Mateo v. Tar Catering Corp.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Compel; granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (DE#22) is granted, on consent. Fact discovery is extended to December 31, 2012. The November 8th settlement conference is adjourned to January 8, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, plaintiff's two motions to compel (DE#18 and #21) are granted in part and denied in part. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/1/2012.(Williams, Jennifer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TAR CATERING CORP.,
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
The Court is in receipt of a letter dated October 24, 2012, from plaintiff’s counsel,
requesting a sixty-day extension of the October 31st discovery deadline, and complaining of
defendant’s failure to supplement its discovery responses, despite defendant’s representation to
the Court, on September 10, 2012, that it would “supplement and/or cure” most of the
deficiencies identified in plaintiff’s letter-motion dated September 4, 2012. See Motion for
Extension of Time (Oct. 24, 2012) (“Pl. 10/24/12 Motion”), Electronic Case Filing Docket
Entry (“DE”) #22; Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel (Sept. 10, 2012) (“Def.
9/10/12 Opp.”) at 1, DE #20; see also Motion to Compel (Sept. 4, 2012) (“Pl. 9/4/12
Motion”), DE #18; Motion to Compel (Sept. 21, 2012), DE #21.
Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, DE #22, is granted, on consent. Fact
discovery is extended to December 31, 2012. The November 8th settlement conference is
adjourned to January 8, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
Plaintiff’s two motions to compel, DE #18 and #21, are granted in part and denied in
part. It has been nearly two months since defendant promised to supplement its discovery
responses. Enough is enough. On pain of sanctions, defendant is directed, by November 8,
2012, to supplement and cure the identified deficiencies in defendant’s responses to
Interrogatories, #2, #3, #4, and #16, and to Document Request #1, and to verify all of
defendant’s interrogatory responses.
The only remaining disputes concern plaintiff’s Interrogatory #8, which demands that
defendant identify and provide contact information for all of its employees for the six-year
period from March 1, 2006 to November 1, 2011; and plaintiff’s Interrogatory #13 and
Document Requests #10 and #11, which demand that plaintiff identify and provide records
relating to all of defendant’s customers during that same six-year period.
Both of these disputes were the subject of a telephone conference and court ruling on
July 17, 2012. See Minute Order (July 17, 2012), DE #15. In rejecting plaintiff’s attempt to
secure the names of and contact information for defendant’s employees, the Court concluded
that plaintiff “ha[d] not made a sufficient factual and legal showing” to entitle him to that
information. See id. at 1. Plaintiff’s renewed showing is likewise insufficient. As a
preliminary matter, this action was brought by plaintiff in his individual capacity; as he does
not purport to bring a collective action, or a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the
requested names and contact information are not needed to facilitate notice to members of the
class or collective action. Cf. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170
(1989). This Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to order such disclosures for
other purposes, and courts within this District tend to disfavor such requests. See Charles v.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09 CV 94 (ARR), 2010 WL 7132173, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. May
27, 2010) (collecting cases).
Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to warrant a modification of the Court’s
ruling of July 17, 2012. Plaintiff cites two factual bases for his renewed request: (1) plaintiff’s
belief that his “former co-workers will confirm that [d]efendant did in fact keep track of hours
by way of sign-in sheets”; and (2) plaintiff’s contention that “he and his co-workers on the
wait staff regularly heard [d]efendant’s sales staff advising potential customers that gratuities
were included in their invoice.” Pl. 9/4/12 Motion at 2. Plaintiff’s first rationale may be
swiftly rejected, inasmuch as defendant concedes that it maintained sign-in sheets. See Def.
9/10/12 Opp. at 2.1
As for plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s sales staff was overheard telling customers that
gratuities were included, plaintiff fails to identify a single sales employee who made such a
statement -- or a single member of the wait staff who overheard such a statement. Plaintiff’s
demand for the names of and contact information for all employees, whatever their job
classification, is plainly overbroad.
Similarly overbroad is plaintiff’s demand for information concerning all of defendant’s
customers during the same six-year period. This information was also the subject of the July
17th conference and ruling. In allowing plaintiff to subpoena five of defendant’s customers, the
Court balanced the alleged relevance of the information sought against the potential disruption
to the relationship between defendant and its customers. The Court concluded that plaintiff
was entitled to information from the five customers that he had identified, as they were repeat
Although plaintiff complains that defendant has not produced plaintiff’s sign-in sheets,
see Pl. 10/24/12 Motion, plaintiff ignores defendant’s explanation that the sign-in sheets “were
destroyed by a flood that accompanied Hurricane Irene in August 2011.” Def. 9/10/12 Opp. at
2. To the extent that plaintiff is not satisfied with this explanation, plaintiff may pursue discovery
regarding the alleged destruction of documents.
customers to whom plaintiff had been assigned. Plaintiff fails to explain why the subpoenaed
information was insufficient. His demand for information relating to all customers is patently
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants plaintiff’s request for a sixty-day extension
of the discovery deadline (DE #22), and grants plaintiff’s motions to compel (DE #18 and
#21), except as to Interrogatories #8 and #13 and Document Requests #10 and #11, as to which
the motion to compel is denied.
Brooklyn, New York
November 1, 2012
Roanne L. Mann
ROANNE L. MANN
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?