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.

Yvonne Taylor, et al v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health System

March 7, 2011

YVONNE TAYLOR, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PITTSBURGH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Bissoon

ORDER

Consistent with the discussions at last week's Telephonic Discovery Conference, the Court ORDERS as follows regarding the issues identified in Plaintiffs' counsel's letter dated February 28, 2011 (a copy of which is attached as an Appendix to this Order):

Section I (letter pgs. 1-4): Although discovery currently is limited to Mercy Hospital, Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition(s) shall cover information within the possession of the other Defendants to the extent that such information addresses system-wide policies, practices, et cetera, relevant to the issue of class certification.

Section II (pgs. 4-7): Defendants shall produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent or deponents regarding the four computer hardware/server items identified in Defense counsel's email dated November 24, 2010.

Section III(1) (pgs. 8-9) (records of employee compensation): If Defendants have additional documents regarding the collective action members' days of work-week, they will produce them. Otherwise, Defendants have no further duty of production.

Section III(2) (pg. 9) (corporate structure): Given Defense counsel's representation that Defendants will not rely on this matter for the purposes of seeking decertification, no production is required.

Section III(3) (pgs. 9-10) (information regarding policies and practices): To the extent that final iterations of written policies regarding Mercy Hospital are available, Defendants have represented that they have produced them. Defense counsel are required to produce the written policies of other Defendants only to the extent that they address system-wide issues relevant to certification, and, as appropriate and necessary, Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify the Bates stamp numbers of any previously produced policy in question.

Section III(4) (pg. 10) (training and instruction of employees): Plaintiffs' request goes beyond the scope of limited discovery, and Defendants owe no duty of production.

Section III(5) (pg. 10) (labor costs and budgets): Plaintiffs' request goes beyond the scope of limited discovery, and Defendants owe no duty of production.

Section III(6) (pgs. 10-11) (documents/communications regarding subject matter of this lawsuit): Defense counsel will provide Plaintiffs' counsel a privilege log by the end of the day on March 7, 2011. The privilege log and any challenges thereto aside, Plaintiffs' discovery request is overbroad and Defendants' objection is sustained.

Section III(7) (pg. 11) ("timekeeping systems"): Defendants have produced sufficient materials for the purposes of limited discovery, and no further production is required.

Section III(8) (pg. 11) (personnel files): Defendants have produced all available personnel files for the opt-ins. Defense counsel shall produce job descriptions for Defendants Kenneth Eshak and Kristen Bell for the relevant time period, and this will satisfy their current duty of production.

Section III(1) (pg. 12) (supervisors, co-workers, et cetera): Aside from what Defendants already have produced, Plaintiffs' discovery request goes beyond the scope of limited discovery, and no further response/production is required.

Section III(2) (pg. 12) (efforts to ensure that employees do not work during unpaid meal breaks): No further ...


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.