Opinion
No. 1:00CV369-D-B.
February 16, 2001
OPINION
The Plaintiffs initiated these collective actions against the Defendant School Districts pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking back wages, liquidated damages and other relief for their claims of unpaid overtime.
Presently before the court are the Defendants' objections to an order entered on January 8, 2001, by the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to these actions.
The court notes that only eighteen of the thirty-eight Defendants in these collective actions object to the Magistrate Judge's January 8, 2001, order. The remaining twenty Defendants will apparently comply with that order without objection.
Upon due consideration, the court finds that the Defendants' objections to the January 8, 2001, order should be overruled, and the Magistrate's order affirmed without modification.
A. Standard of Review
An order of a United States Magistrate Judge shall not be reversed, vacated, or modified on appeal unless the District Judge shall determine that the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, or that the Magistrate Judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Uniform Local Rule 72.2(A)(2) (Dec. 2000).
B. The Magistrate's January 8, 2001, order
On January 8, 2001, the Magistrate entered an order, in all of these cases, that contained the following provisions:
Pursuant to a Status Conference held on January 5, 2001, . . . it is therefore ORDERED that:
(4) Until [April 6, 2001], each defendant, its representatives, agents, attorneys, principals, and/or superintendent shall not have any meetings, contact, or communications whatsoever regarding any aspect of this litigation including but not limited to settlement, with the named plaintiffs and/or any other persons who have consented to become party plaintiffs in these cases, or who are eligible to become plaintiffs because of their non-exempt status under the FLSA.
(5) In the event any defendant calculates, or has previously calculated, what it purports to be overtime wages due to a named plaintiff and/or any other person who consents to become a party plaintiff, the defendant shall produce such calculations to plaintiffs' counsel and shall not produce such calculations directly to the plaintiffs or any other person who consented to become a party plaintiff in these cases, or who are eligible to become plaintiffs because of their non-exempt status under the FLSA.
January 8, 2001, Order on Status Conference of January 5, 2001, and Form of Notice and Consent, pp. 6-7.
First, the Defendants raise numerous objections to paragraph 4 of the Magistrate's order. The court finds, however, that this portion of the Magistrate's order, which is only effective until April 6, 2001, is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate is authorized to limit communications with plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs in this situation. Kleiner v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985).
The court further finds that, because of the temporary nature of the restrictions imposed by paragraph 4 of the Magistrate's order, the order does not interfere with the Defendants' ability to prepare their defenses. This is especially true in light of the fact that no litigation deadlines are confronting the Defendants — no scheduling order has been entered, no depositions have been scheduled, and no trial date has been established. As such, the court finds that the Defendants have failed to prove that paragraph 4 of the Magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Next, the Defendants object to paragraph 5 of the Magistrate's order. The Defendants argue that this portion of the order violates the work-product protections provided in Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is therefore clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court finds, however, that the calculations at issue do not appear to qualify as work product subject to the protection of Rule 26(b)(3); no mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of counsel must be disclosed. In any event, the Defendants have not specifically objected to any particular calculations being disclosed, but rather have simply made a blanket assertion that any such calculations would qualify for Rule 26(b)(3) protection, rendering the Magistrate's order clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court cannot, at this juncture, agree. As such, the court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish that paragraph 5 of the Magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Finally, the Defendants assert that the form of the notice that is to be sent to potential plaintiffs in this action, approved by the Magistrate and attached to the Magistrate's order as Exhibit "A", is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As noted by the Plaintiffs, however, the Fair Labor Standards Act does not require that the notice contain the provisions the Defendants wish to have included. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 216(c). Further, the court finds that the Defendants' assertion that the notice is not sufficiently neutral is without merit. As such, the court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish that the form of the notice approved by the Magistrate is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
In sum, upon close review, the court finds that these rulings by the Magistrate are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As such, the Defendants' objections are overruled, and the Magistrate's order is affirmed.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that
(1) the Defendants' objections to the Magistrate's January 8, 2001, order are OVERRULED and that order is AFFIRMED in its entirety.