United States District Court, D. Nevada
VALERIE P. COOKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
discovery dispute concerns whether the defendants'
eighteenth supplemental disclosure of witnesses should be
stricken. The supplement identified nineteen new witnesses
and was produced two days before the close of discovery. The
procedural history of this case and the parties'
discovery practices give context to the dispute.
January 16, 2015 - over two years ago - Plaintiff Ernesto
Amador (“plaintiffs”) filed a collective action
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons
who are now and were employed by defendant Bully's Sports
Bar & Grill, Inc. as salaried kitchen managers, salaried
assistant kitchen managers, and salaried cooks (ECF No. 1).
Over the course of litigation, plaintiffs filed three amended
complaints (ECF Nos. 34, 72 & 98). The second amended
complaint named Sharling “Jo” Sonner, the sole
corporate owner of Bully's, as a defendant. Bully's
and Ms. Sonner are collectively referred to as
“defendants.” On April 29, 2015, the District
Court conditionally certified the action as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and ordered that
notice and consent to join forms be sent to persons employed
by Bully's in the above-referenced capacities since
January 16, 2012 (ECF No. 50).
court's first case management conference in this matter
on May 1, 2015 (ECF No. 57), the court adopted the
parties' proposed discovery plan and scheduling order
(ECF No. 55), which set the deadline for completion of
discovery for December 1, 2015 (Id.). The court
vacated the August 14, 2015 case management conference at the
request of the parties, since there were no discovery
disputes (ECF Nos. 59 & 60). However, one week later the
parties submitted a stipulation to extend the discovery plan
and scheduling order because they were engaged in private
mediation (ECF No. 61). The court granted the extension on
August 24, 2015, which provided a discovery cutoff of January
15, 2016 (ECF No. 62). Thereafter, the parties extended the
discovery deadline again in November 2015 to March 22, 2016,
but the court stated there would be “absolutely no
further extensions of discovery” (ECF No. 66).
January 13, 2016, five months later, the parties filed a
joint request for confidential status conference with the
District Court. (ECF No. 75). The District Court held a
hearing on January 21, 2016, and stayed discovery and any
additional pleadings until further order of the court (ECF
No. 79). On May 2, 2016, the District Court lifted the stay
(ECF No. 82), and this court set a case management conference
for July 18, 2016 (ECF No. 83). Given the District
Court's stay of discovery, this court approved an amended
discovery plan and scheduling order, which set discovery to
close on December 16, 2016 (ECF. No. 85).
the fall of 2016, the District Court entered judgment as to
the Salaried Cook Subclass and FSLA Collective Action Group 2
pursuant to a notice of acceptance of defendants' Rule 68
offer of judgment (ECF No. 101), and it also approved the
parties' stipulation allowing plaintiffs to filed a third
amended complaint (ECF No. 97).
from the period when the District Court stayed discovery,
this court held regular case management conferences to
oversee discovery to insure that the parties would complete
discovery by the December 16, 2016 deadline. At the October
18, 2016 case management conference, the court approved the
parties' request to extend initial and rebuttal expert
witness reports to October 31, 2016 and November 30, 2016,
respectively, but all other deadlines remained the same (ECF
No. 105). The parties asked to move the November case
management to early December, and the court agreed to do so
(ECF No. 109).
The Parties' Rule 26 Disclosures and Supplemental
parties exchanged initial Rules 26 disclosures in March 2015.
Plaintiffs served their initial disclosure of witnesses on
March 26, 2015 and listed four general groups of witnesses
that plaintiffs deemed were “likely to have
discoverable information. . .that [plaintiffs] may use to
support [their] claims or defenses. . . .” (ECF 117,
Ex. A). Those categories are as follows:
1. Every person who at any time during the relevant class
period (three years prior to the date the complaint was
filed) worked for Defendants, whether as a salaried Kitchen
Manager, Assistant Kitchen Manager, salaried Cook, salaried
General Manager, salaried Assistant General Manager or hourly
2. Every salaried Kitchen Manager, Assistant Kitchen Manager
and salaried Cook who worked for Defendants during the
relevant class period. These current and former employees are
the most knowledgeable witnesses to testify about the tasks
they performed, how much time they spent performing such
tasks and the hours they worked.
3. Plaintiffs' supervisors as well as the supervisors of
current and former salaried Kitchen Managers, Assistant
Kitchen Managers and salaried Cooks, including district
and/or regional managers. These witnesses will have knowledge
about Defendants' policies and practices and expectations
regarding Defendants' sports bar locations. The names and
contact information of these witnesses are exclusively in the
custody and control of Defendants.
4. All Witnesses identified by Defendants - Additional
Witnesses with knowledge of Defendants' operating