Blake v. Taboo Gentlemen's Club, LLC et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION 29 TO COMPEL. Any party may file written objections within 14 days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 9/25/2012. (tlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TAMMY M. BLAKE, et al.
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-2

TABOO GENTLEMEN’S CLUB, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery, filed
on August 15, 2012.1 On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion.2
The Court held an evidentiary hearing and argument on Defendants’ Motion on September 10,
2012. Plaintiff appeared by counsel Garry G. Geffert, Esq. and Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
Defendants appeared by counsel David A. Camilletti, Esq. and Matthew J. Hoffer, Esq. All counsel
appeared by telephone. No testimony was taken, nor was any other evidence adduced. At the close
of the hearing, the Court advised that the attorneys have misunderstood the telephonic courtesy
extended by the Court, and that for all future hearings held before the undersigned the attorneys of
record shall be present in the courtroom.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
On November 1, 2011, Plaintiff Tammy Blake, an exotic dancer at Taboo Gentlemen’s Club,

1

Dkt. No. 29.

2

Dkt. No. 38.

filed suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Defendants to recover damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages in an equal amount to return
them to a minimal standard of living, and attorney’s fees and costs. As part of its discovery,
Defendant propounded written requests upon Plaintiffs. In their responses to the document requests
and answers to the interrogatories, Plaintiff raised certain objections, leading Defendants to
subsequently file a motion to compel. Because of this discovery dispute, the matter has come before
the Court.
B. The Motion
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery
C. Decision
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production is DENIED because the requested tax information
can be obtained through other methods of discovery, and because the other requested financial
information is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
II. DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, the Court notes the striking similarity of this case to two other cases
pending before the Northern District of West Virginia, and before the undersigned, in particular. In
those cases, Nesselrodte v. Divas, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-95, and Nesselrodte v. Underground Casino,
LLC, No. 3:11-cv-92, the Defendant establishments are accused by a former dancer of the same
charges represented in the instant case. Moreover, the Defendant establishments in those cases are
represented by the same counsel. Of particular importance to the instant motion, counsel for

2

Defendants submitted identical motions in those cases to compel the same information sought here.3
On June 7, 2012, this Court denied those motions because the tax information sought could be
obtained through other methods of discovery, and the other requested financial information was not
likely to lead to discoverable evidence. This Court finds no reason to depart from the orders it
entered only three months ago, and finds those orders dispositive of the instant motion.
III. DECISION
This Court has recently denied motions identical in wording and nature as the instant one
in nearly identical cases–save the parties’ names. Thus, the Court DENIES the instant motion in
accordance with those orders.
Filing of objections does not stay this Order.
Any party may, within fourteen [14] days of the filing of this Order, file with the Clerk of
the Court written objections identifying the portions of the Order to which objection is made, and
the basis for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to District Court
Judge of Record. Failure to timely file objections to the Order set forth above will result in waiver
of the right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based upon such Order.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to parties who appear pro se
and any counsel of record, as applicable.
IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ James E. Seibert

DATED: September 25, 2012

JAMES E. SEIBERT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Dkt Nos. 32 & 31, respectively.

3