1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 9:20-cv-80954-DMM

SL MONROE, SR., and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, 

LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM 

BEACH RECOVERY, LLC, and DOMINIC 

SIRIANNI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

Plaintiff, SL MONROE, SR. (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and 

Local Rules 7.1 and 26.1, file this Motion to Compel Better Responses to Request for Production of 

Documents and hereby move this Court for an order directing Defendants DELPHI BEHAVIORAL 

HEALTH GROUP, LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute (“Delphi”), PALM BEACH RECOVERY, 

LLC (“Palm Beach”), and DOMINIC SIRIANNI (“Sirianni”), (collectively, “Defendants”), to 

provide better responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents. In the alternative, and 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b), Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(1)(j), and this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order and 

Order Referring Case to Mediation entered on July 31, 2020 [ECF No. 18] (the “Order”), Plaintiff 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

hereby files this Motion for Extension of Time of Discovery Deadline and to File Pretrial Motions.

1

Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff brought a two-count complaint on June 17, 2020, alleging: (1) unpaid 

overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); and (2) retaliatory 

discharge in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff contends that Defendants were in the habit of routinely 

“shaving-off” time from his time records which resulted in him being underpaid. [ECF No. 1].

2. Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on July 27, 2020. [ECF 

No. 16]. Defendants defend that Delphi and Sirianni are not Plaintiff’s employers. Defendant Palm

Beach state that it paid Plaintiff for all hours worked and has documents to support its position.

3. Pursuant to the Order, the discovery cutoff date in this matter is October 26, 2020, 

and the deadline to file all pretrial motions is November 9, 2020.

4. On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendants with the first set of written 

discovery requests; including the First Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Requests 

for Admissions and Interrogatories. Particularly, RFP Nos. 13, 17, 22, and 24 in essence seek 

Plaintiff’s time records.

5. On or about October 16, 2020, Defendants submitted its responses to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Production. In their responses, Defendant Palm Beach, states “Plaintiff’s timesheets 

and paystubs were previously produced as part of Palm Beach’s Rule 26 Disclosures.” From 

review of the records, it appears that Defendants in fact produced Plaintiff’s timesheets and

paystubs. 

1 This Court recently denied without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. [ECF 

No. 32]. Plaintiff has now taken multiple depositions, which have revealed Defendants’ profoundly

deficient discovery responses. As a result, Plaintiff must again request (only now in the 

alternative), an extension of the discovery and pretrial motion deadlines.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

6. However, during the depositions of Defendant Delphi’s corporate representative on 

Friday, October 23, 2020, Defendant Palm Beach Recovery’s three corporate representatives on 

Thursday, October 22, 2020 and Friday, October 23, 2020, and multiple other fact witnesses

October 20, 2020 through October 26, 2020, it became obvious that Defendants have possession 

of multiple records, reports and evidence that it should have produced in response to Plaintiff’s

discovery requests, but failed to do so. Particularly, Jennifer Vaygas, Delphi’s Payroll Specialist 

and produced as Palm Beach’s Corporate Representative, testified that Defendants have time 

records and / or reports which reflect any all manipulation to Plaintiff’s time records. Defendants 

also have Plaintiff’s handwritten time records and time logs which time stamp the date and times

Plaintiff performed his duties and responsibilities during his work shift. Although clearly 

responsive, Defendants failed to produce such records, reports and/or logs.

7. Defendants also objected to producing comparator information. Defendants’ RFP 

No. 6 requests the personnel file of individual Defendants employed, with the same job 

title(s)/description(s) as Plaintiff. Although Defendants objected to the requests as “unduly 

burdensome, harassing...” Defendants did not hesitate to present confidential documents to 

witnesses during deposition, in an obvious effort to embarrass and harass the witness. Given the 

ease at which Defendants obtained comparator documents to present to witnesses during 

deposition. Defendants could have and should have done so in response to Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests. Defendant should be ordered to produce these records.

8. Additionally, Defendants failed to respond to certain other requests to which it did 

not properly object. For instance, as his RFP No. 5, Plaintiff ask for “[a]ny and all documents 

relating to Plaintiff’s flextime ...” Defendants objected and claimed that it did not know what

flextime is referencing. However, Defendant’s ex-Program Director, Lori Spatarro, knew exactly 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

what the term meant and testified during deposition on October 26, 2020, that it referenced an 

employee working an hour later one day and being able to leave an hour early another day without 

repercussion. 

