Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 122 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIE DAVIS, JR., et al., )
Plaintiffs, I
v. I Civ. No. 04-414-SLR
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., etal., I
Defendants. I
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 31st day ofJuly, 2008, having reviewed the issues submitted
by the parties at the pretrial conference;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. PIaintiffs’ motion to revoke the pro hac vice admission of Arthur M. Brewer,
Esquire, as trial counsel (D.I. 101) is denied on the merits, as I find that the June 24,
2008 settlement conference was cancelled because of the content of the mediation
statements. (D.I. 100) Consistent with my practice, however, local counsel for
defendants shall be present at least through the first day oftrial.
2. With respect to the salaried status of plaintiffs, as that issue relates to the
evidence to be presented at trial,2 the following holdings shall govern the presentation
of evidence at trial, based upon my review ofthe record and the parties’ various
concessions:
2More specifically, PX 2 and pages 29-31, 34-35, and 42-43 ofthe Lynch
deposition.

Case 1 :04-cv-00414-SLR Document 122 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 2
a. Plaintiffs were salaried employees after June or July 2002.3
b. Plaintiffs were not salaried employees before June or July 2002.4
c. The issue of whether defendants willfully withheld overtime pay during
the limitations period (July 2002 to July 2004) has not been waived .5
d. The issue of willful noncompliance must be proved through conduct
during the limitations period.
e. Therefore, the evidence in dispute is not relevant to any issue in
contention.6
3. With respect to the remaining disputes over the Lynch deposition transcript,
the remaining excerpts shall not be admitted, as such evidence is irrelevant and/or
unduly prejudicial.
United States gistrict Judge
gg D.l. 51 at 13; D.I. 55 at 7. Arguments to the contrary have been
procedurally waived.
4g D.|. 46 at 26; D.l. 105 at4, ‘jj24.
5Plaintiffs were not obligated to present all issues to the court in their summary
judgment motion practice and, therefore, did not waive the issue of willfulness in this
fashion. The fact that Judge Jordan declined to "reconsider" the issue when he had
never considered it in the first instance (D.|. 59) does not preclude plaintiffs from raising
the issue on remand from the Third Circuit. Indeed, defendants conceded as much in
their portion ofthe pretrial order. (D.l. 105 at 7, 1j(4)B.3)
Blfthe jury finds there to be willful noncompliance during the limitations period,
plaintiffs shall be entitled to compensation based on their non-salaried status.
2

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 122

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 122

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 2 of 2