Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanhueza v. Lincoln Tech. Inst., Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 18, 2014

ANITA SANHUEZA, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
LINCOLN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC., et al., Defendants

For Wendy Guzman, Anita Sanhueza, Kayla Resendes, Plaintiffs: Dana Sniegocki, LEAD ATTORNEY, Leon Greenberg, Las Vegas, NV; Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation, Las Vegas, NV.

For Danielle Johnson, Johnelle Bergeron, Sharnell Weston, Noorly Campene, Cierra Giguerre, Fara Iacometta, Plaintiffs: Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation, Las Vegas, NV.

For Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc., Euphoria Acquisition, LLC, Shaun E McAlmont, Cesar Ribiero, Brian K Meyers, Defendants: Hallie Diethelm Caldarone, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jackson Lewis PC, Chicago, IL; Michael C. Stepien, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Jackson Lewis PC, Chicago, IL; Elayna J Youchah, Jackson Lewis P.C, Las Vegas, NV.

For New England Institute of Technology at Palm Beach, Inc., Defendant: Elayna J Youchah, Jackson Lewis P.C, Las Vegas, NV; Hallie Diethelm Caldarone, Jackson Lewis PC, Chicago, IL.

For Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, Defendant: Elayna J Youchah, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jackson Lewis P.C, Las Vegas, NV; Hallie Diethelm Caldarone, Jackson Lewis PC, Chicago, IL.

ORDER

CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This matter involves Anita Sanhueza's class action against the Lincoln Technical Institute, et al., for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206. ( See Compl. (#1) at ¶ 52). Before the court is Sanhueza's Motion to Compel (#67). Defendants filed an opposition (#68); and Sanhueza replied (#71). For the reasons stated below, Sanhueza's Motion to Compel is granted.

BACKGROUND

Sanhueza's action presents one question: whether, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Sanhueza had an " employment relationship" with Euphoria Salon when she was a student at the Euphoria Institute of Beauty Arts and Sciences. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel (#67) at 2:7-12). Sanhueza contends that she performed services for Euphoria's paying customers, which created an employment relationship between her and the salon. (Id.)

On October 2, 2014, Sanhueza filed the instant Motion to Compel. It seeks the names and contact numbers of every customer that she provided cosmetology services to while studying at the Euphoria Institute. (Doc. #67 at 3:14-15). Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Sanhueza's discovery request seeks private information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ( See Def.'s Opp'n (#68) at 5:8). This order follows.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs discovery's scope and limits. It states that a party " may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivildged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). A discovery request is relevant " if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. Rule 26 provides for liberal discovery to serve " the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for the truth." Seattle Times, Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984); Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993).

If, as here, a party resists discovery, Rule 37 authorizes the requesting party to file a motion to compel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). The motion must include a threshold showing of relevancy. Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978)). If the requesting party makes this showing of relevancy, the resisting party carries a " heavy burden." Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). That party must demonstrate that the discovery request is irrelevant, duplicative, unduly costly or burdensome, overly broad, or disproportional in light of " the issues at stake." Fed.R.Civ.P. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.