Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp.

6 Citing cases

  1. Onate v. AHRC Health Care, Inc.

    20-cv-8292 (AS) (JW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2023)

    Courts that have allowed individualized discovery “treat opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA collective action as ordinary party plaintiffs subject to the full range of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” SeeLloyd,supra, citing Khadera v. ABM Indus. Inc., No. C08-cv-417 (RSM), 2011 WL 3651031 at *2 (W.D.Wash. Aug. 18, 2011); Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 555 (2d Cir.2010); Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 3:14-cv-956 (JBA), 2015 WL 540911 at *3 (D.Conn. Feb. 10, 2015); Forauer v. Vt. Country Store, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-276 (CR), 2014 WL 2612044 at *3 (D. Vt. June 11, 2014) (collecting cases); and Daniel v. QuailInt'l, Inc., No. 3:07-cv-53 (CDL), 2010 WL 55941 at *1 (M.D.Ga. Jan. 5, 2010).

  2. Johnson v. Int'l Steel & Counterweights LLC

    4:20-cv-2584 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    After reviewing the circumstances and holdings in the above cases, the undersigned finds that the situations where individualized discovery was approved are distinct from this case in the scope of discovery sought and/or the burden imposed on the plaintiffs, and are therefore not instructive here. See Ludlow, 2020 WL 3791638, at *5 (taking “little guidance” from decisions that permitted “far less discovery”); Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 JBA, 2015 WL 540911, at *2 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2015) (“[T]here is far from a ‘bright line' test as to the number of opt-in plaintiffs which tips the balance in favor of representative sampling as opposed to individualized discovery.”).

  3. Sutton v. Diversity at Work Grp.

    Case No. 1:20-cv-00682 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 8, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 860 F.3d 389, 395 (6th Cir. 2017) (50 Plaintiffs); Ross v. Jack Rabbit Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-00044-TBR, 2014 WL 2219236, (W.D. Ky. May 29, 2014) (24 Plaintiffs). Halleen v. Belk, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00055, 2017 WL 1495085, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2017) (25 Plaintiffs); Lloyd v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 11 CIV. 9305 LTSHBP, 2015 WL 1283681, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (written discovery on “100 opt-ins who have not signed arbitration agreements and [Defendant] may depose 20 of those opt-ins.”); Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 JBA, 2015 WL 540911, at *3 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2015) (32 Plaintiffs). Scott v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. CIV.A. 10-3154, 2012 WL 6151734, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012) (written discovery on 65 Plaintiffs and depositions on 20).

  4. Frisbie v. Feast Am. Diners, LLC

    No. 17-CV-6270-FPG-MJP (W.D.N.Y. May. 7, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    However, "[i]n an FLSA collective action where the plaintiff class is small and the discovery is related to the question of whether the individual plaintiffs are similarly situated within the meaning of the FLSA, individualized discovery is often permitted." Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 14 CV 956 JBA, 2015 WL 540911, at *1-2 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2015) (citations omitted). See, e.g. Forauer, 2014 WL 2612044, *2 (permitting depositions of all 24 opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA action); Daniel v. Quail Int'l, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-53 (CDL), 2010 WL 55941, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2010) (permitting individualized discovery of the 39 opt-in Plaintiffs); Ingersoll v. Royal & Sunalliance USA, Inc., No. C05-1774-MAT, 2006 WL 2091097, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2006) (approving individualized discovery of 34 opt-in plaintiffs relevant to defendant's anticipated motion to decertify); Renfro v. Spartan Computer Servs., Inc., No. 06-2284-KHV, 2008 WL 821950, at *3 (Mar. 26, 2008) (ruling that defendants could depose 27 FLSA opt-in plaintiffs); Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc., No. CV03-05865TJHMCX, 2004 WL 2601180, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct.25, 2004) (granting motion to compel individualized discovery of 306 FLSA opt-in plaintiffs); Krueger v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 163 F.R.D. 446, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (permitting individualized discovery on damages as to all 162 ADEA cl

  5. Crawford v. Prof'l Transp., Inc.

    3:14-cv-00018-RLY-WGH (S.D. Ind. Sep. 1, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Smith v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., 236 F.R.D. 354, 357 (S.D. Ohio 2006). See e.g., Ross v. Jack Rabbit Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-cv-00044, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45603, at *10 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 7, 2015) (limiting discovery to a representative sample of the 236 opt-in plaintiffs); Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15756, at *11 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2015) (ordering that the defendant could serve discovery on only 40% of the 80 opt-in plaintiffs when there was potential for the class to grow to 3,000); Perrin v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc., No. 4:09-CV-01335, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133974, at *14 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2014) (rejecting the defendants' request for individualized discovery of nearly 4,000 opt-in plaintiffs). In this case, Magistrate Judge Hussmann reasonably concluded that a middle-ground approach was appropriate (i.e., that individualized discovery of all the opt-ins should be permitted, but only under narrow constraints), and thereby allowed Defendants to serve three questions (with subparts) on each opt-in Plaintiff.

  6. Lloyd v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

    11 Civ. 9305 (LTS)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015)   Cited 12 times
    Discussing propriety of individualized discovery of opt-in plaintiffs

    After conditional certification, where a defendant has indicated it will seek decertification, some courts have allowed individualized discovery to determine whether the opt-ins are "similarly situated." See Strauch v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 540911 at *3 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2015); Forauer v. Vt. Country Store, Inc., supra, 2014 WL 2612044 at *3 (collecting cases); see also Daniel v. Quail Int'l, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-53 (CDL), 2010 WL 55941 at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2010) ("[I]n an FLSA collective action where the plaintiff class is small and the discovery is related to . . . whether the individual plaintiffs are similarly situated . . . individualized discovery is often permitted."). Courts that have declined to allow individualized discovery in FLSA actions "have concluded that 'collective actions under the FLSA should be governed by the same standards as govern discovery in [Fed.R.Civ.P. 23] class actions and should be limited to only class wide and class based discovery' because '[t]o permit individualized discovery . . . would undermine the purpose and utility of both class and collective actions.'" Forauer v. Vt. Country Store, Inc., supra, 2014 WL 2612044 at *2, quoting Smith v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 236 F.R.D. 354, 357 (S.D. Ohio 2006); see also Scott v.