United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
OMAR TORO, ET AL.
COASTAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, ET AL.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 12)
filed on January 31, 2018. The Defendants filed their
Opposition (R. Doc. 17) on February 21, 2018. Plaintiffs
filed a Reply (R. Doc. 21) on March 7, 2018.
Omar Toro and Elvin Antonio Cruz, instituted this action
against Defendants, Coastal Industries, LLC and Kelly Sills
with the filing of their Complaint (R. Doc. 1) on August 9,
2017. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et
seq., alleging that Defendants failed to properly pay
them overtime wages, and seeking liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, interest, and costs.
propounded their First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to Defendants on October 4, 2017. (R. Doc. 12 at
¶ 1). Request No. 1 therein sought the following:
Any and all documents reflecting the hours of work and
compensation of the Plaintiffs, beginning the first week they
worked for you, up to and including the date this lawsuit was
filed, including but not limited to timecards, timesheets,
work schedules, payroll records, and attendance logs.
(R. Doc. 12 at ¶ 2). Defendants responded and produced
documents on December 14, 2017. (R. Doc. 12 at ¶¶
seeks to compel Defendants to produce additional documents in
response to Request No. 1 of their First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that
Defendants failed to produce certain payroll records from
November of 2016 through the end of Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants. (R. Doc. 12 at ¶ 12).
Instead, these documents were produced only through November
of 2016. (R. Docs. 12-5 and 12-6).
support of their position, Plaintiffs argues that the
requested documents are relevant and within the permissible
scope of production. (R. Doc. 12-2 at 4-5). Plaintiffs also
argue that Defendants have waived their objection to
Plaintiffs' Request No. 1 as a result of an untimely
objection, and that Defendants failed to specify the portion
of the documents being withheld and allow Plaintiffs to
inspect the documents being withheld. (R. Doc. 12-2 at 6-7).
respond that, on October 17, 2017, they produced to
Plaintiffs the “AP Vendor Drilldown reports” for
both Plaintiffs from January 2014 through the end of their
respective employments, which reports allegedly reflect hours
worked and associated pay, i.e., the “complete pay
records for Plaintiffs” such that any additional
production would be cumulative and overly burdensome. (R.
Doc. 17-1 at 2). Defendants also contend that, because they
began paying Plaintiffs overtime in November 2016, the pay
records after that date are irrelevant. (R. Doc. 17-1 at 2).
Law and Analysis
otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is
as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
non-privileged 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 at 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). The court must
limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines
that: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope
permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
discovery is proportional depends on “the importance of
the issues at 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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). ...