Curry, et al. v. M-I, LLC
Filing
151
ORDER denying 135 Motion to Compel; denying 136 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 137 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B Libby) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2) Modified on 8/29/2019 (mserpa, 2).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MITCHELL CURRY, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
M-I, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
August 29, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-306
ORDER
This is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Pending are the following motions: (1) Defendant’s
Motion to Compel and Motion to Prohibit Use of Evidence of Damages at Trial (D.E.
135); (2) Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Denial of
Request for an Extension of Time (D.E. 136); (3) Defendant’s Motion to Expedite
Hearing on the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Denial
of Request for Extension of Time (D.E. 137); (4) Defendant’s Motion Objecting to
Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Request for an Extension of Time (D.E. 138); and (5)
Motion to Expedite Hearing on the Defendant’s Motion Objecting to the Magistrate
Judge’s Denial of Request for Extension of Time. (D.E. 139).
For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion to
Prohibit Use of Evidence of Damages at Trial is DENIED. (D.E. 135). Defendant’s
Motion for Expedited Ruling is GRANTED and the Motion for Reconsideration is
1/9
DENIED.
(D.E. 136 and D.E. 137).
With regard to the remaining two motions,
Defendant seeks review of the undersigned’s rulings. Therefore, these motions should be
considered in the first instance by the District Judge.
However, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS Defendant’s remaining Motion to Expedite be GRANTED and the
Motion to Set Aside be DENIED for the reasons stated in this Order. (D.E. 138 and D.E.
139).
I.
JURISDICTION
The Court has federal question jurisdiction in this FLSA action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this case has been referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for determination of all procedural and
discovery motions, case management, and all other matters authorized by law. (D.E. 70).
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a related action to this case on March 16, 2017. On May 19, 2017,
the parties filed their Joint Discovery and Case Management Plan (D.E. 11) in which they
represented, among other things, “[n]o unusual limitation or accommodations will be
necessary for the discovery process.” (D.E. 11, ¶ 9). The parties further set forth their
discovery plan and requested that the discovery deadline be set for February 28, 2018,
noting that an extension may be necessary depending in the size and scope of the class.
(D.E. 11).
United States District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted Plaintiffs’ motion for
conditional certification at a hearing on September 15, 2017. The parties appeared
telephonically before Judge Ramos on October 12, 2017, for the first of many hearings on
2/9
the parties’ discovery disputes.
On October 25, 2017, Judge Ramos re-opened the
briefing on the proposed scope of the class. (D.E. 34). On January 24, 2018, after
additional briefing, Judge Ramos granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification.
(D.E. 48).
On March 8, 2018, the parties appeared before Judge Ramos at a pre-motion
conference at which Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint due to
issues with the scope of the class and because counsel for Plaintiff intended on filing a
supplemental motion for conditional certification.
On April 20, 2018, the parties
appeared before the undersigned for a telephonic pre-motion hearing on a discovery
dispute.
The undersigned ordered the parties to continue discovery on issue related to
conditional certification, assisted the parties in rescheduling the deposition of the
Defendant’s corporate representative, and set new deadlines for Plaintiffs’ supplemental
motion for conditional certification. (D.E. 63).
On May 24, 2018, the parties again appeared before the undersigned for a premotion conference regarding a discovery dispute at which the undersigned assisted the
parties in setting depositions. (D.E. 67). On June 11, 2018, the parties appeared again
for a pre-motion telephonic hearing regarding another discovery dispute. On June 19,
2018, the parties appeared the undersigned and announced they had reached an
agreement on their discovery dispute. The parties were ordered to submit an order setting
forth their agreement.
After this hearing, Judge Ramos referred the case to the
undersigned for case management. (D.E. 70).
3/9
On August 8, 2018, the undersigned signed the parties’ Agreed Interim Scheduling
Order which set forth a comprehensive plan for precertification discovery which included
deadlines for interrogatories, document production, depositions, and a new briefing
schedule for conditional certification. (D.E. 73).
