Guevara v. Goodnight Group LLC et al

Filing 106

ORDER: Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs shall submit a supplemental letter (limited to two pages), no later than June 13, 2022: (i) addressing the timing of the depositions, (ii)attaching a copy of plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice(s), and (iii) describing whetherand when the parties "confer[red] in good faith about the matters for examination" in advance as required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendants may submit a responding letter (limite d to four pages) no later than June 15, 2022. Plaintiffs may submit a reply letter (limited to two pages) no later than June 17, 2022. The Court will then determine whether a conference is required. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 6/10/2022) (rro)

Case 1:20-cv-05330-BCM Document 106 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STEPHANIA RUIZ GUEVARA and
SANDRA HERAS, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
Plaintiffs,

06/10/2022
20-CV-5330 (BCM)
ORDER

-againstFINE & RARE OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a
FINE & RARE, FLATIRON ROOM
OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a THE FLATIRON
ROOM, GOODNIGHT GROUP LLC, and
THOMAS TARDIE,
Defendants.
BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.
On February 2, 2022, the Court extended the deadline for completing discovery in this
wage and hour action as follows: all discovery of the existing parties, including depositions, was
to be completed by April 4, 2022. All discovery concerning FLSA opt-in plaintiffs, including
opt-in depositions, was to be completed by June 2, 2022. (Dkt. No. 90.) On March 30, 2022, at
the parties' request, the Court referred this action to the Court-annexed Mediation Program and
requested that the mediation take place "promptly." (Dkt. No. 95.) The Court did not stay or
extend any discovery deadlines. Rather, the Court directed: "Within one week after the
conclusion of the mediation, the parties shall submit a joint letter proposing (a) a schedule for
settlement approval proceedings, or (b) a modified schedule for all remaining fact discovery."
(Id.)
It appears that the mediation did not happen. On April 29, 2022, the Mediator reported to
the Clerk that "the court-ordered mediation in this case was not held as one or both parties failed,
refused to attend, or refused to participate in the mediation." (Dkt. No. 104.) The parties,

Case 1:20-cv-05330-BCM Document 106 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 3

however, made no report to the Court, and no further effort to extend or modify the discovery
schedule. Consequently, the deadline for depositions of the original parties expired on April 4,
2022, and all discovery closed on June 2, 2022. Summary judgment motions are due 30 days
thereafter. (Dkt. No. 59 ¶ 9.) Because of the Independence Day holiday, that deadline is July 5,
2022.
On June 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a letter-application seeking sanctions for the conduct of
defendants' counsel at the depositions of individual defendant Thomas Tardie (who, according to
plaintiffs, was also testifying pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) on behalf of the corporate defendants)
and Dasha Naymon, the General Manager of defendant Fine & Rare Operations LLC. (Dkt.
No. 105.) 1 Those depositions took place on June 2, 2022 – approximately two months after the
applicable deadline for such depositions expired. In their letter-application, plaintiffs make no
mention of that deadline and do not explain why the Tardie and Naymon depositions were taking
place outside of the time allotted for them. Further, plaintiffs fail to explain why the scope of
Tardie's testimony was not pre-negotiated in good faith as required by Rule 30(b)(6).
Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs shall submit a supplemental letter
(limited to two pages), no later than June 13, 2022: (i) addressing the timing of the depositions,

1

Plaintiffs' primary complaint is that defendants' counsel improperly instructed both witnesses
not to answer questions in reliance upon a misreading of a prior discovery order. Based on the
Court's initial review of the attached deposition transcripts, however, it appears that both
attorneys conducted themselves poorly. Defendants' attorney repeatedly instructed the witnesses
not to answer wholly unobjectionable questions on relevance or scope grounds – including, for
example, how long defendant Tardie had lived at his current address and whether he was an
owner of defendant Goodnight Group LLC (on behalf of which he was testifying). Plaintiffs'
attorney, in clear violation of Local Civ. R. 26.4(a) and basic norms of professional civility,
responded by repeatedly speaking over his opponent (causing the court reporter to note
"unreportable crosstalk" three times during the Tardie deposition and six times during the
Naymon deposition), telling her to "sit there and be quiet" (three times during the Tardie
deposition and once during the Naymon deposition), and calling her a "joke" (four times during
the Tardie deposition).
2

Case 1:20-cv-05330-BCM Document 106 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 3

(ii) attaching a copy of plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice(s), and (iii) describing whether
and when the parties "confer[red] in good faith about the matters for examination" in advance as
required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendants may submit a responding letter (limited to
four pages) no later than June 15, 2022. Plaintiffs may submit a reply letter (limited to two
pages) no later than June 17, 2022. The Court will then determine whether a conference is
required.
Dated: New York, New York
June 10, 2022

SO ORDERED.

________________________________
BARBARA MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge

3