`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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