9. Therefore, all of the discovery requested by Plaintiffs, and being compelled hereby, is 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is appropriate pursuant 

to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

DEFENDANTS MUST CURE ITS DEFICIENT RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION BY DEFENDANTS BY PROVIDING BETTER

RESPONSES

The purpose of discovery is to provide a mechanism for making relevant information 

available to litigants. Advisory Notes, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, Motions to Compel are authorized if a party fails to attend a deposition, serve 

answers to written discovery requests or respond to a request for inspection.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for a “broad search for facts which may aid 

a party in preparation of their case.” In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation v. Abbot 

Laboratories, 1991 WL 185116 (N.D. Fla. 1991). Rule 26(b) permits discovery “regarding any 

matter . . . that is relevant to the claim or defense of a party” and the discovery of any information 

that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See also McMahon v. Eastern Steamship Lines, 129 F.R.D. 197 (S.D. Fla. 1989). 

Furthermore, the scope of discovery is broad and encompasses any matter that bears on, or that 

reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. 

Oregon Precision Industries, Inc. v. Int’l Omni-Pac Corp., 160 F.R.D. 592 (D.Or. 1995). The 

procedural rules governing discovery are therefore liberally interpreted to permit the wide-ranging 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

discovery of information even though the information may not be admissible at trial. See United 

States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 388 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

I. Defendants must produce all of Plaintiff’s time records in its possession and in 

response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Defendants Delphi and Palm Beach failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s 

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 13, 17 and 24.

• RFP No. 13 requests “[a]ll time sheets and schedules for all weeks worked by Plaintiff

for Defendant, ...” 

• RFP No. 17 ask for “[a]ll receipts of all wage deductions to Plaintiff’s pay and all 

documents reflecting the reasons therefore.”

• RFP No. 24 “[a]ny and all timecards, time and attendance sheets, and other documents 

which indicate or reflect hours and dates worked by Plaintiff during the relevant time 

period.”

Essentially, Plaintiff’s requested from Defendants all of his timesheets, receipts, records, reports, 

logs, and any and all documents pertaining to the dates, hours, and times Plaintiff worked for 

Defendants. Defendants responded to each of the requests by stating that “Plaintiff’s timesheets 

and paystubs were previously produced.” Given Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants shaved-off

his time so that it would not pay Plaintiff for all his hours worked, documents reflecting 

manipulations or contradictions to Plaintiff’s time records are certainly responsive to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. 

Although Defendants produced timesheets and paystubs, Plaintiff learned through witness 

depositions that Defendants have, in its possession, handwritten timesheets, date and time stamped 

logs and human resources reports. Specifically, Defendant Palm Beach, produced 3 corporate 

representatives for deposition on October 22 and 23, 2020. Collectively, Defendant Palm Beach 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

testified that Plaintiff’s supervisors each had access to manipulate Plaintiff’s time records, and that 

the manipulation would not be reflective in the time and/or pay records. However, due to thorough 

questioning, the corporate representatives further testified that Defendant Delphi and Palm 

Beach’s human resources offices (specifically, payroll) could input information into their data 

system and easily populate a report that would provide history of all manipulations made to 

Plaintiff’s (and any other employee’s) pay records. Corporate Representative Jennifer Vaygas 

explained that this would not be a laborious or otherwise overwhelming task. Such evidence can

clearly resolve the issue of whether Plaintiff’s time records were manipulated, and Defendants 

should be ordered to produce any of the reports described in its possession.

Testimonial evidence further evidence that Defendants could have also produced logs and 

other records which reflect whether Plaintiff worked while he was clocked out. On October 26, 

2020, witness Clair Dor, specifically testified that she witnessed another Behavioral Health 

Technician (“BHT”) by the name of Daisy, clock -out of the time system and then continue to 

work because she needed to get her work done and she knew that Defendants Delphi and Palm 

Beach may discipline her if she worked overtime. Ms. Dor testified that many BHTs worked off 

the clock. Ms. Dor and Mr. Carl Heights (deposition taken on October 26, 2020), both testified 

that many employees worked and expressed that they were not paid their rightful wages. They 

both further testified that the employees openly discussed with one another Defendants’ habit of 

shortening their pay. Andrew Parker was a BHT supervisor and he, along with Ms. Dor, that a 

BHT’s time records could be compared to logs to possibly verify any discrepancies in time records. 