On September 19, 2018, the parties
filed their Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Conditional Certification.
(D.E. 76). On September 24, 2018, the parties filed their Agreed Motion to Sever. (D.E.
79). On September 25, 2018, the undersigned granted the parties’ motion to sever and
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant M-I, LLC were severed and opened in this case.
(D.E. 80).
On October 9, 2018, a complaint was filed and the next day, the undersigned
entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Approve Notice Documents,
which gave potential opt-in Plaintiffs sixty days from the date of the first mailing or
emailing to return the consent form and become a plaintiff in this lawsuit. (D.E. 84). On
January 7, 2019, the parties appeared before the undersigned for a status and scheduling
conference and a pre-motion conference on additional discovery matters involving the
production of documents and scheduling depositions. The parties announced they were
working through their dispute and making progress. The undersigned also discussed
deadlines and entering a scheduling order. (D.E. 98). The undersigned specifically noted
the parties had been conducting discovery but felt it appropriate that the parties be given
a full opportunity to conduct discovery. The parties agreed with the Court’s proposed
dates which included a discovery deadline of July 12, 2019 which granted the parties an
4/9
additional six months to complete the discovery process. A scheduling order was entered
on January 8, 2019. (D.E. 98).
The undersigned held a pre-motion conference on February 26, 2019 regarding
setting depositions and document production. The Court’s rulings on those matters are
set forth in a written order. (D.E. 103). The undersigned held another pre-motion
conference on May 9, 2019, again involving a dispute about setting depositions and
document production. The undersigned’s ruling on those matters are set forth in a written
order. (D.E. 109, D.E. 113 and D.E. 122). On May 31, 2019, the undersigned held
another pre-motion conference at which the undersigned granted Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel and ordered representative discovery. (D.E. 122). Representative discovery was
necessary to assist the parties in finishing the discovery process.
On July 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (D.E.
124). Less than a week later, on July 8, 2019, the parties jointly moved for an extension
of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines which the undersigned granted in part
the same day. (D.E. 126 and D.E. 127). The parties requested the discovery deadline be
extended from July 12, 2019 to August 22, 2019 and the dispositive motion deadline be
extended from July 18, 2019 to September 16, 2019. (D.E. 126). The undersigned
granted the motion in part by extending both the discovery deadline and dispositive
motion deadline to August 22, 2019. (D.E. 127).
On July 19, 2019 a status conference was held at which the undersigned explained
the extension of the dispositive motion deadline was granted, but not to the extent
requested, because the undersigned and District Judge need sufficient time to consider
5/9
dispositive motions before the trial setting. (July 19, 2019 proceedings at 9:46:28). On
July 29, 2019, the undersigned granted Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to
respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, setting a new response
deadline of August 22, 2019. (D.E. 131).
On August 21, 2019, the undersigned held a final pre-motion conference at which
the undersigned denied the Defendant’s request to further extend the discovery and
dispositive motions deadlines.
However, in light of the discovery and dispositive
motions deadlines being the next day, the undersigned extended the dispositive motion
deadline from August 22, 2019 to August 30, 2019 and also extended the Defendant’s
deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment until that same
date. (D.E. 133).
The undersigned also granted the parties leave to file a discovery
motion. (D.E. 133).
The next day, on August 22, 2019, Defendant filed the following pending motions:
(1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion to Prohibit Use of Evidence of Damages
at Trial (D.E. 135); (2) Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of the Magistrate
Judge’s Denial of Request for an Extension of Time (D.E. 136); (3) Defendant’s Motion
to Expedite Hearing on the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate
Judge’s Denial of Request for Extension of Time (D.E. 137); (4) Defendant’s Motion
Objecting to Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Request for an Extension of Time (D.E. 138);
and (5) Motion to Expedite Hearing on the Defendant’s Motion Objecting to the
Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Request for Extension of Time. (D.E. 139). On August 23,
2019, the undersigned ordered any response by Plaintiffs to the pending motions to be
6/9
filed on or before August 26, 2019.
