaintiffs’ responses received that were characterized by the defendant as “grossly
deficient.” The defendant shall have until August 30, 2012, to confer with the plaintiffs’
counsel about outstanding or deficient responses, addressed by this order or otherwise,
and file a motion to compel.
3.

On or before August 17, 2012, the plaintiffs shall serve responses or

supplemental responses to the defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production,
without objection, as set forth below, or show cause why sanctions should not be imposed
against them. Such sanctions may include dismissal of each of the non-responding
plaintiff’s claims against the defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and (d).
a.

The plaintiffs who have not yet served responses to the defendant’s

interrogatories and requests for production shall provide such answers and
responses.
b.

The plaintiffs shall supplement their responses to include complete

answers, without objection, to Interrogatory No. 2.
c.

The plaintiffs Cesar Gonzalez and Josefina Rodriguez shall

supplement their responses to include complete answers, without objection,
to Interrogatory No. 7.
d.

The plaintiffs Andres Arreguin, Maria Fortin, Maria Martinez, Jose

Millan, Josefina Rodriguez, and Sergio Arrauz shall supplement their
responses to Interrogatory No. 15, as limited to actions initiated on or after
March 1, 1994, involving prior employers.
13

e.

The plaintiffs Ana Vivas, Cesar Gonzalez, and Enrique Dominguez

Cruz shall supplement their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18.
f.

The plaintiff Delfina Duque shall supplement her responses to

Interrogatory No. 18.
g.

The plaintiff Andres Arreguin shall supplement his responses to

Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22.
Dated this 30th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion m ay contain hyperlinks to other docum ents or W eb sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m end, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services
or products they provide on their W eb sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem ents with any of these third
parties or their W eb sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.
14