Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

_ l@ Rylev Carlock Si. Applewhtte
The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
United States District Court
·· 40l W. Washington
Suite 624, SPC 59 August 9, 2005
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
DEFENDANTS DISCOVERY DISPUTE STATEMENT
Hutton adv. Bank of America (CV2003·-..2.262—PHX—ROS)
Dear Judge Silver:
The parties in the abovereferenced matter continue to be engaged in a discovery dispute
regarding the permissible scope of discovery for individual opt—in plaintiffs in this FLSA
collective action. l` certify that Counsel for the Defendant has complied with botli Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 7..2(j) and the Court’s Rule l6 Order. In spite of their best efforts, however, the
parties were unable to resolve this dispute. Thus, we seek the Court’s assistance in obtaining a
resolution.
Counsel for Plaintiff has refused to permit individualized discovery of all opt—in plaintiffs
to the same extent as Plaintiff l·lutton, agreeing only to permit discovery as to six opt-ins who are
being deposed. Also, as to these six, Plaintiff refuses to respond to interrogatories asking for:
(4) Comirninications requesting to work over 40 hours and responses
(6) Reason why overtime hours were not recorded
(l'/)—(20) identity, statement, eye witnesses and documents evidencing management
leading opt-in to believe lie/she was not to record all hours worked
(.2t)—(24) Identity, statement, eye witnesses and documents evidencing responses leading
opt—in to believe he/she was to record all hours worked
Also, even as to these six opt-ins, counsel refuses to respond to requests seeking:
(l) Resumes prepared by opt—ins during the applicable period
(3) Diaries and other documents recording work schedule and appointments
(4) Documents which directly or indirectly approve the practice of failing to record
all hours worked
(6) Claims that opt~in has not been paid for all hours worked
(9) Documents relied upon to respond to interrogatories
(I l) Documents regarding recording or declining to record hours worked
The Court has ordered individual written discovery as to all opt—ins. There is no reason
for non—conipliance.
Respectfully submitted,
% / Y
Charles L. Chest r
Ryley Carloclt 8.; Applewhite
cc. Lydia Jones, Esq.
sizisi
s/ences
Case 2:03-cv—02262—FlOS Document 168 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:03-cv-02262-ROS

Document 168

Filed 10/19/2005

Page 1 of 1