Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-01969/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-01969-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOM KUNSTMANN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AARON RENTS, INC., d/b/a,

AARON’S SALES AND LEASE

OWNERSHIP,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

08-AR-1969-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (2006), by the named

plaintiff, Tom Kunstmann (“Kunstmann”), and three hundred seventy

(370) opt-in plaintiffs (collectively “plaintiffs”), who sue as

similarly situated employees of defendant, Aaron Rents, Inc. d/b/a

Aaron’s Sales and Lease Ownership (Aaron’s), which has moved to

compel discovery. Plaintiffs’ have countered with a motion for

protective order. The opposing motions concern Aaron’s first set

of interrogatories. For the reasons set forth below, the parties’

motions are each due to be granted in part and denied in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The court’s May 18, 2010 scheduling order permits Aaron’s to

serve interrogatories upon all plaintiffs. (Doc. 112, at 1.) On

May 28, 2010, Aaron’s served all plaintiffs with its first set of

interrogatories. (Doc. 120, at 1.) On June 28, 2010, plaintiffs

1

FILED

 2010 Sep-07 PM 01:54

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 12
served objections to Aaron’s interrogatories, but did not serve

responses. (Id.) As of July 26, 2010, approximately twenty-five

percent of plaintiffs had responded to Aaron’s interrogatories. 

(Id.) On July 26, 2010, Aaron’s moved the court to: (1) compel

each plaintiff who had not responded to the interrogatories to do

so within ten days; and (2) impose costs and fees associated with

Aaron’s motion to compel. (Id. at 2.) On August 17, 2010,

plaintiffs moved for a protective order striking Aaron’s

interrogatories as irrelevant and oppressive. (Doc. 126.) 

DISCUSSION

In discovery disputes involving interrogatories, the parties

are bound by Rules 33 and 26, F.R.Civ.P. Rule 33 governs

interrogatories, and incorporates the scope definition set forth in

Rule 26(b). Rule 26(b)(1) provides a liberal scope for

discoverable information, allowing “discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense.” Rule 26(b)(1) also provides that the information sought

“need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.” 

However, the scope of discovery is not boundless. Of

particular relevance in the instant case is Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which

provides that a court must limit discovery, either by motion or sua

sponte, if the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

2

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 12
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” F.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(2)(C)(i). Likewise, the court must limit discovery where

“the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

likely benefit.” F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

The court finds that some of Aaron’s interrogatories fall

within the scope of discovery allowed by Rule 26 (b). However,

others extend beyond the permissible scope of discovery, or are

otherwise due to be limited. Each interrogatory is addressed in

turn, below. Because Aaron’s served at least two slightly

different sets of interrogatories, and because no single document

before the court contains every interrogatory served upon

plaintiffs, each interrogatory is reproduced in full, below.

A. Interrogatories Within the Scope of Rule 26(b):

Several interrogatories clearly seek relevant information

and/or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. The court finds that the following

interrogatories are appropriate because they seek information

regarding plaintiffs’ claims and credibility, and are not otherwise

barred by the Rule 26(b) limitations:

To the extent not already identified,

please identify (by providing at least the

information requested in Definition D) every

individual whom you know or believe has

knowledge or information regarding any fact or

claim in your Complaint and/or any fact which

you believe supports or rebuts the facts or

claims in your Complaint. For each individual

3

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 12
so identified, please state with particularity

the information you believe he or she

possesses. 

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 4; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 4.);

Please identify each occasion which you

inquired about or questioned the method in

which you were compensated as an Aarons’

General Manager. For each such occasion,

please identify: (a) the person(s) to whom you

directed your inquiry; (b) the manner in which

you made such an inquiry (i.e., telephone,

electronic mail, in person, etc.); (c) the

date of each such inquiry; and (d) the

response given to your inquiry.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 7; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 8.);

For every federal, state or local court

proceeding, administrative proceeding, or

arbitration hearing in which you have been a

plaintiff, complaining party, a defendant, or

a witness, please state the name of the case,

its docket number or other similar

identification number, the court or agency

before which the proceeding was brought, the

names of the parties involved, and the nature

and outcome of the proceeding. If you have

not been involved in any such proceeding,

please affirmatively state such.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 11; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. #14.);

Please identify any and all arrests and/or

convictions of you relating to any alleged

violation(s) by you of federal, state or local

law. Your response should include the nature

of the charge(s), the court or agency in which

the charge was filed, and the disposition of

the charge, if any. This Interrogatory

includes, but is not limited to, convictions

that have been expunged pursuant to a first

offender’s act or any other statutory means by

which a conviction is removed from an

individual’s criminal record.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 10; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 11.);

4

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 4 of 12
Please identify all documents, including

electronic documents, in your possession that

reference or otherwise set forth your job

duties and/or hours of work as an Aarons’

General Manager or that you contend or believe

reference or otherwise set forth your job

duties and/or hours of employment, or that you

may use at trial regarding these facts.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 13; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 13.)

