And, in the analogous context of loan underwriters, courts are split. Compare McKeen-Chaplin, 862 F.3d at 851-854 (finding underwriter duties related to production, and holding underwriters were not exempt under FLSA), Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529, 532-37 (2d Cir. 2009) (same), and Watts v. Silverton Mortg. Specialists, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1173-74 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (same), with Lutz v. Huntington Bancshares, Inc., 815 F.3d 988, 992-96 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding underwriter duties were related to management and thus underwriters met the second prong of the administrative exemption). Ultimately, the Court need not resolve whether Plaintiff's duties were related to management or general business operations because, as detailed below, the Court concludes that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff did not exercise discretion and independent judgment in her primary duty.

Nevertheless, the payment of some overtime hours does not preclude a plaintiff from succeeding on his claim. See Watts v. Silverton Mortg. Specialists, Inc., 378 F.Supp.3d 1164, 1175 (N.D.Ga. 2019) (“However, the fact that on some occasions Plaintiff reported (or was allowed to report) overtime, and was paid for it, does not defeat her claim that there were other hours that she worked that she was not allowed to report and was not paid for.”).

“Arguments, especially those that seek to foreclose claims at summary judgment, must be supported by citation to authority and appropriate analysis.” Watts v. Silverton Mortg. Specialists, Inc., 378 F.Supp.3d 1164, 1177 n.3 (N.D.Ga. 2019).

is directed at advice on matters that involve policy determinations, i.e. , how a business should be run or run more efficiently, not merely providing information in the course of the customer's daily business operation." Bratt v. County of Los Angeles , 912 F.2d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added) (finding that probation officers were nonexempt because the services they provided to courts were not related to court policy or overall operational management, contrasting with financial advisers who advise customers on how to increase financial productivity or reduce risk); see alsoBoyd v. Bank of America Corp. , 109 F.Supp.3d 1273, 1288 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (holding that real estate appraisers were nonexempt as a matter of law and did not "advise" or consult" with defendant's customers, mortgage lenders, within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(c), where they did not offer a service meant to guide the internal policies of the customer, contrasting with tax or financial consultants); Watts v. Silverton Mortgage Specialists, Inc. , 378 F.Supp.3d 1164, 1174 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (Jones, J.) (finding that plaintiff, a mortgage underwriter, did not function as advisor or servicer to bank's customers where plaintiff "analyzed loan applications utilizing pre-determined guidelines for risk provided to her by her employer" and did not market defendant's loans); Gallegos v. Equity Title Co. of America, Inc. , 484 F.Supp.2d 589, 595-596 (W.D. Tex. 2007) (determining that duties of escrow officer, who performed closing services for defendant's customers, did not relate to the management or business operations of defendant or its customers, as it was production work that merely applied existing policies and procedures on a case-by-case (customer-by-customer) basis). Here, Tyler's customers are not other businesses with private financial incentives but local and state governments.

Nevertheless, the payment of some overtime hours does not preclude a plaintiff from succeeding on his claim. See Watts v. Silverton Mortg. Specialists, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1175 (N.D. Ga. 2019)("However, the fact that on some occasions Plaintiff reported (or was allowed to report) overtime, and was paid for it, does not defeat her claim that there were other hours that she worked that she was not allowed to report and was not paid for."). "Summary judgment is warranted in situations where defendants provide detailed time records indicating the times that employees arrive and leave."

While Nardella was certainly paid large amounts of overtime for many weeks, Atlantic and Kitchner's paying overtime for those weeks does not establish that Nardella was paid for all overtime hours she worked. See Watts v. Silverton Mortg. Specialists, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 3d 1164, 1175 (N.D. Ga. 2019)("However, the fact that on some occasions Plaintiff reported (or was allowed to report) overtime, and was paid for it, does not defeat her claim that there were other hours that she worked that she was not allowed to report and was not paid for."). Furthermore, the Court is mindful that "[i]n this circuit, in an FLSA action, an employee need not support their testimony with time records or other documentation."