throbber
Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 12 Civ. 8333 (ALC) (SN)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`MAXCIMO SCOTT, JAY ENSOR, MATTHEW
`MEDINA, EUFEMIA JIMENEZ, KRYSTAL
`PARKER, STACY HIGGS, and CHRISTINA
`JEWEL GATELEY, on behalf of themselves and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., and
`CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT,
`SERVICE AWARDS, AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 47
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Overview of Claims ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Phase 1: Investigation, Complaints, and Initial Litigation ...................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Phase 2: Conditional Certification and Notice Period ............................................ 3
`
`IV.
`
`Phase 3: Fact Discovery .......................................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`Phase 4: Expert Discovery ...................................................................................... 6
`
`VI.
`
`Phase 5: Certification Motion Practice ................................................................... 7
`
`VII.
`
`Phase 6: Decertification and Requests for Interlocutory Review ........................... 8
`
`VIII. Phase 7: Second Circuit Appeals ............................................................................ 9
`
`IX.
`
`Phase 8: Supreme Court Filings ............................................................................ 10
`
`X.
`
`Phase 9: Settlement Discussions ........................................................................... 10
`
`SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS ................................................................................... 11
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Settlement Fund and Eligible Employees ...................................................... 11
`
`Notice and Distribution Process............................................................................ 11
`
`III.
`
`Allocation Formula ............................................................................................... 13
`
`IV.
`
`Releases................................................................................................................. 14
`
`V.
`
`Service Awards ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`VI.
`
`Claims Administration .......................................................................................... 15
`
`VII. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs .................................................................................... 15
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 15
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A One-Step Approval Process Is Standard for FLSA Settlements ....................... 15
`
`The Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable and Should Be Approved ....................... 16
`
`III.
`
`The Proposed Notice of Calculation Should Be Approved .................................. 19
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 3 of 47
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`The Service Awards Should Be Approved as Fair and Reasonable ..................... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Named Plaintiffs Made Significant Contributions and Undertook
`Substantial Risk……………………………………...………………….. 21
`
`Collective Members Who Participated in Discovery and Were Deposed
`Assisted the Litigation and Benefited the Collective…………………….25
`
`V.
`
`The Court Should Approve Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs as Fair and
`Reasonable ........................................................................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Time Expended by Plaintiffs’ Counsel During Each Phase Was
`Reasonable……………………………………………………………….26
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel Lodestar Far Exceeds Their Request………………..31
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Hourly Rates Are Reasonable……………..............32
`
`Plaintiffs’ Fee Request Is Reasonable.............…………………………...35
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel Spent Substantial Out-of-Pocket Costs……...............37
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 4 of 47
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Allende Unitech Design, Inc.,
`783 F. Supp. 2d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................................................37
`
`Alli v. Bos. Mkt. Corp.,
`No. 10 Civ. 4, 2011 WL 6156938 (D. Conn. Dec. 9, 2011) ....................................................18
`
`Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC,
`286 F. Supp. 3d 365 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) .....................................................................................32
`
`Aponte v. Comprehensive Health Mgmt., Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 4825, 2013 WL 1364147 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2013) ..............................................25
`
`Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cty. of Albany & Albany
`Cty. Bd. of Elections,
`522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................33
`
`Aros v. United Rentals Inc.,
`Nos. 10 Civ. 73, 11 Civ. 1281, 11 Civ. 1282, 11 Civ. 1283, 11 Civ. 1284, 11
`Civ. 1285, 2012 WL 3060470 (D. Conn. July 26, 2012) ...................................................15, 20
`
`Banford v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
`649 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................18
`
`Barbour v. City of White Plains,
`788 F. Supp. 2d 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................................................27
`
`Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A.,
`293 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .................................................................................16, 32, 36
`
`Berrios v. Nicholas Zito Racing Stable, Inc.,
`No. 04 Civ. 22, 2014 WL 12838562 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2014) ...............................................36
`
`Blum v. Stenson,
`465 U.S. 886 (1984) .................................................................................................................32
`
`Bozak v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.,
`No. 11 Civ. 738, 2014 WL 3778211 (D. Conn. July 31, 2014) .........................................15, 20
`
`Briggs v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 15 Civ. 10447, 2016 WL 7018566 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2016) ...........................................15