Accordingly, Aaron’s motion to compel will be granted as to the

interrogatories quoted above. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective

order is necessarily due to be denied as to said interrogatories.

B. Interrogatories Due to be Limited by Rule 26(b). 

Each of the following interrogatories served by Aaron’s goes

beyond the scope of discovery as defined in Rule 26(b), either

because the interrogatory is not “reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence,” or because it is otherwise

due to be limited by Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The objectionable

interrogatories below are arranged using the court’s principal

reasons for eliminating them.

1. Interrogatories seeking cumulative or duplicative discovery:

The following two interrogatories seek information that

duplicates information sought in the first interrogatory reproduced

in Section A, above (Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 4; Doc. 124, Ex.

2, Interrog. # 4); a complete answer to that interrogatory will

eliminate the need to answer the following two. Accordingly, Rule

26(b)(2)(C)(i) dictates that the court strike the following two

interrogatories:

5

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 5 of 12
Please identify (by providing at least

the information in Definition D) any and all

individuals, including all present and/or

former employees of Aarons, with whom you

communicated, either orally or in writing,

regarding your participation in this lawsuit

and/or your decision to join this lawsuit as

an opt-in plaintiff. In responding, please

include any communications to you, but to

which you did not respond.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 1; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 2.);

Please identify (by providing at least

the information requested in Definition D) any

and all individual(s), including all present

and/or former employees of Aarons, with whom

you have communicated, either orally or in

writing, regarding any fact or claim in your

Complaint and/or any fact which supports or

rebuts the facts or claims in your Complaint.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 2; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 1.)

2. Interrogatories seeking information which is available from

other, less burdensome sources. 

The following interrogatories will be stricken because they

seek information to which Aaron’s already has access in the form of

personnel, tax, and other employment records. Accordingly, Rule

26(b)(2)(C)(i) protects plaintiffs from having to produce what

Aaron’s already possesses. 

For the time period during which you

worked as Aarons’ General Manager, please

identify every individual who worked in the

store at which you were an Aarons’ General

Manager. For each such employee, please

identify the employee’s name, the position

they held for Aarons while working in your

store, and the Aarons’ store(s) at which the

employee worked with you.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 5; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 5.);

6

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 6 of 12
Please identify every job or position you

held in the five (5) years prior to your

employment with Aarons or concurrent with your

employment at Aarons. For each job or

position, please state: (a) the employer’s

name and address; (b) your beginning and end

dates of service with that employer; and (c)

your reason(s) for leaving each job you no

longer hold.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 6; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 6.);

For proper identification purposes,

please provide your full name (including

first, all middle, and last names), as well as

your Social Security Number. If you ever used

a different name while employed by Aarons,

including a maiden name, please also provide

the full name (including first, all middle and

last names) that you went by at that time.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 12; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 12.)

3. Interrogatories not reasonably calculated to lead to

admissible evidence.

The following interrogatories are not likely to lead to

admissible evidence, and thus fall outside the scope of discovery

provided by Rule 26 (b)(1):

Please identify what steps you, your

attorneys, agents, or representatives have

taken to preserve any electronically stored

information (“ESI”) in your possession that

relates in any way to any fact or claim in your

Complaint and/or any fact which supports or

rebuts the facts or claims in your Complaint. 

For each such step identified, please state:

(a) the date on which you implemented each such

step; (b) a brief description of the ESI you

sought to preserve by implementing each such

step; and (c) the name and contact information

of any third-party or vendor utilized to

perform or assist in the performance of such

step.

7

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 7 of 12
(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 9; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 10.) 

This interrogatory is unlikely to lead to admissible evidence

because plaintiffs are unlikely to know what steps counsel have

taken to preserve ESI. To the extent that this interrogatory could

possibly lead to relevant evidence, that information is preserved

by the complete answer to an interrogatory (Doc. 124, Ex. 1,

Interrog. # 13; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 13) reproduced supra,

in Section A.

The following interrogatory is also unlikely to lead to

admissible evidence because, to the court, it does not appear to be

relevant in a FLSA case in which a central issue is whether Aaron’s

general manager’s were wrongly classified as exempt from overtime

requirements: 

Please identify every job or position you

have held since the termination of your

employment with Aarons. For each such job or

position, please state: (a) the employer’s

name and address; (b) your beginning and end

dates of service with that employer; (c) job

titles held; and (d) your reason(s) for

leaving such job that you no longer hold.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 7.) Simply put, the subsequent

employment history of plaintiffs no longer employed by Aaron’s is

irrelevant to the issues presented.

