From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crawford v. Dothan City Bd. of Educ.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division.
May 19, 2003
214 F.R.D. 694 (M.D. Ala. 2003)

Summary

holding discovery premature

Summary of this case from Sjoblom v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC

Opinion

         On the plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct limited discovery for purposes of conditional class certification in a suit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the District Court, Albritton, Chief Judge, held that discovery was premature, where no collective action had been conditionally certified.

         Motion denied.

         Robert S. Ramsey, Dothan, AL, for Plaintiffs.

          James R. Seale, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.


          ORDER

          ALBRITTON, Chief Judge.

         This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery for Purposes of Conditional Class Certification (Doc. # 6).

         The Plaintiffs seek to discover through interrogatories to be propounded to the Defendant the identity of any non-exempt, non-certified employees of the Defendant to whom a self audit reveals wages have been or should have been paid under the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

          The United States Supreme Court has explained that when a collective action is conditionally certified, it is appropriate for a district court to permit the discovery of the names and addresses of employees. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170, 110 S.Ct. 482, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989); see also Vaszlavik v. Storage Technology Corp., 175 F.R.D. 672, 681-82 (D.Colo.1997)(stating that once a collective action is certified, plaintiffs are entitled to discovery to determine the names and addresses of putative class members). Where discovery is sought in the absence of a conditionally certified collective action, however, such discovery has been denied. See, e.g., Brooks v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 561, 571 (N.D.Ala.1995).

          This approach comports with the two-step process adopted by the Eleventh Circuit for resolving requests for conditional certification of a collective action. That is, at the first step, or notice stage, the court makes a preliminary determination of whether individuals are similarly situated by examining the pleadings and affidavits. See Hipp v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1218 (11th Cir.2001). If a collective action is conditionally certified, the defendant may move to de-certify the collective action based upon evidence gained through discovery. Id. Applying that analysis in this case, because no collective action has been conditionally certified, discovery before step one of the two-step process is premature.

         Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery for Purposes of Conditional Class Certification (Doc. # 6) is ORDERED DENIED.


Summaries of

Crawford v. Dothan City Bd. of Educ.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division.
May 19, 2003
214 F.R.D. 694 (M.D. Ala. 2003)

holding discovery premature

Summary of this case from Sjoblom v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC

finding discovery regarding identity of certain employees of defendant was premature because no collective action had been conditionally certified

Summary of this case from Cavin v. Westport Linen Servs., LLC

finding discovery of a class list premature where no collective action was conditionally certified

Summary of this case from Justison v. McDonald's Corp.

finding that because no collective action had been conditionally certified, discovery before step one of the two-step process was premature

Summary of this case from Morden v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

denying motion to conduct limited discovery for conditional class certification

Summary of this case from Arvilla v. Fresh Mkt., Inc.

denying discovery in the absence of a conditionally certified action

Summary of this case from Briones v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.

denying discovery of defendant's employees prior to conditional class certification as premature

Summary of this case from Boykin v. Comerica Management Co., Inc.

denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery for Purposes of Conditional Class Certification

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Perdue Farms, Inc.

stating that discovery requests directed towards potentially similarly situated employees is premature when "no collective action has been conditionally certified"

Summary of this case from Arvilla v. Fresh Mkt., Inc.

stating that discovery requests directed towards potentially similarly situated employees is premature when “no collective action has been conditionally certified.”

Summary of this case from Ide v. Neighborhood Rest. Partners, LLC
Case details for

Crawford v. Dothan City Bd. of Educ.

Case Details

Full title:Deborah CRAWFORD, Gloria Faulk, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOTHAN CITY BOARD…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

Date published: May 19, 2003

Citations

214 F.R.D. 694 (M.D. Ala. 2003)

Citing Cases

Arvilla v. Fresh Mkt., Inc.

The court has broad discretion to deny or stay discovery prior to conditional class certification. See…

Whitehorn v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc.

Therefore, the Court will direct the defendants to disclose [employee contact information]."). See e.g.,…