`
`Campos v. Goode,
`No. 10 Civ. 224, 2011 WL 9530385 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2011) ...............................................19
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 5 of 47
`
`
`
`Ceka v. PBM/CMSI Inc.,
`No. 12 Civ. 1711, 2014 WL 6812127 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2014) ..............................................24
`
`Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,
`796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015)...............................................................................................19, 36
`
`Chevalier v. Staffpro, Inc.,
`No. 20 Civ. 7006, 2021 WL 949749 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2021) .............................................17
`
`Contreras v. Rosann Landscape Corp.,
`No. 17 Civ. 6453, 2021 WL 1051646 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2021) ...........................................24
`
`Deas v. Alba Carting & Demolition Inc.,
`No. 17 Civ. 3947, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38803 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2021) ...........................24
`
`DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. 12 Civ. 4494, 2015 WL 2255394 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ........................................23, 24
`
`Douglas v. Spartan Demolition Co. LLC,
`No. 15 Civ. 5126, 2018 WL 4521212 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2018) ...........................................37
`
`Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC,
`688 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Estrella v. P.R. Painting Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .....................................................................................36
`
`Fisher v. SD Prot. Inc.,
`948 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2020).....................................................................................................37
`
`Flores v. Mamma Lombardi’s of Holbrook, Inc.,
`104 F. Supp. 3d 290 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) .....................................................................................16
`
`Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`228 F.R.D. 174 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda Ltd.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)........................................................................................20
`
`Gaston v. Valley Nat’l Bancorp,
`No. 17 Civ. 1886 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2019) ............................................................................15
`
`Gay v. Tri-Wire Eng’g Sols., Inc.,
`No. 12 Civ. 2231, 2014 WL 28640 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2014)...................................................36
`
`Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,
`569 U.S. 66 (2013) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 6 of 47
`
`
`
`Gonzalez v. Scalinatella, Inc.,
`112 F. Supp. 3d 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .........................................................................................36
`
`Guippone v. BH S & B Holdings, LLC,
`No. 09 Civ. 1029, 2011 WL 5148650 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2011) ............................................22
`
`Gusman v. Unisys Corp.,
`986 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................33
`
`Halleen v. Belk, Inc.,
`No. 16 Civ. 55, 2018 WL 6701278 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2018) ...............................................35
`
`Henry v. Little Mint, Inc.,
`No. 12 Civ. 3996, 2014 WL 2199427 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2014) ......................................17, 18
`
`Hnot v. Willis Grp. Holdings Ltd.,
`No. 01 Civ. 6558 GEL, 2008 WL 1166309 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2008) .....................................34
`
`Jibowu v. Target Corp.,
`492 F. Supp. 3d 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) .......................................................................................18
`
`Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
`488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) ...................................................................................................32
`
`Johnson v. Univ. Coll. of Univ. of Ala. in Birmingham,
`706 F.2d 1205 (11th Cir. 1983) ...............................................................................................33
`
`Kahlil v. Original Old Homestead Rest., Inc.,
`657 F. Supp. 2d 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................27
`
`Kassman v. KPMG LLP,
`No. 11 Civ. 3743, 2021 WL 1393296 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2021) ............................................15
`
`Knox v. Jones Grp.,
`No. 15 Civ. 1738, 2017 WL 3834929 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2017) ............................................15
`
`Kudo v. Panda Rest. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 09 Civ. 712, 2015 WL 13879800 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2015) ............................................25
`
`Lauture v. A.C. Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc.,
`No. 17 Civ. 10219, 2017 WL 6460244 (D. Mass. June 8, 2017) ............................................15
`
`Lawson v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.,
`No. 17 Civ. 1266, 2021 WL 720359 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2021) ........................................31, 35
`
`LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher,
`143 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................33
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 7 of 47
`
`
`
`Lilly v. City of New York,
`934 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2019).....................................................................................................33
`
`Lovaglio v. W & E Hosp. Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 7351, 2012 WL 2775019 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2012) ..............................................24
`
`Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co.,
`658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................31
`
`Paganas v. Total Maint. Sol., LLC,
`726 F. App’x 851 (2d Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................18
`
`Parker v. Jekyll & Hyde Entm’t Holdings, L.L.C.,
