130 F. Supp. 3d 677
N.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Vincent E. Boice, a former structural designer, sued three related engineering/architectural employers under the FLSA for allegedly failing to pay proper overtime, seeking collective action treatment under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
- Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a nationwide collective of designers (structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, process) for the three years before the suit and sought broad pre‑certification discovery (names, addresses, contact information, job descriptions, payroll records, etc.).
- Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended (1) denying conditional certification without prejudice, (2) denying defendants’ motion to strike seven paragraphs of plaintiff counsel’s declaration, and (3) granting the motion to compel only as to a computer‑readable list of full names and last‑known addresses of designers employed in the prior three years; discovery was to be reopened.
- Defendants objected only to the portion of the Report‑Recommendation compelling disclosure of putative class contact information, arguing it was premature, overly broad, and prejudicial absent a showing of similarly situated employees.
- District Judge Suddaby reviewed the Report‑Recommendation, found no clear error, adopted it in full, denied conditional certification without prejudice, denied the motion to strike the de Oliveira declaration, granted the motion to compel limited contact information (names and last‑known addresses for designers for the prior three years), and reopened discovery for 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to conditionally certify a collective under FLSA § 216(b) | Boice: designers across disciplines performed substantially similar CAD/support duties and were uniformly denied overtime, so modest showing supports conditional certification | Defendants: designers have disparate duties, pay classifications, exemptions; plaintiff’s single affidavit is inadequate to show a common unlawful policy | Denied without prejudice; plaintiff failed to make the modest factual showing of a common unlawful policy, leave to renew after limited discovery |
| Pre‑certification discovery (contact info) | Boice: needs names/addresses to identify similarly situated employees and pursue conditional certification; requested limited contact info for three years | Defendants: premature and overly broad; unfairly prejudicial and could be used for solicitation; no finding of similarly situated employees justifies turnover | Granted in part: defendants must produce a computer‑readable file of full names and last‑known addresses of structural, architectural, mechanical, and electrical designers employed in prior 3 years |
| Motion to strike portions of counsel's declaration (de Oliveira) | Boice: declaration admissible for conditional certification stage; evidence at notice stage need not be fully admissible | Defendants: attorney declaration lacks personal knowledge and fails Rule 56(c)(4) standards | Denied: court may consider such evidence at certification stage and weigh its credibility; evidence need not be fully admissible at notice stage |
| Standard of review for magistrate's Report‑Recommendation on non‑dispositive discovery | Boice: urged adoption of magistrate's recommendations | Defendants: argued report should be reviewed de novo or was clearly erroneous where it ordered disclosure | Court applied clear‑error review, found no clear error, and adopted the Report‑Recommendation in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann‑La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (notice and opt‑in procedures are appropriate; certification inquiry at early stage is preliminary)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must provide more than unsupported assertions; modest but real factual showing required at notice stage)
- Scholtisek v. Eldre Corp., 229 F.R.D. 381 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (articulates the two‑step FLSA conditional certification framework)
- Bowens v. Atlantic Maintenance Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (FLSA overtime requirements and remedial purposes)
- Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (objections to magistrate reports must be specific to preserve issues)