Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Michael Cetta, Inc.
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Amend the Complaint to define the class as beginning in October 2000 is GRANTED and Plaintiff Intervenor Aksal's Motion to Quash the Subpoena to Rothmann's Steakhouse is DENIED, subject to the discovery limitations set forth above. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 10/27/2011) (ft)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OllPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECrRON1CALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE l~ILED: \ 011-'7 ,(II
------------------
JONATAN AKSAL,
Plaintiff-Intervenor, :
MEMORANDUM
OllINION AND ORDER
- against09 Civ. 10601 (BSJ) (RLE)
MICHAEL CErrA, Inc. d/b/a
SPARKS STEAKHOUSE, INC.,
Defendant.
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are two motions. In one, PlaintiifEqual Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") seeks leave to amend the Complaint to include alleged sexual
harassment beginning in October 2000 instead of the current start date, December 2006. (Dec!.
of Charles Coleman in Support of Mot. for Leave to Amend Comp!., Ex. A at 4.) In the other
motion, Plaintiff-Intervenor 10natan Aksal seeks to quash a subpoena issued by Defendant to one
of Aksal's former employers. For the reasons set forth below, EEOC's Motion to Amend the
Complaint is GRANTED and Aksal's Motion to Quash Defendant's subpoena is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2007, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jonatan Aksal filed a charge with the EEOC alleging his
former employer, Defendant Michael Cetta, Inc., had engaged in sexual harassment and
retaliation against him. The EEOC found the allegations warranted investigation, and filed suit
J
in late 2009 alleging that Defendant had subjected Aksal and other similarly situated male
employees to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. (Pltf.' s Mem. of Law in Support of
Mot. For Leave to Amend Compl. at 1.) On July 29,2010, the EEOC filed its First Amended
Complaint to include allegations that Defendant retaliated against employees who cooperated
with the EEOC's investigation. In the present motion, the EEOC seeks to extend the start date of
the class from Deccmber 2006 to October 2000. (Decl. of Charles Coleman in Support of Mot.
for Leave to Amend Compl., Ex. A at 4.)
Defendant argues that the request is untimely and, if granted, would result in burdensome
diseovery obligations on the Defendant and undue delay in the litigation. (ld at 1.) Moreover,
Defendant continues to seek discovery relevant to the Second Amended Complaint. It has issued
a subpoena for personnel files from Rothmann's Steakhouse, one of Aksal's employers after his
termination from Sparks' Steakhouse. Aksal seeks to quash the subpoena on the grounds that it
seeks irrelevant information, is overbroad, and violates his privacy interests. (Pltf.-Intervenor's
Mot. to Quash Def.'s Subpoena, 3-4.)
III. DISCUSSION
A. EEOC's Motion to Amend the Complaint
Courts should "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P
15(a)(2), in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice. Tokio .Marine & Fire Ins.
Co. V. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 786 F. 2d 101,103 (2d Cir. 1986) Here, as a result of
information learned during discovery and depositions, the EEOC asserts that it is appropriate
that the class definition extend back to 2000. The EEOC maintains that this change will not
result in a need for new discovery and states that it requires no additional discovery because of
2
the proposed amendment. Defendant asserts that the amendment would require substantial
additional discovery, including the reopening of several depositions. The EEOC indicated that
Defendant did not limit its questions to the time frame of the current class detinition, but asked
questions concerning events prior to 2006. The EEOC did not prevent or seek to limit inquiries
about Defendant's workplace that predated the current class definition.
To the extent that Defendant posits a fear that it will be held liable for failing to
supplement its discovery responses, this argument is without merit. First, it is not clear what
information about discrimination going back to 2000 would have legitimately been withheld as
not relevant to the class as currently defined. Second, Defendant will not be required to disclose
materials withheld solely on the basis of the temporal scope of the class. If Defendant requires
additional discovery based on the new class definition, it may identify the needed discovery and
submit a request for time to complete it. PlaintitIs have indicated that they require no additional
discovery.
Because the Court may "freely give leave" to amend under the Court's discretion, and
because Defendant has not demonstrated undue delay, had faith, or undue prejudice, the Motion
to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED.
B. AksaJ's Motion to Quash Subpoena
Generally, a party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena served on a third party, except
as to claims of privilege or a proprietary interest in the subpoenaed matter. United Stares v.
Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Here, Defendant issued a subpoena to
Rothmann's Steakhouse, Plaintiff-Intervenor Aksal's former employer, for personnel records,
including job performance reviews and resumes. Because neither the EEOC nor Aksal has
3
demonstrated a sufficient proprietary interest or applicable privilege to the materials sought by
Defendant, the Court finds that they lack standing to challenge the subpoena. Moreover, even if
they could show standing, Aksal's testimony concerning the reasons for his termination from
Rothmann's makes the personnel records relevant. Plaintiffs have shown no reason why this
relevant information should be quashed. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena is DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Amend the Complaint to define
the class as beginning in October 2000 is GRANTED and Plaintiff-Intervenor Aksal's Motion to
Quash the Subpoena to Rothmann's Steakhouse is DENIED, subject to the discovery limitations
set forth above.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of October 2011
New York, New York
~
The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?