`No. 08 Civ. 7670, 2010 WL 532960 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010) ....................................21, 22, 26
`
`Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn,
`559 U.S. 542 (2010) .................................................................................................................31
`
`Puglisi v. TD Bank, N.A.,
`No. 13 Civ. 637, 2015 WL 4608655 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015) ..............................................24
`
`Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co.,
`166 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................34
`
`Reyes v. Altamarea Grp.,
`No. 10 Civ. 6451, 2011 WL 4599822 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) ...............................16, 21, 26
`
`Roberts v. Texaco, Inc.,
`979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ....................................................................................21, 22
`
`Rozell v. Ross-Holst,
`576 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................33
`
`Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)..........................................................................................6
`
`Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 12 Civ. 8333, 2015 WL 868320 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2015) ................................................5
`
`Seaport Glob. Holdings LLC v. Petaquilla Minerals Ltd.,
`No. 19 Civ. 9347, 2020 WL 3428151 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020) ............................................32
`
`Sewell v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.,
`No. 09 Civ. 6548, 2012 WL 1320124 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2012) ......................................22, 24
`
`Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc.,
`659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................22
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 8 of 47
`
`
`
`Siegel v. Bloomberg L.P.,
`No. 13 Civ. 1351, 2016 WL 1211849 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2016) ...........................................35
`
`Siler v. Landry’s Seafood House – N.C., Inc.,
`No. 13 Civ. 587, 2014 WL 2945796 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2014) ..............................................16
`
`Slaughter v. Sykes Enters. Inc.,
`No. 17 Civ. 2038, 2019 WL 529512 (D. Colo. Feb. 11, 2019) ...............................................35
`
`Stevens v. HMSHost Corp.,
`No. 10 Civ. 3571, 2015 WL 4645734 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2015) .............................................18
`
`Stock v. Xerox Corp.,
`516 F. Supp. 3d 308 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) ....................................................................................15
`
`Sukhnandan v. Royal Health Care of Long Island, LLC,
`No. 12 Civ. 4216, 2014 WL 3778173 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2014) ............................................24
`
`Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp.,
`No. 04 Civ. 3316, 2010 WL 5507892 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2010) ............................................19
`
`Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp.,
`No. 04 Civ. 3316, 2012 WL 3878144 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) .............................................27
`
`Toure v. Amerigroup Corp.,
`No. 10 Civ. 5391, 2012 WL 3240461 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) .............................................23
`
`Weston v. TechSol, LLC,
`No. 17 Civ. 141, 2018 WL 4693527 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) .......................................15, 20
`
`In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-loading Washer Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 08 WP 65000, 2016 WL 5338012 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2016) ........................................36
`
`Zorrilla v. Carlson Rests. Inc.,
`No. 14 Civ. 2740, 2018 WL 1737139 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2018) ..............................................25
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Nantiya Ruan, Bringing Sense to Incentives: An Examination of Incentive
`Payments to Named Plaintiffs in Employment Discrimination Class Actions,
`10 Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J. 395 (2006) ...............................................................................21
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 9 of 47
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs Maxcimo Scott, Jay Ensor, Matthew Medina, Eufemia Jimenez, Krystal Parker,
`
`Stacy Higgs, and Christina Jewel Gately, along with 500+ opt-in plaintiffs (collectively
`
`“Collective Members”),1 and Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services,
`
`LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Chipotle”), have agreed, subject to Court approval, to
`
`resolve this wage and hour lawsuit on a collective-wide basis. The Settlement followed a thorough
`
`pre-suit investigation and eight years of hotly contested litigation, which included substantial
`
`discovery (including 100 depositions) and significant motion practice, not only at the district court
`
`level but also in the form of two consolidated appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
`
`Circuit and briefing on a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. The
`
`Settlement satisfies the criteria for approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective
`
`action settlement because it resolves a bona fide dispute, was reached after in-depth investigation
`
`and extensive discovery, was the result of arm’s-length settlement negotiations between
`
`experienced counsel assisted by a private mediator, and provides good value to the workers it will
`
`benefit.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving the
`
`$8,000,000.00 settlement set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (“Settlement
`
`Agreement”), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart in Support of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Settlement, Service Awards, and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
`
`(“Stewart Decl.”);2 (2) approving the proposed Notice of Calculation (attached as Exhibit A to the
`
`
`Collective Members are the individuals who opted into this case, worked as an
`1
`Apprentice for Defendants, and have not been dismissed by the Court, as determined by the
`Claims Administrator.
