submit the names and addresses of all past and present employees within the last three
years, who serve or have served in a salaried office position the same as or similar to
Plaintiff's position, who have or may have worked certain weeks in excess of forty
hours within the last three years. Counsel for Jones and for Martin shall meet in person
and discuss what notice and consent form is appropriate. If Martin believes that the
notice and consent form proposed by Jones is inappropriate then Martin shall submit
a proposed notification and consent form of its own. Disputed matters should be
motioned before us. Defendants are also ordered to avoid any other unauthorized
communications with potential class members regarding their potential Fair Labor

Standards Act claims.

CL Dan Perea rer

Charles P. Kocoras
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Dated: _October 31, 2002


Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Charles P. Kocoras than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3664 DATE 10/31/2002
CASE Jones vs. Eric Martin & Associates et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due,
(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on setfor_____at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(7) o Trial(set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP4I1(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) «off [Other docket entry] Ruling held. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: Plaintiff’s motions
(Docs 13-1 & 14-1) to compel answers to discovery and to begin notice to members of the class are
granted.
a) (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required, umber of rties
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. NOV 1 2002
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed
| Docketing to mail notices, Wh
Mail AO 450 form. can eure docker Gey nts
Copy to jugge/magistate judge. “
courtroom dete mailed notice
SCT deputy’s
initials — +
{} 5 Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office railing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS —

EASTERN DIVISION DOCKET

NOV 7 2002
JONAH JONES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)

vs. )  02€ 3664

)
ERIC MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, ERIC )
MARTIN, and ROBERT SIMRAD, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jonah Jones's (“Jones”) motion to
compel answers to written discovery and motion to begin notice to members of the
plaintiff class. Jones seeks to have Defendants Eric Martin & Associates, Eric Martin
and Robert Simrad (“Martin”) respond to interrogatories. Martin refuses to comply
with the discovery request and asserts that Jones’s claim is moot because Martin,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, offered Jones $2,000 as a settlement
which Martin asserts is more than Jones can recover if he prevails on his claims.
However, Martin has yet to provide any evidence to support its assertion of Jones’s

maximum recovery. Simply stating the amount in a conclusory fashion does not make

[<


it so. Martin had an opportunity to provide evidence to support the $2,000 figure in
its briefs filed on September 27 and October 17, but has not done so. Since Martin has
not shown that the $2,000 offer exceeds Jones’ maximum possible recovery, we need
not go any further in addressing whether the rejection of the settlement offer would
render Jones’s claim moot. Also, Martin relies on Colbert v. Dymacol, Inc., 2002 WL
1974538 (3d Cir. 2002), to support its claim that a rejection of a Rule 68 offer renders
aplaintiff’s claim moot. That opinion was vacated on October 3, 2002 for a rehearing
en banc.

Based on the present circumstances, no further delay in discovery is called for.
Martin is hereby ordered to respond within three weeks of the date of this order to all
of Jones’s discovery requests served on Martin thus far. All answers to interrogatories
shall be signed by the persons making them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33(b)(2). All interrogatories sent thus far sent to Jones without the required
signatures are to be sent again with the proper signatures. Martin mentions several
times in its briefs that in court we have indicated that discovery is currently restricted
to Jones only and not other class members. That is no longer the case and Martin shall
accordingly comply with all class related discovery requests.

Wealso find that it is appropriate to provide class members with notice and thus

grant the motion to begin notice to members of the plaintiff class. We order Martin to