The witnesses testified that Plaintiff, as BHT, had to perform certain duties throughout his shift,

such as transport clients, assist with client admissions and perform client checks. The witnesses 

testified that each time a BHT transported a client, they had to fill in the transportation log, walked 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

their rounds to check on patients they had to log the time of their checks, and when assisting with 

Admissions, the BHT was responsible for inputting information into the computer system. The 

witness explained that when the BHT input information into the computer system, it would date 

and time stamp the data entry. Defendants failed to produce any of the referenced logs in its 

production of documents. The witnesses contended that the electronic documents were maintained 

on the computer and the hand copy documents were kept in a binder in the tech office. 

Although Plaintiff has alleged, since he filed his Complaint, that Defendants were in the

habit of routinely “shaving-off” time from his time records which resulted in him being underpaid, 

it was not until Plaintiff’s counsel had the opportunity to take the above referenced depositions, 

that it became obvious that Defendants failed to produce all documents in its possession which are 

responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants’ attempt to cherry pic the time records to

which Plaintiff is entitled is impermissibly evasive and non-responsive. Plaintiff deserves better 

responses from Defendants and therefore Defendants should be ordered to clear its deficiencies.

Better answers and responses to these requests for production are essential to Plaintiffs’ 

case. Defendants here demonstrated a lack of willingness to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Local Rules, and what it customary in this jurisdiction with respect to acceptable 

discovery practice. It is fundamental fairness that the Plaintiffs be provided the opportunity to 

pursue discovery to determine the basis of Defendants’ defenses. Indeed, the primary goal of the 

rules of discovery is to facilitate the prompt and just resolution of litigation. As such, the Court 

should therefore compel Defendants to provide responses to requests for production forthwith.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OF DISCOVERY

DEADLINE AND TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified 

time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the 

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion 

made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect”.

In light of Defendants’ failure to produce sufficient responses to discovery, Plaintiff 

respectfully requests this Court enter an Order granting a brief extension of time, until and 

including November 25, 2020, for the Plaintiff to conduct further discovery, and until and 

including December 9, 2020, for the Plaintiff to file all pretrial motions.

This case is set for calendar call on January 13, 2021, and trial during the Court’s twoweek trial calendar beginning on January 19, 2021. As such, extending the discovery deadline will 

not cause prejudice or undue delay, and will not interfere with any court proceedings or the date 

of trial.

This Motion is not made to unduly delay these proceedings, and it is in the interest of 

justice to grant the extension requested herein.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), a proposed Order granting this Motion is being emailed 

to the Court and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court grant its Motion to Compel 

Better Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, in its entirety, and all other 

relief that this Court deems just and appropriate, including an award of attorneys’ fees to the 

moving party pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, 

Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an order granting this Motion and extending the 

discovery deadline until and including November 26, 2020, and the Pretrial Motions deadline until 

and including December 9, 2020.

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has 

conferred with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in this motion in 

a good faith effort to resolve the issues, but has been unable to resolve the matters set forth in this 

motion. However, Defendants’ counsel responded that Defendants oppose Plaintiff relief its seeks 

for better responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents. On October 23, 2020, 

counsel for Plaintiff contacted counsel for Defendants in an effort to discuss Defendants’ failure 

to produce documents and deficiencies in Defendants’ discovery responses. However, on October 

26, 2020 counsel for Defendants stated that they do not agree to work extend the discovery 

deadline to allow the parties the opportunity to confer regarding the discrepancies in Defendants’

discovery responses.

Dated: October 26, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Tanesha W. Blye

Tanesha W. Blye, Esq. (FBN: 738158)

E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com

Aron Smukler

Aron Smukler, Esq. (FBN: 0297779)

E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

Exhibit “A”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 9:20-cv-80954-DMM

SL MONROE, SR., and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, 

LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM 

BEACH RECOVERY, LLC, and DOMINIC 

SIRIANNI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO 

DISCOVERY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

This matter having come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better 

Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, or in the alternative, for Extension of Time 

of Discovery Deadline and to File Pretrial Motions, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in 

the premises thereto, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time of Discovery Deadline and to File Pretrial 

Motions is hereby GRANTED. The discovery deadline in this matter is extended until and 

including , 2020, and the deadline to file all pretrial motions in 

this matter is extended until and including , 2020.

DONE AND ORDERED in , Florida, this day of 

_______________, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 10 of 10