`2
`Unless otherwise indicated, all exhibits are attached to the Stewart Declaration, and all
`capitalized terms have the definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 10 of 47
`
`
`
`Settlement Agreement) and directing its distribution; (3) approving Service Awards totaling
`
`$137,000.00 to the Service Award Plaintiffs; (4) approving Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees
`
`plus reimbursement of costs and expenses, which were separately negotiated after the parties
`
`agreed upon the settlement amount to the Collective Members; and incorporating the terms of the
`
`Settlement Agreement.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Overview of Claims
`
`Chipotle operates “fast-casual” dining establishments across the country. ECF No. 872
`
`(Third Amended Complaint) ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiffs are former employees of Chipotle who worked as
`
`apprentices and/or assistant managers (“Apprentices”) at Chipotle restaurants. See id. ¶¶ 19-74.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Chipotle violated the FLSA and state wage and hour laws by improperly
`
`classifying them and other Apprentices as exempt from federal overtime requirements and failing
`
`to pay them overtime wages. See id. ¶¶ 11, 13. Chipotle denies these allegations and maintains
`
`Apprentices were properly classified throughout their employment. See generally ECF No. 874
`
`(Defs.’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses).
`
`II.
`
`Phase 1: Investigation, Complaints, and Initial Litigation.
`
`In 2012, Plaintiffs’ Counsel began investigating allegations that Chipotle had a uniform
`
`nationwide policy and practice of misclassifying Apprentices as exempt from overtime pay
`
`requirements. Stewart Decl. ¶ 17. Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted a thorough investigation into
`
`the merits of the potential claims and defenses and conducted in-depth interviews of multiple
`
`Apprentices. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiffs’ Counsel focused their investigation and legal research on the
`
`merits of potential class and collective action members’ claims, their damages, and the propriety
`
`of class and collective action. Id. ¶ 19.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 11 of 47
`
`
`
`After evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs’ Counsel wrote to Chipotle to propose that
`
`the parties engage in pre-suit settlement discussions. Id. ¶ 20. Chipotle did not accept this
`
`overture. Id.
`
`Plaintiff Maxcimo Scott filed the initial Complaint on November 15, 2012, asserting
`
`nationwide collective and class action claims that Chipotle willfully misclassified himself and
`
`other Apprentices as exempt from the protections of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law.
`
`ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ Counsel then continued their investigation, researching state law claims,
`
`conducting intakes with potential class representatives, and reviewing client documents. Stewart
`
`Decl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff Scott subsequently amended the Complaint on February 13, 2013 (adding
`
`Plaintiff Jay Ensor and Missouri state law class claims) and on July 7, 2014 (adding class claims
`
`under Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington state laws on behalf of four new
`
`named plaintiffs) after obtaining leave from the Court. ECF Nos. 17, 751; see ECF No. 750.
`
`Plaintiffs later filed a Third Amended Complaint, on February 10, 2015, which added Chipotle
`
`Services, LLC as a Defendant and included an additional class representative for Plaintiffs’
`
`Illinois state law claims. ECF No. 872.
`
`III.
`
`Phase 2: Conditional Certification and Notice Period
`
`On March 4, 2013, shortly after Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint and six
`
`Apprentices joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification
`
`and collective action notice. ECF No. 29. Chipotle opposed conditional certification, filed a sur-
`
`reply, and submitted multiple notices of supplemental authority. ECF Nos. 45, 58, 64, 67. The
`
`Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for collective action notice on June 20, 2013. ECF No. 68.
`
`Chipotle then requested reconsideration, leave to file an interlocutory appeal, and a stay pending
`
`appeal, ECF No. 73, necessitating additional rounds of briefing, ECF Nos. 85, 87. The Court
`
`declined to reconsider and denied an interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 98.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`On November 21, 2013, notice issued to approximately 3,750 putative collective
`
`members.3 Stewart Decl. ¶ 25. During the notice period, Plaintiffs’ Counsel worked to correct
`
`and track myriad issues that arose in the process of the Clerk’s receipt of consent forms, see ECF
`
`No. 410, and fielded numerous inquiries from potential collective members. Stewart Decl. ¶ 26.
