NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DORIS ASIRIFI and CI-ITNEW lion. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

NWAFOR

OPiNION

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 2:1 1-CV-04039 (DMC)(JBC)

V.

OM1JI ASSET MANAMGEMNT, LLC

d/b/a OMNI HEALTH SYSTEMS OF

NEW JERSEY AND WEST HUDSON

SUB-ACUTE CARE CENTER. LLC

Defimdant.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH. U.S.D.J.:

This matter comes before the Court upon the Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Decision

by Defendant Omni Asset Management, LLC d/b/a Omni Health Systems ofNew Jersey and West

Hudson Sub-Acute Care Center. LLC (‘West Hudson’ or Defendanf’). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 78, no oral argument was heard, After carefully considering the submissions ofthe parties, and

based upon the following, it is the finding of this Court that Defendant’s Appeal is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Doris Asirifi and Chinew Nwafor (“Plaintiffs”) were employed as registered

nurses at West Hudson, a nursing facility. Plaintiffs claim that they are owed minimum wages

and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, el seq. (“FLSA”) and under

\w TersL\ Wage and Tloui La\ N J S \ 34 1 l-56a c/seq ( ‘NTWHL ) and seck to maintain
this action individually and as a collective action under the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on

July 14, 2011, an Amended Complaint on March 16,2012, and a Second Amended Complaint

on April 30,2012. On January 30,2013, this Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the

Second Amended Complaint.

On February 8,2013, Plaintiffs sent a letter to this Court asking that the Court enter an

amended scheduling order providing for discovery in light ofthe ruling on Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss. On March 1, 2013, Judge Falk entered a new scheduling order providing for further

discovery. On March 28, 2013, Defendant provided responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

Subsequently, Plaintiffs provided Defendant with a request to correct deficiencies in the

responses. When Defendant did not comply with this request, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel

on May 8, 2013. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to compel Defendant to respond to discovery

requests related to comparators to Plaintiffs’ individual claims and to provide information related

to the identities ofpotential opt-in Plaintiffs. On July 16, 2013, Judge Falk ordered Defendant to

provide Plaintiffs with the identities and contact information of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs and

reserved on ruling whether Defendant must provide Plaintiffs with discovery related to

comparators to Plaintiffs’ individual claims.

Defendant ified the instant Appeal on July 17, 2013 (“Def.’s Mot.,” ECF No. 74).

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on July 31, 2013 (ECF No. 77). Defendant filed a Reply on August

12,2013 (ECF No. 80).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 72(a), which governs appeals from a

2
magistrate judge’s order on non-dispositive matters. “a district court may reverse a magistrate

judges determination of a non-dispositive motion only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.” Cooper HospiUniv, Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D, 119, 127 (D.NJ, 1998); see also

Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hoisery, 177 F.R.D. 205, 213 (D.N.J. 1997). Because a

magistrate judge’s determination is entitled to great deference, it will only be reversed for an

abuse of discretion. Id. at 214; see also Schroeder v. I3oeing Comm’l Airplane Co., 123 F,R.D.

166, 169 (l).N.J. 1988) (stating that a magistrate “has wide discretion to make interstitial rulings

of law in the interests of justice and fairness, provided that the imjagistrate’s opinion is based on

clearly articulated principles”).

III. l)IscussloN

Defendant asserts that Judge Falk’s order should be reversed because it is improper to

allow discovery of putative class members prior to conditional certification. To support this

proposition, Defendant relies on the same cases that it relied on in its Opposition to Plaintiffs

Motion to compel particulaily S’ymczyk v Genesis HealthCarc Coip , 656 F 3d 189 194 (3d

Cir. 2011) and Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, 691 F.3d 527, 536 (3d Cir. 2012). However. .Tudge

Falk correctly stated the following: “It is true these cases emphasize that conditional certification

motions should be made promptly and on a limited record. However, neither case squarely

addresses the discovery issue” (ECF No. 71 at 3 n. I). Further, this District has stated that

“discovery aimed to gather information about this subject is relevant and the proper topic for an

interrogatory even before the collective action is certified.” Stillman v. Staples. Inc., CIVA. 07-

849. 2007 WL 7261450. at *1 n.1 (D.N.J. July 30, 2007). Defendant’s remaining arguments are

3
equal lv unavailing, as Defendant has not shown that Judge Falk made a decision that was

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Rather, Defendant recites the same arguments that have

already been properly rejected by Judge Falk. Accordingly. Defendant’s Appeal is denied.

IV. CoNcLusioN

For the reasons stated, it is the finding of this Court that Defendant’s Appeal is denied. An

appropriate order follows this Opinion.

Denn’ . Cavanaugh, U.S. .

Date: October , 2013

Orig.: Clerk

cc: All Counsel of Record

Hon. James B. Clark, U.S.M.J.

File

4