EXHIBIT 20
Case 1:05-md—01717—JJF Document 333-21 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 4
Get a Document — by Citation — 92 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34-,116 Page I of`3
.1981 u.s. Dist. LEXIS 17053, *; 92 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34,116;
25 Wage 84 Hour Cas. (BNA) 25U
Ciancey Martin, Plaintiff v. EI Paso Natural Gas Company, Defendant.
No. EP»7s·cA—23.
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17053; 92 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34,116; 25 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 250
October 19, 1981.
¢A$E.$.UMN.ARY=_ _ _ __ ._ _ _ . _ .. _ __
RRC)CEp_URA},._,P_Q$IU_RE_:_ _PIaintiff.e_rnplo_yee sought to cornpel answers to his rf f - ;; _`-_ Qi. ¤
inwresstsiiss eel. it¤.;d.ésin. edmittss itheerequests if¤r.¤¤ir¤i$$i9ii`S Sjsrvedsseiii .d¤ie¤¤¤‘¤i__
sF¤Pi¤.Y¢‘Eé €i'Fhe_ié_r¤pi¤y¢.$·i-·biQu.Qh_f_¤,-thiseéctien r¤=~¤,¤pai¤, ¤_veuime‘ ;¤¤_mpe¤$ati¤¤ ·riurs¤iant‘ L ,;
td ·:·_ iq he .Falrg·;Lao‘qi1‘$tandards Act ¤(FLSA)`,`,29.U.‘S;C._S. (5 ;o1_et_,s_eq. e ---_e ‘- .·--_ -. _}
-¢.i$.€€*Pi."a_i.*ii ialieisied; penrl ¤i>+r¤¤¤rl,¤¢i¢,.t¤arr¤¤,,L LLLC L
é¤_¢ii.i,‘iiai¤ -·.¤v.¢jr¤i¤i1_¢1>:i¤.r..newis iw.¢ti<¤¢i. in;-¢>¢s¢`S.$..-ei 49..i¤¤iitapt=`Ct .vi.
ets ztliat it ,viéei·.sitit¤s¤ii.r¢¤ isJT1i_r¤iiS.¤,‘i.i.r¤éitsri¤l..;¤i
29 °=U·$¢CsS}‘
.¢t.lesl¤i¢¢i.i¤- lseii, t¤.:`tslsv¤.¤ifeviii¢¤i.¤¢·..Th.¤. /t-¥m.¤l¤re.ri¤aks¤l‘tlis,i.¤¤¤rt te deem admitted L
t¤s..iiié.¤¤¤$tS‘_-fer} a¤iir¤,i$$i¤e.$.--bssauie ;_th¢.jem¤i¤,ver-rs$¤e`nci¤ii.-tr gths re¤i¤¢S¤?=s .wit1¤ -_:>a.rr¤¤i·
_¤¢i.ini*—<=$.i¤.na i._/i· sartis.i=Z¤l¢.Jiiai$·;.-sari.s>l¤>i¤¢i,i.¤¤e.;;fthe-¢
in oecd it¤.lt`h.¥-and .i_. i;he’c6¤`rt `determi¤ed"¥;tb.ai.the ¤einp|¤`yer?Eh¤‘te aiclteri 5i¤i‘s`¤¤_d. faith. L ‘- * it .. .- Z-V
c#f·e¤r¤;r.¤,réiilr(¢i=i, thet¢r¤itri,¤iyQ¢(¤‘s,;m¤¤,¤(¤ ic; i¢¤1%¤¤¢rigthieeenp¤¤y,¢ric> .s¤ibitiic L,‘L }
answers to;;interr¤‘s¤.tpri<~=‘$, ·.a‘.n.d.i_‘dénie¤i`_the ·.erni¤l¤_vee's imvtinn tv deem irieciuests, ici. iQ- ’ .
admissions)asadmitted. if - _`i- _2_’. T`: * . ‘-;‘ ; " .3 .; i-‘- 2 - "· ‘‘..: -.·- I = ia;
CORE TERMS: discovery, plant, deem, furnish, Fair Labor Standards Act, relevant evidence,
events occurring, station, interrogatories, stationed, objected, partial
L.exisNexis(R) Head notes
Civil Procedure > Discovery > Relevance
Governments > Legislation > Statutes of Limitations > Time Limitations
â€â€â€”';The district court has discretion to limit discovery to matters occurring within a
particular period of time. It is proper to deny discovery as to events occurring before
the applicabie iirnitation period unless the party seeking discovery can show the
relevance ofthe information sought to the issues in the case.
Civil Procedure > Discovery > Methods > Admissions > Objections
â€â€~?_tFed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) allows a party to object to a request for admission, or to deny
part of it, if he acts in good faith.
COUNSEL: {*1]
https://www.iexis.com/reseatcli/rot1"ieve?_m=9c05 5 59677771 82f4d1e2dd633 1c85b5& b... I i/2i /2006
Case 1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 333-21 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 4
Get a Document - by Citation — 92 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34,I16 Page 2 of 3
Philip S. Brown (Judge & Brown), Amarillo, Texas, for Plaintiff. Kenneth R. Carr (Grambling,
Mounce, Sims, Galatzan & Harris), El Paso, Texas, Harold H. Young, Jr., Houston, Texas, for
Defendant.
