Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
300 F.R.D. 188
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (named employees) brought FLSA and NYLL collective action challenging Chipotle’s categorical classification of apprentices as exempt employees; conditional certification was granted.
- There are 582 opt-in plaintiffs; parties dispute scope of written discovery (three interrogatories and three document requests proposed by Chipotle for each opt-in).
- Plaintiffs sought to limit written discovery to opt-ins who will be deposed plus 15 additional randomly selected opt-ins; parties had already agreed to depose roughly 10% of opt-ins (about 58), with selection shares allocated between the parties and random selection.
- Chipotle argued it needed individualized written discovery from all opt-ins to protect due process and to defend against potential individualized issues, invoking Dukes and Comcast.
- Plaintiffs argued full written discovery of all opt-ins would be burdensome, duplicative, and contrary to the collective-action purpose; representative sampling would suffice.
- The magistrate judge granted plaintiffs’ request: written discovery limited to the opt-ins to be deposed and 15 randomly selected opt-ins; nonresponding opt-ins will be replaced using the selection method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may serve written interrogatories and document requests on all 582 opt-ins | Limit written discovery to deposed opt-ins + 15 random opt-ins to avoid burden and preserve collective-action efficiency | Need individualized discovery from all opt-ins to protect due process and litigate individualized defenses (citing Dukes/Comcast) | Denied as to full-class written discovery; granted for deponents + 15 random opt-ins (approx. 10% sample) |
| Whether Dukes/Comcast mandate individualized discovery in FLSA collective actions | Dukes/Comcast do not bar collective proof or representative discovery in misclassification cases | These Supreme Court decisions require individualized discovery to protect defendant’s rights | Court held Dukes/Comcast do not, as a matter of law, require written discovery from every opt-in in this FLSA misclassification case |
| Whether representative sampling is appropriate for proving liability/damages under FLSA | Representative testimony and documents from a sample suffice; Anderson burden-shifting allows approximate damages if records lacking | Sample may not allow defendant to test individualized defenses or calculate damages | Court approved representative sampling (≈10%) for discovery and found Anderson and related precedent permit sampling for damages calculation |
| Whether much of requested information is uniquely in defendant’s possession, making opt-in written responses unnecessary | Defendant already possesses schedules, supervisor names, performance/compensation records; opt-in memories likely less reliable | Written opt-in responses necessary to fill gaps and test defenses | Court found much information likely in defendant’s records and opt-in responses would be burdensome/less reliable; limited written discovery ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (courts may limit discovery to what is necessary to establish facts supporting claims)
- S.E.C. v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (discovery access can be qualified to protect legitimate interests)
- Gelb v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 813 F. Supp. 1022 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (trial court has discretion to limit broad discovery under the Federal Rules)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (purpose of collective actions is efficient adjudication of similar claims)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class certification requires common questions capable of classwide resolution; rejects trial-by-formula for individualized claims)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (class certification requires a damages model that ties damages to the theory of liability)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (in FLSA cases, burden-shifting permits reasonable inference of damages when employer’s records are inadequate)
- Reich v. S. New England Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (representative testimony and sampling may support FLSA liability and damages)