Mullis v. Wings Over Spartanburg LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on November 7, 2017.(jmcg, )

2:16-cv-03578-PMD

Date Filed 11/07/17

Entry Number 30

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Travis Mullis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Wings Over Spartanburg, LLC, Vista
Wings, LLC, Aetius Companies, LLC,
Aetius Restaurant Holdings, LLC, and
Aetius Restaurant Group, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 2:16-cv-3578-PMD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to
two items in their first set of interrogatories and requests for production (ECF No. 25). For the
reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion is granted.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This FLSA collective action arises out of Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants required
bartenders at various Wild Wing locations to contribute to tip pools that were shared with
employees who did not customarily and ordinarily receive tips as required by the FLSA’s tip-credit
provision. Defendants filed their motion to compel on June 30, 2017. Plaintiff responded on July
14, purporting to satisfy the deficiencies in their responses. After discussions between the parties
and the Court, Plaintiff also filed a supplemental response on October 26. Accordingly, this matter
is now ripe for consideration.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that:

2:16-cv-03578-PMD

Date Filed 11/07/17

Entry Number 30

Page 2 of 3

[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues as stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a party fails to produce a requested document, the
requesting party may move for an order compelling production. Id. R. 37(a)(3)(B). “The party
opposing a motion to compel bears the burden of showing why it should not be granted.” Beazer
Homes Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 4:10-cv-2419-RBH-TER, 2012 WL 6210323, at *4
(D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2012).
DISCUSSION
Although the bulk of the purported deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses were already
remedied, the following two items have not yet been produced: (1) Plaintiff’s tax returns from
2012 to present; and (2) Plaintiff’s confirmation of whether he searched his emails for responsive
documents, as well as his description of the steps he took to search his e-mails for those documents.
Here, Plaintiff’s initial response indicated that Plaintiff’s counsel had not received the necessary
documents from his client and has therefore been unable to produce them. Plaintiff’s supplemental
response purported to remedy all of the remaining deficiencies. Neither of Plaintiff’s responses
provides any explanation or argument as to the two remaining deficiencies. As set forth above,
the party opposing a motion to compel bears the burden of showing why it should not be granted.
Because Plaintiff has the burden of showing why this motion should not be granted, his silence as
to the two purported deficiencies is insufficient to defeat Defendants’ motion. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is hereby compelled to produce the two outstanding items.

2

2:16-cv-03578-PMD

Date Filed 11/07/17

Entry Number 30

Page 3 of 3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel is
GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 7, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

3