Martinez v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez GRANTING 19 Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery. Plaintiff shall complete the discovery and file his response to Defendant's Motion to dismiss 11 no later than February 6, 2017. (atc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

SAUL MARTINEZ, on Behalf of Himself
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

No. CIV-16-0945 JCH/LAM

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION and SCHLUMBERGER
LIMITED (SCHLUMBERGER N.V.),
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONDUCT
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY (Doc. 19)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance and Motion
to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and[,] in the Alternative[,] Response to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), filed September 27, 2016. Defendant Schlumberger Limited filed a
response to the motion on October 11, 2016 [Doc. 20], and Plaintiff filed a reply on
October 28, 2016 [Doc. 21]. Having considered the motion, response, reply, record of this case,
and relevant law, the Court FINDS that the motion shall be GRANTED.
This action involves allegations of violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. See [Doc. 1 at 7 and 9]. Plaintiff alleges that he and other
similarly situated “Field Engineer Trainees” were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay.
See id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schlumberger Limited (hereinafter “Defendant SL”)
is a publicly traded company that owns Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation
(hereinafter “Defendant STC”). See [Doc. 19 at 2]. Defendant SL has moved to dismiss

Plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. See [Doc. 11].
In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court for the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery
regarding Defendant SL’s contacts with New Mexico in order to demonstrate that this Court has
jurisdiction over Defendant SL. See [Doc. 19 at 2]. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks: (1) to depose
Ms. Dagan Manahl1 whose declaration was submitted in support of Defendant SL’s motion to
dismiss; (2) to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition related to Defendant SL’s contacts with
New Mexico; (3) to serve fifteen (15) requests for production related to Defendant SL’s contacts
with New Mexico; and (4) a 120-day continuance of Plaintiff’s deadline to file his response to
Defendant SL’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 2 and 5. Plaintiff contends that he would be prejudiced
if he is denied jurisdictional discovery because he disputes the facts in Ms. Manahl’s declaration.
Id. at 3. Plaintiff further contends that “[t]his discovery will show that Defendant [SL] operates in
New Mexico, employs workers in New Mexico, and owns assets in New Mexico,” and Plaintiff
has attached exhibits from Defendant SL’s website showing job postings for jobs in New Mexico
and operations in New Mexico. Id. at 4 and [Docs. 19-1, 19-2, 19-3 and 19-4].
In response, Defendant SL asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion, stating that Plaintiff
deposed Ms. Manahl recently in another FLSA case on these same jurisdictional issues, and that
the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s motion are postings made by Defendant SL’s subsidiaries.
[Doc. 20 at 1-2].

Defendant contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction over

Defendant SL because Defendant SL is a separate entity from Defendant STC, is not the alter ego
of Defendant STC, the injuries alleged by Plaintiff did not arise from Defendant SL’s alleged
contacts with New Mexico, and Defendant SL has not transacted sufficient business in
New Mexico to confer general personal jurisdiction over it. Id. at 3. Defendant SL contends that
the website printouts Plaintiff attaches as exhibits to his motion do not show that Defendant SL
1

Plaintiff incorrectly spells Ms. Manahl’s name in his motion. Compare [Doc. 19 at 2 and 5] with
[Doc. 11-1] (Ms. Manahl’s declaration filed in support of Defendant SL’s motion to dismiss).

2

does business in New Mexico because Defendant SL’s “brand-focused” website dos not satisfy the
contacts necessary to establish general personal jurisdiction. Id. at 4-8. Defendant further
contends that Plaintiff’s counsel recently deposed Ms. Manahl in another FLSA case in which
Plaintiff’s counsel asked Ms. Manahl about the corporate structure of Defendant SL, the
relationship between Defendants SL and STC, and the scope of information contained on
Defendant SL’s website. Id. at 8-9 (citing Doc. 20-1). In addition, Defendant contends that
Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by denial of his motion for jurisdictional discovery because
Plaintiff’s action over Defendant STC would survive Defendant SL’s dismissal and none of
Plaintiff’s claims are specific to Defendant SL. Id. at 9. Defendant, therefore, asks the Court to
grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.2 In the alternative, Defendant states that “to the extent that
this Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery, Defendant
respectfully requests that such discovery be limited to ten Requests for Production related to
[Defendant SL]’s alleged contacts with New Mexico and a 60-day [extension] period (not 120
days as requested by Plaintiff).” Id. at 10. Defendant further requests that, if Plaintiff’s motion
is granted, “all other discovery be stayed during this time frame.” Id.
In reply, Plaintiff contends that the case in which Ms. Manahl was deposed involved
different claims from the claims in this case, and that the previous deposition of Ms. Manahl “did
not address whether Defendant [SL] has continuous and systematic contacts with New Mexico or
any aspect relevant to whether Defendant [SL] conducts business in New Mexico.” [Doc. 21 at 2
and 3]. Plaintiff contends that the information submitted with her motion “demonstrates that
Defendant [SL] does business in New Mexico, owns property in New Mexico, and employs
2

