Chen v. Thai Greenleaf Restaurant Corp
2:21-cv-01382
| E.D.N.Y | May 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Dong Hui Chen and Xiaoyan Zhong sued several restaurant defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for failing to pay minimum wage, overtime, and provide required wage notices.
- The case was conditionally certified as a collective action, and the court ordered Defendants to produce lists of employees and documents necessary for notice and for successor liability discovery.
- Defendants delayed and failed to comply with multiple court orders to produce mandatory lists with employee contact information and other requested business records, including required Jackson affidavits (good-faith search declarations for missing documents).
- Plaintiffs moved for sanctions, requesting publication of notice at Defendants’ expense, preclusion of key documents not produced, an adverse jury instruction on successor liability, and, during oral argument, monetary sanctions.
- The court considered whether lesser sanctions or more severe consequences like adverse inferences or default were justified based on the extent, explanations, and impact of non-compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to produce collective list (Thai Greenleaf Defendants) | Defendants failed to produce required employee contact info, impeding notice; sanction should be court-facilitated notice at Defendants' expense | Produced all documents in their possession; have nothing further | Sanction granted: notice to be provided by publication at Defendants’ expense |
| Failure to produce documents and Jackson affidavit (Greenleaf Defendants) | Defendants did not timely produce key discovery/documents after repeated requests and court orders; want preclusion and adverse inference | Conducted a search; produced what they had; delay due to illness; some late production on argument day | Sanction granted: preclusion of unproduced documents re: successor liability; exclusion not applied to documents belatedly provided |
| Adverse jury instruction on successor liability | Sought instruction that Greenleaf Defendants are successors as sanction for failed production | No bad faith, no spoliation; ultimate issue should go to jury | Denied; such an instruction is extreme and left to trial judge; insufficient basis for such a sanction |
| Monetary sanctions (belated request) | Sought attorneys’ fees and expenses for sanction motion preparation | Not requested in motion; anyway, had substantial justification (illness) | Denied; not properly raised and circumstances justified some delays |
Key Cases Cited
- Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (identifies relevant factors for discovery sanctions)
- Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for preclusion as a sanction)
- Patterson v. Balsamico, 440 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2006) (lists factors for preclusion of evidence)
- Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Grecian Travel, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 351 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (compels discovery where misconduct not egregious enough for default)
- Klezmer v. Buynak, 227 F.R.D. 43 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (adverse inference instruction is an extreme sanction and not to be given lightly)