West v. Lasership, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL WEST, ROMAINE CLARKE, RYON MORGAN,

and SAADALA ABOULESSAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CIVIL ACTION NO. 21 Civ. 5382 (LTS) (SLC)

Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

LASERSHIP, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.

The Court held a telephone conference on May 8, 2026 (the “May 8 Conference”) to discuss the parties’ disputes concerning the scope of opt-in discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 286–88). Following the Conference, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. The parties shall order a copy of the May 8 Conference transcript using the annexed form by May 13, 2026. 2. As discussed at the May 8 Conference, there are now over 620 opt-in plaintiffs (the “Opt-Ins”). (Dkt. Nos. 287–88). The parties dispute the number of Opt-Ins from which Defendant Lasership, Inc. (“Defendant”) may take discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 287–88). Plaintiffs Daniel West, Romaine Clarke, Ryon Morgan, and Saadala Aboulessan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) propose that Defendant take discovery from 5% of the Opt-Ins — approximately 30 Opt-Ins. (Dkt. No. 287 at 3). Defendant proposes it take discovery from “slightly less than 10%” of the Opt-Ins — 60 Opt-Ins. (Dkt. No. 288 at 1 n.1). In cases such as this one, where the number of opt-in plaintiffs exceeds 200, courts in this District have ordered discovery from a “representative sampling” of the opt-in plaintiffs. Lloyd v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 11 Civ. 9305 (LTS) (HBP), et al., 2015 WL 1283681, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (“when the number of opt-in plaintiffs is approaching 200,

courts are more inclined to order a representative sampling.”). Some courts have limited the “representative sampling” to 5% of the opt-in plaintiffs while others have limited it to 10%. See Onate v. AHRC Health Care, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 8292 (AS) (JW), 2023 WL 6973734, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2023) (limiting interrogatories to 5% of the opt-in plaintiffs and depositions for only 15 of the over 1,000 opt-in plaintiffs);

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8333 (ALC) (SN), 2015 WL 13745760, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2015), adopted as modified by, No. 12 Civ. 8333 (ALC), 2016 WL 397677 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2016) (allowing depositions of 10% of the opt-ins, or 58 individuals); Morangelli v. Chemed Corp., No. 10 Civ. 876 (BMC), 2011 WL 7475, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2011) (noting that “the Court has authorized 40 sample depositions, about 10% of the opt-in plaintiffs”) (citation modified). Accordingly, the Court

ORDERS that the parties shall exchange discovery with respect to 45 of the Opt-Ins — approximately 7%. Specifically, Defendant may serve ten Requests for Production (“RFPs”) and eight Interrogatories on the 45 Opt-Ins and shall have the right to depose each of the 45 Opt-Ins, and Defendant’s obligation to search for communications responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 32 shall be limited to the 45 Opt-Ins. To select the 45 Opt-Ins, Plaintiffs shall choose 15, Defendant shall choose

15, and the parties shall select 15 at random using a mutually agreed methodology. 3. The applicability of the Court’s decision above, (see 4] 2, supra), to Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 15, which seeks the production of “all text messages and other communications from any employee of LaserShip, Inc. to Master Contractors concerning subcontractors, including but not limited to communications concerning the wearing of uniforms|[,]” (Dkt. No. 287 at 2), is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the June 5 Conference. (See 4 4, infra). 4. Another telephone conference to discuss the status of opt-in discovery is scheduled for June 5, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. ET (the “June 5 Conference”) on the Court’s conference line. The parties are directed to call (855) 244-8681; access code: 2308 226 4654, at the scheduled time.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 287 and 288. Dated: New York, New York May 8, 2026 SO ORDERED. dlefae, (ae L. oe United States Magistrate Judge

Request for the production of a transcript from an electronic recording Send one request per completed form to: etranscripts@nysd.uscourts.gov from an electronic record are generated by a Court Approved Transcriber, NOT the Southert Court Reporters. The transcript will be delivered to your office and you will be invoiced directly b transcriber. Submission of this form constitutes an agreement to pay for the transcription services herein. This form should not be submitted for the purpose of obtaining a price estimate. CJA requests require prior approval by submitting an Auth-24 document in the CJA eVoucher If granted, the attorney then submits the etranscripts order form (indicate CJA Request). notification from the transcriber, the attorney will create a CUA 24 Voucher in the eVoucher system

Today’s Date:

— —

INDICATE SERVICE: (prices listed are per page) aily 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 30 Day $6.55 $5.85 $5.10 $4.40

Name Firm Name Address

City, State Zip Code

Telephone Number E-mail Address