Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05091/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05091-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

MARTIN GILZOW PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 05-5091

LENDERS TITLE COMPANY, an Arkansas

Corporation DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 6th day of July, 2006, comes on for

consideration plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Answers To

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories And Requests For Production And To

Extend Discovery Deadline (document #68), and from said motion,

and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff Martin Gilzow (“Gilzow) alleges that

defendant Lenders Title Company (“Lenders”) retaliated against

him for engaging in protected activity, in violation of the

Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and violated the federal Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act.

2. After discovery was complete, and while certain

dispositive motions were under submission, Lenders moved to

amend its Answer to allege the affirmative defense of exempt

status under the FLSA. Over Gilzow’s objection that the case

had proceeded to that point upon Lenders’ claim that Gilzow was

an independent contractor, the Court allowed the amendment,

granted Gilzow sixty days from March 7, 2006, to take additional

discovery on this affirmative defense, and continued the trial

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

until August 21, 2006. 

3. On June 27, 2006, Gilzow filed the motion now under

consideration, alleging that Lenders has failed to produce

various documents and answer various interrogatories. The Court

will address each disputed discovery request in turn.

(a) Interrogatory No. 5 asks for the dates of all

conversations between Lenders’ employee Mike Pryor and Gilzow’s

former wife Andrea Gilzow, as well as the substance of each

conversation. Lenders responded that it was unaware of any such

conversations “that pertain to the issues of Plaintiff’s exempt

status or ERISA claim.” This is sufficient, inasmuch as

discovery was extended only as to the affirmative defense of

exempt status.

(b) Request for Production No. 9 asks for copies of all

documents Andrea Gilzow and Elijah Agnew produced for Lenders,

and all documents Lenders gave these individuals “to refer to in

preparation for their testimony in the trial of this matter.” 

Lenders responded that “with respect to the issues of

Plaintiff’s exempt status and ERISA claim, all such documents in

the Defendant’s possession or control have previously been

provided to Plaintiff . . . .” This is sufficient, for the

reason stated in ¶3(a).

(c) Request for Production No. 10 asks for unredacted

copies of all “manager meetings from January 1, 2001 to the date

of trial.” This was objected to - except with respect to

documents already produced in discovery, which Lenders says are

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

all such minutes which “relate to the Plaintiff’s claims.”

What Gilzow claims to be trying to prove - by obtaining

these minutes - is the extent to which he attended such

meetings, which would bear on whether he was considered a

manager or supervisor by Lenders. The Court believes this issue

can be addressed by a listing of all manager meetings from

January 1, 2001, to the date of trial, which Gilzow attended,

and will direct that Lenders provide Gilzow with such a list, in

a form admissible into evidence without further authentication.

(d) Interrogatory No. 8 asks whether Lenders awarded any

profit sharing bonus, extra pay, deferred compensation, or

incentive pay from 2001 to 2005, and if so, the type awarded and

the reason for the award. Lenders objects that the question is

overbroad, burdensome, and irrelevant. The Court agrees,

inasmuch as the only relevance Gilzow alleges for this

information is that payment of such bonuses might explain why

Lenders did not pay him the overtime he claims was due. The

issue is not why any such payments were not made, but whether

they should have been made. Lenders’ objection is therefore

sufficient and will be sustained.

(e) Request for Production No. 13 seeks copies of Lenders’

balance sheets and profit and loss statements for 2001-2005. It

is objected to for the same reasons as Interrogatory No. 8, and

the objection is sufficient for the same reasons.

(f) Request for Production No. 16 seeks copies of Lenders’

IRS reports showing taxes withheld from employees for 2001-2005,

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

with names of employees. This is objected to as overbroad,

burdensome, and irrelevant, and because it would disclose

confidential salary information about employees. The Court

agrees. However, Gilzow contends the fact that his name did not

appear on these forms is relevant to his employment status. 

Lenders does not contend otherwise but, rather, states that it

is willing to stipulate that Gilzow’s name did not appear on the

forms. 

It appears to the Court that such a stipulation would meet

Gilzow’s needs. Accordingly, the Court directs that Lenders

immediately provide to Gilzow such a stipulation in written form

admissible into evidence without further authentication.

(g) Request for Production No. 17 seeks copies of Lenders’

Arkansas Employers Quarterly Contribution and Wage Reports for

2001-2005. Lenders objects for the same reasons it objects to

Request for Production No. 16, while Gilzow seeks these reports

for the same reasons as there expressed. Again, the Court

agrees with Lenders’ objection for the reasons stated in ¶3(f) -

and again the Court believes the solution suggested there should

be employed here. 

Lenders is, therefore, directed to provide Gilzow a written

stipulation, in form admissible into evidence without further

authentication, to the fact that Gilzow’s name did not appear in

any of these tax documents.

(h) Request for Production No. 18 seeks copies of Lenders’

workers’ compensation “reports, audits or documents” for 2001-

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2005. The same objections are made as those in response to

Request for Production No. 16, and the Court agrees that those

objections are sufficient, but will employ the same solution

there used.

Lenders is, therefore, directed to provide Gilzow with a

written stipulation, in form admissible into evidence without

further authentication, to the fact that Gilzow’s name did not

appear in any of these workers’ compensation documents.

(i) Request for Production No. 19 seeks copies of Lenders

Arkansas Income Tax Form AR3 MAR and attachments for 2001-2005. 

Lenders objects for the same reasons it objects to Request for

Production No. 16, and the Court finds the objections sufficient

for the same reasons stated in ¶3(f) - and again will employ the

same solution there used.

 Lenders is, therefore, directed to provide Gilzow a

written stipulation, in form admissible into evidence without

further authentication, to the fact that Gilzow’s name did not

appear in any of these tax documents.

(j) Request for Production No. 20 seeks copies of Lenders’

W-3 Transmittal Wage and Tax Statements for 2001-2005. Lenders

objects for the same reasons it objects to Request for

Production No. 16, and the Court finds the objection sufficient

for the same reasons stated in ¶3(f) - and again will employ the

same solution there used. 

Lenders is, therefore, directed to provide Gilzow a written

stipulation, in form admissible into evidence without further

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

authentication, to the fact that Gilzow’s name did not appear in

any of these Social Security documents.

4. Gilzow also requests that the discovery deadline be

extended to allow him to take the depositions of certain

unidentified witnesses. 

The Court will extend the discovery deadline yet again in

this case - for the sole purpose of allowing Gilzow to depose

witnesses listed by Lenders, with such depositions limited to

the matters relevant to Lenders’ defense of exempt status. 

These depositions are to be taken at a date mutually agreeable

to the parties, but in no event later than July 21, 2006, unless

the Court’s express permission for more time is given.

5. Gilzow also requests that Lenders be ordered to verify

its answers to Interrogatories in this case, as required by

F.R.C.P. 30(b). This request is reasonable, and will be

granted.

6. Finally, Gilzow requests an award of expenses incurred

in making this motion. The Court finds no basis to make such an

award, and this portion of the motion will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion To Compel

Answers To Plaintiff’s Interrogatories And Requests For

Production And To Extend Discovery Deadline (document #68) is

granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted insofar as defendant is directed to

furnish plaintiff, no later than July 20, 2006, with the list

called for by ¶3(c) of this Order; the stipulations called for

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

by ¶3(f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this Order; and the

verification called for by ¶5 of this Order. The motion is also

granted insofar as discovery is extended for the limited

purposes and for the time period stated in ¶4 of this Order.

The motion is denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05091-JLH Document 72 Filed 07/06/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>