Farmer v. Woodside Optical Corp., 1:16-cv-05178

Plaintiff Richard Farmer sued Woodside Optical, Echo Drugs, and several individual defendants under the FLSA, New York Labor Law, related regs, and state tort law, alleging unpaid overtime, commissions, wages, severance, meal breaks, missing wage records, wrongful discharge, and retention of personal property for work performed Feb–Jul 2016.
Plaintiff sought discovery primarily to prove Woodside met the FLSA $500,000 gross annual sales threshold and to show Woodside and Echo were effectively the same employer.
Plaintiff served two discovery requests (Jan 11 and May 18, 2017) and moved to compel; the Magistrate Judge granted some requests, denied others, and found the May 18 request untimely and unduly burdensome.
On June 12, 2017 the Magistrate refused to compel Echo to produce documents (finding Plaintiff raised Echo-related issues too late) and extended discovery by one week rather than the 45 days Plaintiff requested.
Woodside later stipulated it met the $500,000 2016 sales figure, rendering Plaintiff’s request on that jurisdictional issue moot.
Plaintiff appealed the Magistrate Judge’s June 1 and June 12 rulings to the district court, which reviewed for "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The district court denied the appeal in part as moot and otherwise affirmed the Magistrate Judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Woodside’s sales-document discovery was required to prove the FLSA $500,000 threshold	Farmer argued he needed documents to establish Woodside’s gross sales ≥ $500,000 for FLSA enterprise coverage	Defendants later stipulated Woodside met the $500,000 threshold for 2016	Moot: stipulation resolved the jurisdictional need; appeal dismissed as moot on this point
Whether Echo must produce documents from Plaintiff’s Jan 11 request despite late notice	Farmer argued Echo had relevant records and Defendants were withholding evidence; discovery should be compelled	Defendants argued Plaintiff waited too long to raise Echo-related discovery and did not move earlier	Affirmed: Magistrate’s refusal is not clearly erroneous — Plaintiff raised Echo issues too late; no factual error shown
Whether discovery should be extended 45 days	Farmer sought 45-day extension to pursue additional discovery	Defendants opposed; Magistrate found no good cause for 45 days	Affirmed: Magistrate’s one-week extension and denial of 45 days was not contrary to law; Plaintiff failed to show good cause
Standard of review for Magistrate’s discovery rulings	Farmer challenged rulings as erroneous	Defendants urged deference to Magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72(a)	Court applied clearly erroneous/contrary to law standard and found Magistrate’s factual findings and legal determinations entitled to deference

Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190 (1973) (analyzing gross volume by calendar year for FLSA coverage)
Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1990) (standard of review for magistrate judge non-dispositive matters)
Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 169 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (clarifying burden to overturn magistrate judge order)
Botta v. Barnhart, 475 F. Supp. 2d 174 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (describing heavy burden to overturn magistrate discovery orders)