2:19-cv-02656
E.D.N.YOct 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, a proposed class of former Field Installation Department employees, sued Pro Custom Solar LLC d/b/a Momentum Solar and individuals for wage and hour violations under FLSA, NYLL, and NJWHL and for discrimination/retaliation.
- The case has been ongoing since 2019, now involving 18 named plaintiffs and potential collective/class claims in both New York and New Jersey.
- Discovery has been slow, with significant disputes over production of wage records, work schedules, payroll documents, and compliance policies.
- Plaintiffs allege Momentum delayed producing key discovery, failed to timely arrange depositions, and never answered the Third Amended Complaint.
- Plaintiffs seek sanctions, including preclusion of defendant's summary judgment motions, relief from responding to late discovery demands, and authorization to move for default against Momentum.
- On October 23, 2024, the Court resolved several discovery-related motions and set deadlines for outstanding production and briefing on a default motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outstanding Discovery | Defendant failed to produce complete wage and schedule records for all plaintiffs and opt-ins | Misunderstood which discovery was outstanding; now willing to comply | Defendant must produce all outstanding records by Nov 1, 2024 |
| Deposition Delays | Defendant has delayed production of managerial witnesses and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses | Denies delay, claims depositions were set for agreed dates | Parties must report deposition status by Nov 1, 2024 |
| Sanctions for Discovery | Defendant should be precluded from dispositive motions and relying on withheld documents | No explicit position stated | No broad preclusion; late-produced records precluded; recollection allowed |
| Late Discovery Demands | Defendant's post-discovery demands (esp. post-employment info) are irrelevant and untimely | Submitted at plaintiffs’ request, relate to compensation | Plaintiffs relieved from responding to new post-discovery demands |
| Default for No Answer | Defendant never answered Third Amended Complaint, now seeks default authorization | Requests conference instead, wants discovery addressed | Sets briefing schedule for motion for default against Momentum |
Key Cases Cited
- Yang v. ASBL Corp., 427 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (court may let plaintiffs rely on recollection where employer fails to keep records)
- Reich v. Southern New England Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (court may infer uncompensated work where employers fail to maintain evidence)
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011) (standing for default procedure)