FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 04, 2010 J OHN L EY ACTI NG CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 12 57 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 01 32 2- CV-T-2 4- TGW
DEANA V ONDRISKA, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f ot he r si m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees, JENNIFER ANDREWS, ind iv idua ll y an d o n be ha lf o f ot he r si m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us GERALD CUGNO, PAYCHEX BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 4, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es .HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge :

Dean a Von dr is kaap pe al s t he en try of s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er i n t hi s act io n u nd er the Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act(“ FLSA”). The di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t th e d efen da nt , Pay ch ex Bu si ne ss So lu ti on s, In c., was n otVon dr is ka ’s em pl oyer fo r pu rp os es of t he Act. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we v acat e th e jud gm en t an d
rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . I. Paychex Bu si ne ss So lu ti on s, In c. (“ Paychex ”) i s an em pl oyee lea si ng
co m pa ny tha t p ro vi de s ad m in is tra ti ve servi ces to bu si ne ss cli en ts , in cl ud in g pa yro ll pro ces si ng , em

pl oyee be ne fit s, an d h um anres ou rce c on su lt in g. Pre m ie r Mo rtg ag e Fu nd in g (“ Prem ie r”) e ng ag edPay ch ex to pro vi de a va rie ty of adm in is tra ti ve servi ces . Dean a Von dr is kaori gi na ll y fil edsu itag ai ns t Pr em ie r fo r fai lu re t o p ay
m in im um wage an d o ve rti m e co m

pe ns at io n i n v io la ti onof t he FLSA. Subs eque nt ly, Prem ie r fi le d fo r ba nkrupt cy an d t hi s ac ti on was s tay edas t o i t. Von dr is kaam en de d h er co m pl ai ntto na m e Paychex as ade fen da nt . On Paychex ’s
m ot io n, t he di st ric t co urt b ifu rcat edth e p ro ceed in gs to m ak e anin it ia l de te rm in at io n a s t o wh ethe r Paychex was Vo nd ris ka ’s em pl oyer. The p art ie s fi le d
cro ss -m ot io ns for

su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he em pl oyer is su e an d t he m at te r was 2refe rredto a m ag is tra te jud ge .

Paychex att ach edto it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t the de po si ti on s o f Prem ie r’s Pres id en t an d i ts Dire ct orof Op erat io ns , bo thtak enpri orto th e ti m e Paychex was a dd edas ade fen da ntan d a t wh ic h i t was ne it he r no ti cedno r pr es en t. The m ag is tra te refu se d t o c on si de r th e d ep os it io ns un de r th e au th or it y of Rul e 32 (a), Fe d. R. C iv . P., andreco m m en de d t o t he di stric t co urt tha t i t en te r su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t Vo nd ris kaon th e em pl oyer is su e an d d is m is s t he cas e. Init s o bjec ti on s t o the m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , Von dr is ka fo r th e fi rs t t im e u rg edth e d is tri ctco urt t o t reatth e d ep os it io ns as a ffi da vi ts un de r Ru le 56 (e). Th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t Ru le 32 (a) re qu ire d t ha t i t ex cl ud e th e de po si ti on tes ti m on y

un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , andth atev enif R ul e 5 6
co nt ro ll ed , andth e te st im on y in th e d ep os it io ns were co ns id eredas a ffi da vi ts , th at th e te st im on y

di d n otsat is fy

Ru le 56 's re qu ire m en t t ha t i t b e in a fo rm adm is si bl e attri al . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e m eri ts witho utth e te st im on y an d e nt ered jud gm en t fo r Paychex
. The di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n h ol di ng th atRu le 32 (a) c on tro ls th e ad m is si on of t he tes ti m on y in th es e d ep os it io ns . In o rd er t o s up po rt am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t u nd er Ru le 56 (e), t es ti m on y m us t b e swo rn , com

pe te ntan d
on pe rs on al kn owl ed ge , andsetou t fa ct s t ha t wo ul d b e ad m is si bl e in ev id en ce at
3tri al . Depo si ti on s, ev enth os e ta ke n wi th ou t n ot ic e to or t he pre se nc e o f th e la te r

no n- m ov in g p art y

on su m m ary jud gm en t, ca n c on ta in su ch tes ti m on y . Firs t o f al l, li ke anaffi da vi t, the tes ti m on y is swo rn . There fo re, i t i s ad m is si bl e to th e ex te nt th atth e d ep on en t’s t es ti m on y was c om pe te nt , on pe rs on al kn owl ed ge , andsetou t fact s ad m is si bl e attri al
. Se e Boz ema n v . Oru m , 42 2 F .3d12 65 , 12 67 n. 1 (11 Cir
. th 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th atswo rnst at em en ts be fo re a co urt re po rte r whe re n on -m ov in g pa rty was n ei th er n ot ic edno r pr es en t s at is fie d re qu ire m en ts of Rul e 5 6( e)); 8A Wrig ht , Mil le r & Ma rcu s, Fe de ral Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e § 21 42 (2ded . 19 94 ) (s ta ti ng th atde po si ti on tes ti m on y is “ atlea stas g oo d a s an affi da vi t an d s ho ul d b e
us ab le when ev er an affi da vi t wo ul d b e p erm is si bl e”). Th e d is tri ctco urt, the refo re, sh ou ldha ve co ns id eredth e te st im on y co nt ai ne d i n the pro ffer edde po si ti on s t o t he
ex te ntth atth e te st im on y

sat is fie d t he ot he r requi rem en ts of the rul e. Inth e al te rn at iv e, th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t ev enif t he de po si ti on s wer e n ot ba rredby Rul e 3 2( a), the y di d n otsat is fy

th es e requi rem en ts of Rul e 5 6( e) in as m uc h a s t he de po si ti on s co nt ai ne d h ears ay th atwou ldha ve be enin adm is si bl e attri al . Our rev ie w of t he de po si ti on s re ve al s t ha t t he y co nt ai n m

uc h t es ti m on y th atwou ldbe adm is si bl e attri al . The aff ia nt s t es ti fie d a s t o P ay ch ex ’s in vo lv em en t i n a ndco nt ro l o f Prem ie r’s em pl oyees, fa ct s re le va ntto th e de te rm in at io n o f th e em

pl oyer st atus of P ay ch ex . The aff ia nt s wer e o ffi cers of
4Prem ie r an d, the refo re, co m pe te ntto tes ti fy

on th es e m at te rs , andth ey tes ti fie d o n pe rs on al kn owl ed ge . To th e ex te ntth atth es e d ep os it io ns co nt ai n s uc h t es ti m on y , th attes ti m on y

sh ou ldha ve be enco ns id eredby the di stric t co urt i n ru li ng on Paychex ’s em

pl oyer st atus . Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e de po si ti on tes ti m on y

fro m it s co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts of t hi s ac ti on . The jud gm en t i s, the refo re, due to be VACATED andREMANDED for f urth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

5