Opinion

Crawford v. Dothan City Board of Education

  • 214 F.R.D. 694
  • 9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 509
  • 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8720
  • 2003 WL 21213248
Court
District Court, M.D. Alabama
Filed
May 19, 2003
Status
Published
Author
Albritton
On the bench
Albritton
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 72.2%

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

How later courts described this case

  • stating that discovery requests directed towards potentially similarly situated employees is premature when "no collective action has been conditionally certified.”
  • discovery of contact information should only be allowed after a collective action 24 has been conditionally certified
  • because no collective action had been conditionally certified, discovery before step one of the two-step process was premature

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

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 (Doe. # 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.