Because the Court finds below that Plaintiff should be allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery in order
to more fully respond to Defendant SL’s motion to dismiss, the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s motion for
jurisdictional discovery to be his response to Defendant SL’s motion to dismiss. Instead, the Court will allow
Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery and file a response to the motion to dismiss, at which time Defendant SL
may file a reply to the response, and the motion to dismiss will then be ready for a decision by the presiding judge in
this case.

3

citizens of New Mexico,” and that “[t]hese facts establish personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff further contends that a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent with knowledge of
Defendant SL’s contacts with New Mexico is necessary because Defendant Manahl is not a
management level employee and does not work for Defendant SL. Id. at 3-4 (citing Doc. 21-1).
Plaintiff states that his request for 120 days to conduct jurisdictional discovery is reasonable
because of the possible difficulty in scheduling depositions this time of year. Id. at 2 and 5.
Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to deny Defendant SL’s request to halt discovery related to
Defendant STC because Plaintiff states that “[t]here is no reason why discovery related to the
merits of the case against Defendant [STC] cannot proceed while discovery related to the personal
jurisdiction of Defendant [SL] is being conducted.” Id. at 3.
“While the district court has broad discretion in determining whether to permit
jurisdictional discovery, a refusal to grant discovery constitutes an abuse of discretion if either the
pertinent jurisdictional facts are controverted or a more satisfactory showing of the facts is
necessary.”

Health Grades, Inc. v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 190 Fed. Appx. 586, 589

(10th Cir. June 22, 2006) (unpublished) (citation omitted). Therefore, “[w]hen a defendant
moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, either party should be allowed discovery on the factual
issues raised by that motion.”

Sizova v. National Institute of Standards & Technology,

282 F.3d 1320, 1326 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Budde v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 511 F.2d 1033,
1035 (10th Cir. 1975)).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that a more satisfactory showing of
the facts regarding this Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant SL is necessary. As Plaintiff notes,
the previous deposition of Ms. Manahl was in a case in another district and did not address
Defendant SL’s alleged contacts with New Mexico. In addition, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
Defendant SL appears to be necessary since Ms. Manahl is employed by Defendant STC, not
4

Defendant SL. See [Doc. 11-1 at 1]. While Defendant SL contends that the website printouts
Plaintiff attached as exhibits to his motion for jurisdictional discovery do not show that Defendant
SL does business in New Mexico, this appears to be a factual dispute and Plaintiff should be
allowed to conduct limited discovery as to that issue. For these reasons, the Court finds that
Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a denial of his motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery and it
will allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding Defendant SL’s contacts with New Mexico.
The Court, therefore, will allow Plaintiff to take the deposition of Ms. Manahl and Defendant SL’s
Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, limited to the issue of Defendant SL’s contacts with New Mexico. The
Court will also allow Plaintiff to serve requests for production on Defendant SL, also limited to the
issue of Defendant SL’s contacts with New Mexico. However, the Court finds that Defendant
SL’s request to limit these requests for production to ten (10), instead of Plaintiff’s requested
fifteen (15), is reasonable. The Court also agrees with Defendant SL that Plaintiff’s request for a
120-day continuance of the deadline to file his response to Defendant SL’s motion to dismiss is
excessive, and the Court will, instead, allow Plaintiff sixty (60) days to complete the jurisdictional
discovery and to file his response to Defendant’s motion.

Finally, the Court finds that

Defendant’s request to stay all other discovery during this time period is not necessary. This case
has not been set for a Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference, due to Defendant SL’s pending
motion to dismiss, so the discovery period in this case has not yet begun. While the parties may
agree to engage in discovery prior to the issuance of an Initial Scheduling Order, Defendant is not
required to do so at this time, and does not need a Court order staying discovery. See D.N.M.
LR-Civ. 26.4 (“A party may not seek discovery under these rules or the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure before the parties have conferred as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) except by
agreement of all parties or by Court order.”)

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, for the reasons set forth above, that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Continuance and Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and[,] in the Alternative[,]
Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may take the deposition of Ms. Manahl and
Defendant SL’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, limited to the issue of Defendant SL’s contacts with
New Mexico.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve ten (10) requests for production
on Defendant SL limited to the issue of Defendant SL’s contacts with New Mexico.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete the above-described discovery
and file his response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 11] no later than sixty (60) days of
the date of this Order, i.e., no later than Monday, February 6, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________________

LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6