Given et al v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

Filing 196

ORDER denying deft's MTD 147 six opt-in pltfs, directing parties to randomly select six new opt-in pltfs to participate in discovery to extent they have not already done so, & denying defts' request 157 for oral argument. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/5/19. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KRISTOPHER LAWSON,
VINCENT MCCLEERY, and
SEAN MCMURRAN, individually
and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
v.
LOVE’S TRAVEL STOPS &
COUNTRY STORES, INC.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1266
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2019, upon consideration of the
motion (Doc. 147) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)
filed by defendant Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. (“Love’s”), wherein
Love’s asks the court to dismiss six opt-in plaintiffs for noncompliance with the
court’s discovery management order and for their “refus[al] to cooperate with the
discovery process,” (see Doc. 148 at 1), and the court observing that “issues relating
to the scope of discovery … rest in the sound discretion of the Court,” Cartagena v.
Serv. Source, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 139, 142 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (citing Wisniewski v. JohnsManville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987)), and, similarly, “decisions regarding
Rule 37 motions are ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district court,’” id.
(quoting DiGregorio v. First Rediscount Corp., 506 F.2d 781, 788 (3d Cir. 1974)), and
further observing that the court’s discovery management order instructs that “[a]ny
selected opt-in who fails or refuses to participate in written discovery shall be

replaced by random selection forthwith,” (see Doc. 131 at 1 (emphasis added); see
also id. at 2)1, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Love’s motion (Doc. 147) to dismiss six opt-in plaintiffs pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) is DENIED.

2.

The parties are directed to randomly select six new opt-in
plaintiffs to participate in discovery, to the extent they have not
already done so.

3.

Love’s request for oral argument (Doc. 157) is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

We recognize that we invoked Rule 37 to dismiss named plaintiff Zachary
Given (“Given”) for similar discovery violations in May 2018. (See Doc. 116).
Given’s dismissal was prompted by different circumstances: first, Given’s dismissal
predated the operative discovery management order, which took effect in
June 2018; and second, because of his status as a named plaintiff, Given’s failure to
participate in discovery had a more substantial prejudicial effect than the opt-in
plaintiffs’ failure to participate.