4. Other impermissible interrogatories:

The following two interrogatories are also due to be limited

under Rule 26(b): 

Please identify (by providing at least the

8

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 8 of 12
information requested in Definition D) any and

all individual(s), including all present and/or

former employees of Aarons, with whom your

attorneys, agents, or representatives have

communicated, either orally or in writing,

regarding any fact or claim in your Complaint

and/or any fact which supports or rebuts the

facts or claims in your Complaint. For

purposes of this Interrogatory only, please do

not consider the following communications: (1)

Memorandum from Susan Donahue to Aarons’

General Managers dated March 13, 2009; (2)

Notice of Pending Lawsuit to Recover Overtime

Wages approved by the Court in this action on

January 25, 2010; and (3) Revised Notice of

Pending Lawsuit to Recover Overtime Wages

approved by the Court in this action on March

19, 2010.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 3; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 3.) 

Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs have the information sought in

this interrogatory, it is difficult to imagine any such discovery

being non-privileged. Accordingly, this interrogatory falls outside

of the scope of discovery as provided in Rule 26(b)(1). 

The final interrogatory to be addressed seeks information, the

disclosure of which is not required until later in the discovery

process:

Please identify each person whom you may

call as an expert witness to give opinion

testimony at a trial of this matter. For every

expert identified, please provide the

following: (a) the subject matter on which

he/she is expected to testify; (b) a summary of

his/her qualifications within the field of

expertise in which testimony is expected to be

given, including (but not limited to) number of

years of practice, a list of any publications

which he/she has published, and a list of

professional societies in which he/she is a

member; (c) the substance of the facts and

9

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 9 of 12
opinions to which he/she is expected to testify

and a summary of the grounds for each such

opinion; (d) the facts provided by you and/or

your counsel to any person whom you may call as

an expert witness and on which he/she relied or

may rely to reach such an opinion; and (e) the

names and citations of all cases in which

he/she has previously testified at trial or

during discovery.

(Doc. 124, Ex. 1, Interrog. # 8; Doc. 124, Ex. 2, Interrog. # 9.) 

Even if plaintiffs had knowledge of the information sought in this

interrogatory, the disclosure of information related to expert

testimony is governed by the court’s May 18, 2010 scheduling order. 

(Doc. 112; see also Doc. 90, at 7.) The scheduling order, and its

incorporation of the parties’ report of their Rule 26(f) planning

meeting, dictate that expert witness information required by Rule

26(a)(2) is due from plaintiffs sixty (60) days prior to end of

discovery. (Doc. 112; see also Doc. 90, at 7.) Discovery is

scheduled to, and, assuming the parties can resolve future discovery

disputes without resorting to the court, will end on February 28,

2011. (Doc. 112.) Accordingly, Aaron’s will receive the

information sought in the interrogatory reproduced above, but must

wait for the appropriate time, as dictated by the scheduling order.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order will be

granted as to the interrogatories quoted in Section B. Aaron’s

motion to compel will necessarily be denied as to said

interrogatories.

C. Award of Costs and Attorney’s Fees

10

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 10 of 12
Aaron’s motion to compel also requests that the court award it

costs and attorney’s fees associated with bringing the motion to

compel. Awarding costs associated with a motion to compel is

governed by Rule 37(a)(3)(B), and is left to the court’s discretion. 

Because plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is due to be

denied in part and granted in part, Rule 37(a)(5)(C) allows the

court to apportion the expenses associated with the motion. The

court will defer a decision about the costs associated, both with

Aaron’s motion to compel, and plaintiff’s motion for a protective

order until final disposition.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with this opinion, both Aaron’s motion to compel,

and plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order are granted in part

and denied in part. Aaron’s motion to compel is hereby GRANTED as

to the interrogatories listed in Section A, and DENIED as to the

interrogatories listed in Section B. Plaintiffs’ motion for a

protective order is hereby GRANTED as to the interrogatories listed

in section B of the opinion above, and DENIED as to the

interrogatories listed in section A of the opinion above. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs (and each of them) are hereby ORDERED to

answer Aaron’s interrogatories reproduced in Section A above, on or

before October 7, 2010. A decision as to the taxation of costs

associated with both parties’ motions is hereby DEFERRED.

DONE this 7th day of September, 2010.

11

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 11 of 12
_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

Case 2:08-cv-01969-KOB-JEO Document 132 Filed 09/07/10 Page 12 of 12