(D.E. 141). The undersigned also ordered the
parties to complete a mediation on or before October 1, 2019. (D.E. 142). On August
26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed responses. (D.E. 143, D.E. 144 and D.E. 145). On August 27,
2019, Defendant sought leave to file a reply which was granted the next day and
Defendant’s replies were entered on the docket. (D.E. 149 and D.E. 150).
III.
ANALYSIS
Defendant moves the Court to reconsider its request for an additional thirty-day
extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, asserting Plaintiffs have
failed to fully respond to discovery requests, which it now seeks to compel. Defendants
further allege that without an extension, they will be unable to file dispositive motions on
FLSA exemptions, move for decertification or adequately prepare for trial because they
were unable to secure the necessary discovery from Plaintiffs prior to the deadline.
“A district court has broad discretion in all discovery matters, and such discretion
will not be disturbed ordinarily unless there are unusual circumstances showing clear
abuse.” Beattie v. Madison Cty. Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 854 (5th Cir. 2000). Further,
pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and
with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A party who requests a scheduling
order deadline be modified “must show that, despite acting diligently, it will still be
unable to meet that deadline.” Hernandez v. Mario’s Auto Sales, Inc., 617 F.Supp.2d
488, 492-93 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (citation omitted).
7/9
Having considered the relevant factors, Defendant has not demonstrated good
cause for this Court to again extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadline. The
Court has continuously assisted the parties in working through their discovery problems
for several years. The docket reflects the parties’ first discovery dispute occurred on
October 12, 2017 in the related action when Judge Ramos conducted a hearing on a
dispute involving the Defendant producing certain documents.
The Court was last
involved last week. The parties have been engaged in discovery, in one form or another,
for over two years. Over ten hearings have been held by the Court during this time
regarding the parties’ discovery disputes. Further, discovery and dispositive motion
deadline extensions have previously been granted.
In short, the parties have had sufficient time to complete discovery and to prepare
dispositive motions. If Plaintiffs were not fully responding to discovery requests or were
failing to adequately participate in scheduling depositions, as Defendant now alleges,
Defendant knew about these issues well before the extended discovery and dispositive
motion deadline, yet it did not seek the Court’s assistance until one day before the August
22, 2019 deadline. Nonetheless, the undersigned again extended the dispositive motion
deadline by an additional week, until August 30, 2019. (D.E. 131).
Further, even if a limited number of Plaintiffs have failed to fully respond,
Defendant need not have waited to take other Plaintiffs’ depositions. “Waiting until the
eleventh hour to obtain discovery was Defendant[’s] choice - it is the parties’
responsibility to schedule discovery and depositions in order to have the materials they
need in the timeframe needed to adequately prepare their case.” Ranzy v. Extra Cash of
8/9
Texas, Inc., No. H-09-3334, 2012 WL 1015923, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2012).
Additionally, as to evidence of damages, Plaintiffs represent they sent Defendant “their
complete damage model in excel format on May 17, 2019” and supplemented this
damage model within the discovery period. (D.E. 141, Page 14 and D.E. 141-9). Lastly,
if a Plaintiff has not responded to any discovery requests, nothing prevents Defendant
from seeking that Plaintiff’s dismissal within the current dispositive motion deadline.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion to Prohibit Use of Evidence of
Damages at Trial is DENIED.
(D.E. 135).
The discovery deadline has passed.
However, Plaintiffs’ obligation to supplement any discovery responses in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remains. Defendant’s Motion for Expedited
Ruling is GRANTED and the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (D.E. 136 and
D.E. 137). The undersigned further RECOMMENDS Defendant’s remaining Motion to
Expedite be GRANTED and the Motion to Set Aside be DENIED for the reasons stated
in this Order. (D.E. 138 and D.E. 139).
ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2019.
___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
9/9
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?