OPINION BY: HUDSPETH
OPINION: HiJDSPETl-i, D.J.: Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant, brings this suit
for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§
201, et seq. The Plaintiff alleges he was a plant operator at Defendants Cornudas Station
near Salt Flat, Texas, and that he was not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week as required by law. For the purpose of discovery, Plaintiff filed his first and
second set of interrogatories and a request for admissions. Defendant answered in part and
objected in part. Piaintiff moves to compel answers to his interrogatories and to deem
admitted the requests for admissions.
Two issues are presented by these discovery motions: (1) Is Defendant required to furnish
information to Plaintiff concerning events prior to January 25, 1976, and (2) is Defendant
required to furnish information about other work stations besides Cornudas?
Defendant contends that it should not be required to furnish {*2] information pertaining to
time periods prior to January 1976. Defendant argues that the suit was filed January 26,
1979, and the statute of iirnitations is two years, unless the violation was wilful, in which
case it is three years. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Therefore, the Defendant argues, it cannot be
required to furnish material more than three years old, as it would be outside any
conceivable limitations period.â€â€I'~F
The Court has discretion to limit discovery to matters occurring within a particular period of
time. 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2040 (1970). It is proper to deny
discovery as to events occurring before the applicable limitation period uniess the party
seeking discovery can show the relevance of the information sought to the issues in the case.
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 353 (1978). In the instant case, the
discovery sought as to events occurring before January 1976 does not lnvoive relevant
evidence or matters calculated to lead to relevant evidence. See Adelman v. Nordberg Mfg.
Co., 6 F.R.D. 383 (E.D. Wis. 1947); Stein v. Youngstown Steel Car Corp., {3.2 LC P63,494] 6
F.R.D. 362 (N.D. Ohio 1946). Defendants objection [*3] to it should be sustained.
Defendant also contends that it is not required to disciose information about its automated
gas turbine stations other than the Cornudas plant, inciuding the names and addresses of the
employees stationed at those other plants. The authorities cited by Pialntiff do not stand for
the proposition that such discovery shouid be allowed in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The
few cases that do exist have limited discovery of employment records to those employees
who are parties to the suit. Callaway v. Roliand Laboratories, Inc., 9 F.R.D. 88 (W.D. Mo.
1949); Jumps v. Leverone, 6 Wage Br Hour Cas. 201 (N.D. Ill. 1946); Saxton v. W.D. Askew
Co., 38 F.Supp. 323, 326 (NAD. Ga. 1941).
Some courts have allowed the circulation of a written notice potential plaintiffs who might
otherwise be unaware of their legal rights or of the opportunity to join an existing suit as
parties plaintiff. Braunsteln v. Eastern Photographic Laboratories, Inc., 600 F.2d 335 (2nd
Cir. 1978), cert. denied 441 U.S. 944 (1979); Riojas v. Seai Produce Inc., 82 F.R.D. 613
(S.D. Tex. 1979). But see Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, [82 LC P33,604] 564 F.2d 859 (9th
Cir. 1977) (contra) . Although [*4] Defendant has suggested that this is Plaintiffs motive in
seeking names and addresses of other employees, the Plaintiff has never requested it on that
basis. The question is, therefore, not before the Court. Again, Defendant's objection to this
discovery is well taken.
https://vrwwiexis.com/research/retrieve?Wm=9c0555967777182t`4d1e2dd6331c85b5& b... 1 1/2i/2006
Case 1:05-md—01717—JJF Document 333-21 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 4 of 4
Got e Document - by Citation - 92 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34,116 Page 3 of 3
Defendant responded to some of Plaintiffs requests for admissions with partial admissions or
partial denials, and has objected to some of the requests. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
cannot object, nor can it admit or deny in part only. However, "â€2'3~`R.uie 36(a), F.R.CZiv.P.,
allows a party to object to a request for admission, or to deny part of it, if he acts in good
faith. In this case, Defendants good faith is indicated by the fact that it requests permission
to supplement its answers when discovery is complete. Plaintiffs motion to deem admitted
should be denied.
Plaintiff has also moved for an order compelling Defendant to allow Plaintiff to inspect the
homes of present employees stationed at the Cornuclas plant. Defendant states that it does
not object, but that since the individual employees rent the homes from it and have rights of
privacy, it cannot force employees to allow entry into their homes [*5} by Plaintiffs
representatives. The parties represented to the Court that they wouid attempt to secure the
cooperation of the tenants and work out the problem without court intervention, and it will be
assumed that they have done so.
It is therefore Ordered that Plaintiffs motion to compel answers to interrogatories be, and it
is hereby, Denied.
It is further Ordered that Plaintiffs motion to deem requests for admissions admitted be, and
it is hereby, Denied.
W L(g)(|$N@)(§5·i¤l Copyright gg 2006 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights
j reserved.
https://www.lexis..oom/reseerctl/retrieve‘?_m¤9c0555967777} 82t`4die2dd6331c85b5&__b... I i/21/2006
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms