Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., Docket No. 00-371-P-C (D. Me. 1/11/2002), Docket No. 00-371-P-C.
| Decision Date | 11 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 00-371-P-C. |
| Parties | ABDELA TUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARBER FOODS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
The defendant in this action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., seeks dismissal of eighteen of the remaining 41 named plaintiffs, Barber Foods' Motion for Sanctions, etc. ("Motion") (Docket No. 37), as a sanction for their failure to comply with my order dated December 6, 2001 that they respond to interrogatories propounded by the defendant on September 11, 2001 no later than December 21, 2001 or to show cause by that date why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to do so, Report of Final Pretrial Conference and Order (Docket No. 32) at 2. In that order I advised these plaintiffs that the sanction of dismissal of all of their claims was possible if they failed to comply with my order. Id.
Two of the plaintiffs involved subsequently served answers to the interrogatories. The remaining sixteen plaintiffs failed to respond to the interrogatories or to show cause in writing by December 21, 2001 and have made no effort to do so as of the date of this order. The defendant's motion, filed January 3, 2002, seeks dismissal of all these plaintiffs or, in the alternative, an order barring these plaintiffs from testifying at trial and precluding them from pursuing claims that they were required to visit the employer defendant's medical office during unpaid lunch breaks. Motion at 6.
The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion in which they agree to dismissal of eight of the sixteen plaintiffs "who have explicitly and unequivocally indicated to Plaintiffs' counsel that they do not wish to participate further in this case," specifically Mark W. Aitkenhead, Erlinda A. Carter, William Devine, Angela Dumont, Diane C. Keraghan, Lee Lacroix, Lisa Morgan and Tatyana Novikova. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Partial Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions ("Plaintiffs' Opposition") (Docket No. 38) at 2-3. Those plaintiffs should accordingly be dismissed.
With respect to the remaining eight plaintiffs, the plaintiffs (i) contend that they should not be dismissed because representative testimony should be allowed in the trial of this collective action, rendering unnecessary their individual testimony, and represent that they agree not to testify; (ii) agree to waive any claims regarding medical visits by these eight plaintiffs; (iii) argue that requiring these plaintiffs to respond to the discovery would present only redundant and cumulative evidence while imposing substantial cost and burden on them; and (iv) posit that the use of "voluminous" discovery requests by the defendant may be a tactic to reduce the number of plaintiffs. Id. at 4-11. The defendant quite properly points out in its response, Barber Foods' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 39) at 2-3, that the latter two arguments could and should have been raised within 30 days of service of the interrogatories and are untimely when first presented almost four months later. See, e.g., Pilcher v. Direct Equity Lending, 2000 WL 33170865 (D.Kan. Dec. 22, 2000) at *2; Allen v. Interstate Brands Corp., 186 F.R.D. 512, 524 (S.D.Ind. 1999). I note as well that the interrogatories propounded are neither voluminous nor unduly burdensome under the circumstances of this case. The plaintiffs' contention that the defendant "already has all the impeachment evidence it could use" if these eight plaintiffs are barred from testifying, Plaintiffs' Opposition at 10, is simply incorrect. The defendant would be entitled to demonstrate at trial that individual plaintiffs who do not testify have made claims that cannot be substantiated, in whole or in part. The use of representative testimony would not bar the use of such impeachment evidence.
The fact that representative testimony may be permitted at trial in this case by the trial judge does not,...
To continue reading
Request your trial