Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al

Filing 170

ORDER: A tape-recorded conference call having been held on November 22, 2011, for the reasons stated on the tape-recording of the call, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The parties are directed to confer with each other concerning the location of the Di strict Manager depositions. If any disputes arise concerning the location of particular depositions, the parties may then raise those specific disputes with me. The centralization of these depositions will promote efficiency and is, therefore, desirable, as set forth in this order. ( Motions due by 3/29/2012., Responses due by 5/30/2012., Replies due by 7/13/2012.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 11/23/2011) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
YATRAM INDERGIT, on behalf
of himself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

:
:

RITE AID CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

08 Civ. 9361 (JPO)(HBP)

:

-against-

:

ORDER

:
:

-----------------------------------X

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

A tape-recorded conference call having been held on
November 22, 2011, for the reasons stated on the tape-recording
of the call, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The parties are directed to confer with each

other concerning the location of the District Manager
depositions.

If any disputes arise concerning the

location of particular depositions, the parties may
then raise those specific disputes with me.

The cen-

tralization of these depositions will promote efficiency and is, therefore, desirable.
2.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs' request

for (1) any complaints that each District Manager being
deposed received concerning hours worked or duties

performed by Store Managers in their districts, and (2)
any handwritten or typed memoranda, lists or files
regarding the assignments and duties given to Store
Managers is sustained to the extent that plaintiffs
seek such documents with respect to Store Managers
other than the fifty store managers that the parties
have deposed.
3.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 1 concerning the corporate
formation of Rite Aid, including its organizational
structure, management, business structure, ownership
interests, and document retention and destruction
policies is sustained.
4.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 2 concerning Rite Aid's responses
to plaintiffs' interrogatories is overruled.

Defen-

dants retain the right to object to specific deposition
questions concerning this topic.
5.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 3 concerning Rite Aid's responses
to plaintiff's document requests is overruled.

Defen-

dants retain the right to object to specific deposition
questions concerning this topic.
2

6.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 4 concerning interactions among
store, district, and regional management of Rite Aid is
sustained.
7.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 11 concerning Rite Aid's policy on
catastrophic planning is sustained.
8.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 12 concerning how Rite Aid determines advertising on a regional, district, and store
level has been resolved by the parties.
9.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 13 concerning how Rite Aid determines ordering and stocking on a regional, district,
and store level has been resolved by the parties.
10.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 14 concerning how Rite Aid determines the scheduling of Regional Managers, District
Managers, Store Managers, and Associates is overruled
to the extent that plaintiffs seek information pertaining to the programs used by Rite Aid to create suggested schedules for Store Managers and Associates.

3

Plaintiffs may inquire about such topics as how the
systems work, their capabilities, and implementation.
11.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 15 concerning the process through
which Rite Aid addresses human resources complaints
made by Regional Managers, District Managers, Store
Managers, and Associates is overruled to the extent
that plaintiffs seek information pertaining to the
process through which Rite Aid addresses complaints
made by Store Managers and Associates at any level.
12.

Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 16 concerning the process through
which Rite Aid decides to classify Regional Managers,
District Managers, Store Managers, and Associates as
exempt or non-exempt from overtime laws is overruled to
the extent that the topic relates to Store Managers.
Defendants retain the right to object to specific
deposition questions concerning this topic.
13.

The parties' request for a 120-day extension

of the current pre-trial schedule is granted.

Plain-

tiffs are directed to file its Rule 23 motion and
defendants are directed to file its class decertification no later than March 29, 2012.
4

Plaintiffs are also

directed to file any opposition to defendants' class
decertification motion and defendants are also directed
to file any opposition to plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion no
later than May 30, 2012.

Finally, plaintiffs are

directed to file any reply in support of its Rule 23
motion and defendants are directed to file any reply in
support of its class decertification motion no later
than July 13, 2012.
Dated:

New York, New York
November 23, 2011
SO ORDERED

HENRY
TMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies transmitted to:
Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
James Vagnini, Esq.
Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP
Suite 519
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York 11530
Daniel Turner, Esq.
Ogletree, Dearkins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Suite 4800
191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

5

Keith A. Raven Esq.
Raven & Kolbe, LLP
Suite 202
126 East 56th Street
New York, New York 10022

6