Free Respone to Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 117 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 1 ot 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIE DAVIS, JR., etal 3
Plaintiffs, ;
v. E Civil N0 04-414-·SLR
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., et ai 2
Defendant. *

/
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE REGARDING SALARY ISSUE
In PIaintiffs’ Reply to Defendanfs Objections During the Video of Douglas
Lynch (DI. 116), Plaintiffs attempt to resurrect the already~decided issue of the salaried
status of the Crew Leaders from June 2001 to June 2002. The following background
reveals that the Plaintiff s attempt should be rejected:
in opposition to i\fIountaire’s first motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs
responded that they "must concede that they were compensated on a salary basis thereby
satisfying section (a) above." D.I. 5i at i3. The District Court relied on this concession
in granting summary judgment: "Piaintiffs concede that they were compensated on a
salary basis sufficient to satisfy section (a)(l) of the regulation? D.I. 55 at 7. After the
District Court granted Mountaire’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs moved for
reargument, arguing that Mountaire willfully failed to pay overtime prior to June or Juiy
2002.1 D.I. 57 at I-2. The District Court rejected the argument, finding it "simply an
I Piaintiffs allege a willful failure to pay because the year in question is not otherwise
covered bythe statute of limitations. The basic statute of limitations is two years,

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 117 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
attempt ‘to argue new facts or issues that inexeusably were not presented to the court in
the matter previously decided.’” D1. 59 at 3-4. Plaintiffs did not renew the argument
before the Court of Appeals. Their sole argument to the Court of Appeals concerned the
ability of the Crew Leaders to hire and fire, under the fourth prong of the new regulation.
The Court of Appeals found, "There is no dispute on appeal that the Crew Leaders satisfy
the first three prongs for the exeinption." Slip Op. at 9, 453 F.3d at 557.
After remand, Mountaire moved for summary judgment as to claims arising
before the new regulations came into effect on August 23, 2004. The Court’s
Memorandum and Order dated May 8, 2004, denied that niotion, holding that this case
will proceed as if the old "long test" were applicable, "with the only factor in dispute that
of plaintiff s authority to ‘hire or tire." D.l. 98 at 9.
Because the issue of salary status is not properly in dispute, Plaintiffs’ deposition
questions concerning the salaried status of Crew Leaders should be redacted.
Accordingly, we respectfully request the Court grant the requested redaction of TR. 29,
30, 31, 34, 35, 42, and 43.
Respectfully submitted,
` ` W E
Matthew F. Boy§ 5Del. Bar No. 2564)
Timothy M. Holly (Del Bar No. 4106)
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP
The Nemours Building
1220 Market Street
P. O. Box 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 884—6585
extended to three years only in the case of a willful violation. 29 U.S.C. § 255. This
action was tiled June 2l, 2004.

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 117 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
Arthur M. Brewer (admitted Pm Hm: Vice)
Eric Hemmendinger (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
SI-IAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP
Sun Life Building, llm F leer
20 S. Charles Street
Baltimoxe, MD 2120l
(410) 752-1040

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 117

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 117

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 117

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 3 of 3