Fetrow-Fix et al v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.

Filing 67

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have until 4/14/11 in which to file a response to 65 Motion for Protective Order. Defendants shall have until 4/18/11 in which to file a reply. A Motion Hearing set for 4/19/2011 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magi strate Judge Peggy A. Leen. A temporary protective order is entered precluding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition at issue from going forward as currently scheduled on 4/13/11, pending a decision on the merits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/12/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

CHARI FETROW-FIX, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:10-cv-00560-RLH-PAL
ORDER

13
14

Before the court is Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding Deposition

15

Scheduled for April 13, 2011 (Dkt. #65) filed April 6, 2011. Defendants seek an emergency protective

16

order concerning a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice served March 17, 2011. The subject matter of the

17

proposed Rule 30(b)(6) testimony seeks to discover information about Harrah’s clocking in and

18

clocking out procedure as defined in its Employee Handbook. The scope of the deposition topics

19

suggests Plaintiffs are attempting to obtain information regarding Harrah’s Entertainment Inc.’s casino

20

properties throughout the United States. Harrah’s has agreed to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) designee

21

knowledgeable about clocking in and clocking out procedures at Harrah’s Laughlin property. However,

22

Plaintiffs insist they are entitled to broader information concerning clocking in and clocking out

23

procedures at Harrah’s properties nationwide.

24

Counsel for Defendants represents that the deposition notices were received on March 21 and

25

22, 2011, and that Defendants objected and requested a meet-and-confer conference to attempt to

26

resolve their discovery dispute. A telephonic meet-and-confer conference was held March 30, 2011.

27

Defendants offered to produce Candy Basso, the Director of Human Resources for Harrah’s Laughlin to

28

testify regarding procedures in place at Harrah’s Laughlin. However, defense counsel represents

1

Plaintiffs have refused to vacate the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) designee on the deposition topics

2

noticed, or to accept Ms. Basso as a corporate representative.

3
4

Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics for the deposition in dispute requests Harrah’s
Entertainment, Inc. to produce a corporate designee to testify concerning:

5

1.

Whether the Timeworks Systems referenced in Harrah’s Employee Handbook is
used in each of Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.’s casino properties located in the
U.S.

2.

Whether the time-keeping, clock in/out procedure identified in the Harrah’s
Laughlin Employment Handbook is the same procedure implemented throughout
each of the Harrah’s Entertainment Inc. casino properties located in the U.S.

3.

Whether pursuant to Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.’s policies, procedures and/or
guidelines, each exempt employee at Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.’s casino
properties located in the U.S. is required to clock in no more than seven minutes
before starting time, and to clock out before leaving the property no more than
seven minutes after the end of a shift.

4.

Whether the time-keeping and payroll system implemented by Harrah’s
Entertainment, Inc. at its casino properties in the U.S. utilizes “time clock
rounding” such that exempt employees’ work time entries are rounded up or
down to the nearest quarter hour for compensation purposes.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Harrah’s objects to producing a Rule 30(b)(6) designee to testify on its nationwide policies

16

because a class has not been certified. Rather, this lawsuit involves Plaintiffs’ claims that table games

17

dealers are owed compensation for time spent at pre-shift meetings called “buzz sessions,” and that

18

table games supervisors were mis-classified as exempt employees for purposes of overtime

19

compensation.

20

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

21

IT IS ORDERED that:

22

1.

Plaintiffs shall have until April 14, 2011, in which to file a response to the motion.

23

2.

Defendants shall have until April 18, 2011, in which to file a reply.

24

3.

A hearing on the Motion is scheduled for April 19, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom

25

3B.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

4.

A temporary protective order is entered precluding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition at issue

2

from going forward as currently scheduled on April 13, 2011, pending a decision on the

3

merits.

4

Dated this 12th day of April, 2011.

5
6
7

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3