`
`Following the close of the notice period on January 20, 2014, additional prospective
`
`collective members filed consents to join. See ECF Nos. 562-565, 569-581, 584-590, 592, 596-
`
`604, 606-608, 610-615, 623-632, 634-640, 642-649, 653-674, 677-682, 685-695, 697-707, 710,
`
`713-715, 721-723, 731, 747-748, 762, 998. The parties engaged in letter briefing regarding the
`
`rights of these late opt-in plaintiffs and whether good cause existed for their late submissions.
`
`ECF Nos. 833, 1002, 1003. In total, approximately 582 individuals joined the case as opt-in
`
`plaintiffs. Stewart Decl. ¶ 27.
`
`IV.
`
`Phase 3: Fact Discovery
`
`The parties engaged in over two years of extensive discovery, beginning in May 2013
`
`with limited discovery regarding Plaintiffs and initial disclosures and continuing through the
`
`official conclusion of discovery on April 14, 2015. Id. ¶ 30. The breadth of fact discovery in
`
`this case is notable, stretching far beyond routine written discovery requests and responses and
`
`the negotiation of discovery parameters and search terms for electronically-stored information.
`
`Chipotle employed an aggressive discovery strategy. Chipotle served subpoenas on the
`
`named plaintiffs’ post-Chipotle employers to which Plaintiffs objected, resulting in court
`
`conferences, orders, and several rounds of letters and formal briefing. ECF Nos. 708, 711, 712,
`
`716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 752, 753, 754, 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 763, 764. Chipotle also sought
`
`discovery from each opt-in plaintiff (well over 500 individuals), which the Court denied after
`
`
`Prior to issuance of the notice, the parties stipulated to the collection of unknown email
`3
`addresses by a third-party administrator at Plaintiffs’ expense. ECF No. 88
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 13 of 47
`
`
`
`extensive briefing. ECF Nos. 729, 730, 732, 736, 741, 744, 749. Chipotle eventually took all the
`
`opt-in plaintiff discovery it was allotted by the Court, for a total of 71 Apprentice depositions (64
`
`Collective Members, plus the seven named plaintiffs). Ultimately, Plaintiffs produced written
`
`discovery for over 90 Collective Members. ECF No. 1096. Plaintiffs also reviewed and produced
`
`over 5,000 pages of client documents in response to Chipotle’s requests.4 Stewart Decl. ¶ 31.
`
`Chipotle also collected more than 200 declarations from current employees through a hotly
`
`contested declaration gathering campaign, which necessitated numerous additional depositions
`
`and document review, as well as additional briefing and court conferences regarding Chipotle’s
`
`ex parte interview of a Collective Member. ECF No. 766, 768, 769, 770, 785, 841.
`
`Plaintiffs spent significant time, effort, and resources during this phase, even though they
`
`repeatedly sought to avoid duplicative work. For example, to save resources, Plaintiffs took only
`
`12 of the 21 depositions they were permitted of Chipotle’s 200+ current employee witnesses
`
`after seeing that the testimony was repetitive and duplicative. See ECF No. 841. In response to
`
`Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Chipotle produced over 335,500 pages, including email discovery
`
`from 174 custodians, which Plaintiffs sorted through to prepare clients for depositions, and to
`
`locate evidence in support of merits and certification issues. Stewart Decl. ¶ 33. Over Chipotle’s
`
`objection and after significant briefing, Plaintiffs deposed numerous Chipotle corporate
`
`witnesses, ECF No. 826, including Chipotle’s Co-CEO, Monty Moran, Scott v. Chipotle Mexican
`
`Grill, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8333, 2015 WL 868320, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2015); obtained a job-
`
`duties study that Chipotle claimed to be privileged, ECF No. 942; persuaded the Court that
`
`
`4
`During this time and through the close of discovery, Plaintiffs’ Counsel performed
`extensive outreach to unresponsive collective members regarding their duties to participate in
`discovery or face dismissal from the case. Stewart Decl. ¶ 31. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs
`requested the reinstatement of 11 opt-in plaintiffs who became responsive after their dismissal.
