Goers v. L.A. Entertainment Group, Inc.
2:15-cv-00412
M.D. Fla.Jun 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (former exotic entertainers) sued L.A. Entertainment Group, Inc. and Amer Salameh alleging misclassification as independent contractors and failure to pay minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA and Florida Constitution; case filed July 8, 2015.
- Court’s FLSA Scheduling Order required production of time sheets/payroll records for plaintiffs; defendants initially said entertainers were independent contractors and that no time/payroll records existed.
- Plaintiffs served Requests for Production (Dec. 2015); defendants produced limited applications/licenses and objected to overly broad requests.
- Court conditionally certified a collective action (Aug. 25, 2016) and ordered defendants to produce contact/employment lists; defendants produced a spreadsheet of ~151–156 entertainers but without email addresses.
- Plaintiffs moved (Feb. 2017) for sanctions and/or to compel, claiming discovery failures, Rule 30(b)(6) deficiencies, deposition no-shows, and spoliation supported by an ex-manager McCarthy affidavit; defendants opposed and explained document searches, productions, and witness preparation.
- Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions (June 14, 2017), finding their motion untimely, conferral obligations unmet, no showing of bad faith or willful spoliation, and no basis for severe sanctions or to compel additional discovery as argued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Untimeliness/waiver of discovery sanctions/motion to compel | Goers argued defendants withheld/failed to produce records and moved for sanctions nearly a year after receiving responses and after discovery deadline | L.A. Ent. argued plaintiffs delayed bringing dispute, failed to meaningfully confer, and waited until after discovery cutoff | Denied — plaintiffs’ motion untimely; failure to confer and delay weight against relief |
| Sanctions under Rule 37(b) for noncompliance with discovery orders (including FLSA scheduling order) | Plaintiffs sought default judgment/other sanctions for purported failure to produce time/payroll, rules, and contact info | Defendants produced available records, explained lack of payroll/time records (tips-based), and explained efforts to locate records | Denied — Rule 37 sanctions improper (no prior motion to compel; less drastic remedies appropriate; no willful refusal shown) |
| Spoliation of evidence (destruction/moving of applications and posted rules) | Plaintiffs relied on McCarthy affidavit saying documents and rules were moved/destroyed after suit filed | Defendants said documents were moved to adjacent property, not destroyed; they searched and produced what was available; struck some plaintiff exhibits previously | Denied — no evidence of intentional destruction or bad faith; moving boxes does not prove spoliation |
| Rule 30(b)(6) compliance and depositions of named individuals (Torres, S. Salameh) | Plaintiffs argued corporate designee (A. Salameh) could not answer many topics; requested sanctions/compel additional designees and relief for witness no-shows | Defendants said designee prepared, testified five hours, identified more knowledgeable employees, and depositions were subject to scheduling misunderstandings | Denied — testimony did not demonstrate failure to meet Rule 30(b)(6); disputes about scheduling should be resolved by counsel; Court ordered the parties to cooperate to complete depositions |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2002) (district courts have broad case-management discretion)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (substantial discretion in imposing Rule 37 sanctions)
- United States v. Certain Real Prop. Located at Route 1, Bryant, Ala., 126 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997) (default for discovery abuse without prior order/motion is improper)
- Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1993) (default/dismissal is last-resort sanction; requires willfulness/bad faith)
- Aztec Steel Co. v. Florida Steel Corp., 691 F.2d 480 (11th Cir. 1982) (failure to comply must be willful or in bad faith for dismissal/default)
- In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (courts possess inherent power to sanction; requires bad faith and due process)
- Boler v. Space Gateway Support Co. LLC, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Fla.) (inherent-power sanctions require bad-faith finding)
- QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enters., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (Rule 30(b)(6) requires corporation to produce witnesses able to testify on matters known or reasonably available)
- Sciarretta v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 778 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2015) (district court may impose sanctions sua sponte for Rule 30(b)(6) abuses upon bad-faith finding)
- Long v. Howard Univ., 561 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2008) (timeliness of motion to compel considers when violation was discovered and how long movant waited)
- Wane v. Loan Corp., 926 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (denying sanctions where plaintiffs delayed in moving to compel)