Baouch v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER denying 162 defendants' motion for protective order and sanctions; denying 165 plaintiffs' motion for sanctions; and denying 170 plaintiffs' motion to strike. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (JDR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
YASSINE BAOUCH, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and )
DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV408

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion for a
protective order and sanctions by defendants Werner Enterprises,
Inc., and Drivers Management (Filing No. 162), with accompanying
brief and index of evidence (Filing Nos. 163 and 164).

The

plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions (Filing No. 165), with
accompanying brief and index of evidence (Filing Nos. 166 and
167).

In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike

Filing Nos. 162, 163, and 164 (Filing No. 170), with accompanying
brief (Filing No. 171).

In response to the defendants’ motion,

the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition and index of evidence
(Filing Nos. 172 and 173).

The defendants filed a reply brief in

support of their motion for a protective order and sanctions and
in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motions (Filing No. 176).
Finally, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their
motion to strike and motion for sanctions (Filing No. 177).

After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the relevant law,
the Court will deny all motions.
The parties’ dispute centers around two separate
events.

First, in January of this year, Werner received a phone

call from a driver, Rodney Zacek, stating that he received
several phone calls urging him to join this lawsuit.

The

telephone number was traced back to the plaintiffs’ counsel’s law
firm.

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ counsel has

improperly solicited class members in violation of their joint
stipulation.

Second, the plaintiffs’ counsel cited to Petrone v.

Werner Enterprises, Inc. et al, in a case before the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The

defendants allege that plaintiffs’ counsel misrepresented the
holdings of this Court to obtain a favorable ruling.
The defendants ask the Court to grant an order for the
following:

(a) to direct plaintiffs’ counsel to disclose the

names of all drivers that counsel contacted before the opt in/opt
out deadline, and to disclose the number of calls, who made the
calls, and the content, (b) to allow the defendants to speak with
Rodney Zacek and all other members who did not opt in, (c)
prevent plaintiffs’ counsel from using class members’ telephones
for an improper purpose, and from disclosing information received
from the defendants to co-counsel in any other lawsuit, (d)
-2-

prevent plaintiffs’ counsel from misrepresenting this Court’s
holdings in other courts, and (e) award the defendants the fees
and costs incurred in filing this motion, and the costs and fees
associated with an investigation of counsel’s unauthorized
communications.

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ motion

is frivolous and unsustainable in both law and fact.
The plaintiffs move to strike the affidavit of Matthew
Beaudoin because it contains hearsay statements and to strike the
defendants’ motion and supporting brief as both are not based on
personal knowledge and therefore are in violation of Nebraska
Civil Rule 7.1.

In addition, the plaintiffs ask this Court to

grant their motion for sanctions against the defendants’ counsel.
The Court will deny all motions from both parties.

The

portion of the motion involving plaintiffs’ counsel
misrepresenting the holdings of this Court was filed in an
improper case.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motions (Filing No. 162, Filing
No. 165 and Filing No. 170) are denied.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-