Brueningsen et al v. Resort Express et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time for Opt-In Deadline; granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion for Additional Identifying Information on Potential Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/12/13 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JEFFREY BRUENINGSEN, ALDIS
BARSKETIS, STEVE SIMCHEN, RICHARD
SORENSEN, THOMAS H. STEED, JR., JOE
METCALFE and MICHAEL POWER, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly
MEMORANDUM DECISION and
ORDER GRANTING IN PART and
DENYING IN PART MOTION
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND TO EXTEND OPT-IN DEADLINE
RESORT EXPRESS INC., PARK CITY
TRANSPORTATION, INC. and PREMIER
Case No. 2:12-cv-843-DN
District Judge David Nuffer
Plaintiffs move the court to order Defendants to provide additional information on
potential plaintiffs and to extend the deadline for potential plaintiffs to file opt-in forms. 1
Plaintiffs assert that after mailing Notices and Forms to the 410 names Defendants produced
under the court’s order, 2 35 of the mailings were returned as “undeliverable.” 3 “Nonetheless, of
the 35 Notices and Forms that were returned, plaintiffs’ counsel was able to locate 17 of the
drivers and re-send the Notices and Forms.” 4 In total, “Plaintiffs’ counsel has not received any
response to 338 of the 410 Notices and Forms that were mailed to drivers.” 5 Plaintiffs state they
Motion for Additional Information and to Extend Time Opt-In Deadline (Motion), docket no. 26, filed May 3,
Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed as a Collective Action and Facilitate
Notice (Order) at 2, ¶ 4, docket no. 25, filed February 22, 2013.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 3.
have “additional concerns regarding the accuracy of the List” 6 due to the low response rate and
numerous undeliverable notices. Because of these concerns, Plaintiffs request the court to:
(a) order defendants produce copies of all underlying documents that could be
used to create an accurate list of all potential plaintiffs; (b) order defendants to
provide the social security numbers and birth dates of all potential plaintiffs; and
(c) extend the deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to sixty-days after the date
defendants provide plaintiffs’ counsel with the additional information. 7
In opposition to the Motion, Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs’ request for social security
numbers and birth dates for all 410 potential class members should be denied because it is
contrary to the terms of the parties’ agreement and the Court’s Order addressing this issue.” 8
Regarding the production of additional identifying information on potential plaintiffs, the Order
specifically states: “Defendants will not be required to produce social security numbers or birth
dates of any driver, unless Plaintiffs first demonstrate that this information is necessary to obtain
a current address of a potential class member after receiving a notice that the intended mailing to
that person is undeliverable.” 9
Based on this specific directive in the court’s order and the agreement between the
parties, 10 requiring Defendants to produce more identifying information on all 410 potential
plaintiffs is not warranted. Plaintiffs received 35 undeliverable mailing notices, but were able to
locate and resend notices to 17 of the 35. For the remaining 18 undeliverable notices, Plaintiffs
have demonstrated the need for additional identifying information as outlined in the order and
stipulation. Defendants shall provide the social security numbers and birth dates for the
Id. at 4.
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Additional Information and to Extend Time Opt-In Deadline
(Opposition) at 2, docket no. 28, filed May 17, 2013.
Order at 2, ¶ 6 (emphasis added).
Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed as a Collective Action and
Facilitate Notice (Stipulation to Proceed) at 3, ¶ 6, docket no. 24, filed February 20, 2013.
remaining 18 potential plaintiffs for which undeliverable mailing notices have been received.
Because locating these individuals will take additional time, the court will extend the deadline
for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to sixty days after the date defendants provide plaintiff’s counsel
with the additional information. Defendants have fully complied with the Order to produce a list
of “the names and last known addresses of all current and former drivers it employed during the
period beginning March 15, 2010 to the present.” 11 Plaintiffs have failed to show the list is
inadequate, and their request for “all underlying documents that could be used to create an
accurate list of all potential plaintiffs” is denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for additional identifying information on potential plaintiffs is
GRANTED IN PART. Within 10 days of the entry of this order, Defendants shall
produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel the social security numbers and birth dates for only the
remaining 18 potential plaintiffs for which undeliverable mailing notices were returned to
2. Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the opt-in deadline is GRANTED. The opt-in deadline for
potential plaintiffs is extended to 60 days after the date Defendants provide plaintiffs’
counsel with the additional information.
Order at 2, ¶ 4.
3. Plaintiffs’ request for underlying documents used to create the list of potential plaintiffs
Signed September 12, 2013.
BY THE COURT
District Judge David Nuffer
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?