Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00538/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00538-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL WEINSTEIN, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

METLIFE INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

KIM REEDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Nos. C 06-04444 SI; C 07-0538

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

WEINSTEIN PLAINTIFFS’ OMNIBUS

MOTION

On July 6, 2007, the Court heard argument on the Weinstein plaintiffs’ omnibus motion: (1) to

intervene in and stay the Reeder action; (2) to appoint lead counsel for related cases; (3) for permission

to contact opt-ins in Weinstein action; (4) to compel former plaintiff’s attorney Scott Cole to produce

entire Weinstein case file to substituted counsel; and (5) disqualify Scott Cole as plaintiffs’ counsel.

Plaintiffs in the Reeder action filed an opposition to the motion. 

Both sets of plaintiffs agree that the omnibus motion is now limited to only two disputes. First,

Weinstein seeks “production of documents constituting or reflecting communications between the

Reeder plaintiffs and Weinstein’s prior counsel, Cole,” and “permission to contact the Reeder

Case 3:07-cv-00538-SI Document 64 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

plaintiffs.” Weinstein Supp. Br. at 1:20-22. The Reeder plaintiffs are still members of the Rule 23

putative class in Weinstein, despite their withdrawal from the Weinstein FLSA action. As such, the

Court GRANTS Weinstein’s motion for production of documents constituting or reflecting

communications between the Reeder plaintiffs and Cole, prior to the date on which the Reeder action

was filed. Similarly, the Court grants Weinstein’s motion for permission to contact the Reeder

plaintiffs. 

 The second remaining dispute on this motion is whether Weinstein’s counsel, Wolf Haldenstein,

should be appointed lead counsel. It appears from their papers that Wolf Haldenstein seeks to be

appointed lead counsel over both Weinstein and Reeder. Considering that all of the named plaintiffs in

Reeder are represented by Cole, and the Reeder action has been stayed, it would be inappropriate for

the Court, at this stage, to appoint Wolf Haldenstein lead counsel in Reeder.

Finally, as mentioned at hearing, the Court ORDERS Mr. Cole to submit declarations, on or

before July 13, 2007, from the Reeder plaintiffs, detailing their understanding of the reasons for, and

chronology of, their decision to file the Reeder action and withdraw participation in the Weinstein FLSA

action.

[Docket No. 91 (Case No. 06-4444); Docket No. 33 (Case No. 07-0538)]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00538-SI Document 64 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2