`Id. ¶ 32.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 14 of 47
`
`
`
`Chipotle must waive the attorney-client privilege with respect to withheld documents if it wanted
`
`to maintain its good faith defense, Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 3d 607, 618-
`
`19 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); and obtained company-wide personnel, compensation and point-of-sale
`
`data, ECF No. 946. Plaintiffs also served document and deposition subpoenas on a third-party
`
`consultant Chipotle had retained in its classification decision, which resulted in motion practice,
`
`as well.5
`
`Throughout the discovery period, Chipotle filed motions for reconsideration and appeals.
`
`See, e.g., ECF No. 985 (order denying Chipotle’s Rule 72(a) objections to a discovery ruling);
`
`ECF No. 854 (same regarding another discovery ruling); ECF No. 978 (order denying motion to
`
`set aside discovery ruling under Rule 60(b)); ECF No. 936 (order denying Chipotle’s motion for
`
`reconsideration of the Court’s order authorizing a deposition).
`
`Plaintiffs worked diligently on additional tasks to develop evidence following the official
`
`close of discovery, including by continuing outreach to Collective Members, reviewing and
`
`producing documents and written discovery, and taking and defending additional depositions.
`
`Stewart Decl. ¶ 35.
`
`V.
`
`Phase 4: Expert Discovery
`
`Fact discovery was followed by nearly a year of expert discovery. Id. ¶ 39. In order to
`
`be ready for trial, which looked increasingly likely, Plaintiffs’ Counsel worked with John A.
`
`Gordon and Dr. Phillip M. Johnson, Ph.D., a restaurant analyst and an economist, respectively,
`
`each of whom provided extensive analysis of the employment practices at issue. Id. On July 28,
`
`
`5
`The consultant moved to quash the subpoena, claiming status as an unretained expert
`under Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D. Co. 1:15-mc-00065, ECF No.
`1.) Plaintiffs engaged local counsel in Colorado to transfer the motions to quash the subpoena to
`S.D.N.Y. The District of Colorado granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part to depose the consultant
`about her factual investigation of Chipotle’s classification. (D. Co. 1:15-mc-00065, ECF No. 23.)
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 15 of 47
`
`
`
`2015, Plaintiffs served their Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures. Id. Chipotle served the report of its
`
`rebuttal witness, Robert W. Crandall, on September 11, 2015, and shortly thereafter produced
`
`1,649 files as backup data. Id. ¶ 40. Chipotle deposed Plaintiffs’ experts in October 2015, and
`
`Plaintiffs deposed Chipotle’s rebuttal witness in November 2015, after having reviewed
`
`Chipotle’s post-report production and testing the rebuttal analyses. Id. ¶ 41; see ECF No. 1022.
`
`The parties also served additional reports with leave of the Court in early October 2015. Stewart
`
`Decl. ¶ 42.
`
`The expert discovery phase also involved motion practice. On November 25, 2015,
`
`Plaintiffs moved to strike portions of Crandall’s report, ECF No. 1039, and Defendants moved to
`
`partially strike the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts, ECF No. 1036. On April 15, 2016, following
`
`oral argument, the Court granted and denied in part the parties’ motions to strike. ECF No.
`
`1065.
`
`VI.
`
`Phase 5: Certification Motion Practice
`
`Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 on May 9, 2016, attaching 173
`
`exhibits to their well-supported motion. ECF Nos. 1073, 1096. On the same date, Chipotle filed
`
`both its motion to decertify the FLSA collective and an affirmative motion requesting that the
`
`Court deny class certification. ECF Nos. 1071-72. The record evidence compiled in support of
`
`the motions regarding class and collective certification largely overlapped; the motions
`
`concerned the same set of facts regarding the Apprentice position, including corporate policies,
`
`testimony of Apprentices, and testimony of Chipotle’s corporate officials. See ECF No. 1135, at
`
`2-4.
`
`Chipotle opposed and the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to consolidate briefing on these
`
`motions, ECF Nos. 1076-78, and the resulting certification and decertification briefing before the
`
`Court involved some 300 pages of argument (40 pages for opening and opposition memoranda
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 1192-1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 16 of 47
`
`
`
`and 20 pages for

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket