Vail Lopez v. Timeco, Inc., Civil Action No. 2014-1040

Plaintiffs (former Timeco employees) sued Timeco and its president Houshang Momenian under the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act, D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the FLSA alleging unpaid minimum and overtime wages and disputes over use/notice of the FLSA tip credit.
Discovery deadline was extended to September 30, 2015; parties nonetheless continued some discovery afterward and defendants produced responses in December 2015 identifying 26 individuals with relevant information, including a manager listed as “Mart Dashzeque”/Dashzegve.
Plaintiffs deposed Momenian for two hours in June 2015 and left the deposition open pending production of documents; defendants produced documents in December 2015 but Plaintiffs did not seek completion then.
Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment in September 2016 on the tip-credit issue; defendants responded that Mart Dashzegve (a manager) handled day-to-day employee notice and submitted an affidavit from Dashzegve. Judge Leon denied Plaintiffs’ partial SJ motion in August 2017.
After denial, Plaintiffs (in October 2017) sought to re-open discovery to finish Momenian’s deposition and to depose Dashzegve. The magistrate judge treated the request as a motion to re-open discovery under Rule 16 and denied it for lack of good cause and diligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Re-opening Momenian deposition	Parties agreed in June 2015 to continue the deposition after document production; documents were later produced so deposition should be completed	Plaintiffs delayed years and did not diligently seek completion; re-opening is unjustified simply because SJ was denied	Denied — Plaintiffs failed to show good cause/diligence to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16
Deposing Mart Dashzegve	Plaintiffs lacked meaningful notice that Dashzegve was a key witness and thus should be allowed to depose him now	Defendants identified Dashzegve in interrogatory responses as expected to testify about tipping; Plaintiffs (former employees) should have anticipated supervisors and could have used Rule 30(b)(6) or taken earlier depositions	Denied — Plaintiffs were not diligent; Dashzegve’s role was disclosed and further discovery was not warranted

Lurie v. Mid-Atlantic Permanente Med. Grp., 589 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2008) (scheduling orders help manage litigation and docket control)
Barnes v. D.C., 289 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (Rule 16 good-cause inquiry focuses on moving party's diligence)
Watt v. All Clear Bus. Sols., LLC, 840 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D.D.C. 2012) (factors for reopening discovery include prejudice, foreseeability, consent, and relevance)
Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (burden on party seeking scheduling order modification to show good cause)
Ned Chartering & Trading, Inc. v. Republic of Pakistan, 294 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (lack of clairvoyance is not justification for failing to pursue discovery earlier)
Banks v. Office of Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, 241 F.R.D. 370 (D.D.C. 2007) (Rule 30(b)(6) permits deposing an organization through designated representatives)
Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (employer must provide required information before using tip credit)
Geremia v. First Nat’l Bank of Boston, 653 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981) (diligence required to justify reopening discovery)