of the defendant, if that is the information relied upon to secure the relief sought by the plaintiff, and this is true even though the information is to some extent evidentiary in nature. It is important to the parties, and to the proper determination of controversies, that the controversial issues should be narrowed to the extent of which they are susceptible, and all means available to this end should be utilized. This does not mean that specific identification of constituent primary facts should be required where, in the light of information contained in the complaint, or otherwise furnished by the plaintiff, a defendant by reasonable investigation can avoid prejudicial surprise. It must be borne in mind that many of the acts alleged in the complaint may be established, not by direct evidence, but by inference from numerous other facts and circumstances. It is probable that the time of the happening of some particular act must be arrived at only within a reasonable range, and that by interence; but the principle still remains valid that, within the knowledge possessed by the plaintiff, sufficient particularity should be given to the defendant to enable that party, by reasonable diligence and investigation on his part, to know what questions of fact and what questions of law he is called upon to meet. I do not feel that such rigid specificity as asked for in the motion should be required, as such information may not be available to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff ought not to be unduly hampered in his proper prosecution of the cause. It is quite apparent from the argument of the case that questions of law lurk in the classification of employees sought to be here subjected to the provisions of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. There can be no question that it is important that issues such as these should be drawn out into the open and disposed of, if possible, before the trial of the facts.
An order will, therefore, be entered, requiring the plaintiff to furnish, within sixty days from the service upon him of such order, a bill of particulars stating:
(1). Such information within the knowledge of the plaintiff as will, with such particularity as he can, apprise the defendant within reasonable limits of the number and classes of employees, and by such other means, as may with proper investigation on the part of the defendant, serve to identify such employees who were paid less than the minimum rate per hour during the periods referred to in paragraph VI of the complaint.
(2). Such information within the knowledge of the plaintiff as will enable the defendant, by proper and diligent investigation, to ascertain the periods of time referred to in paragraph VI of the complaint, during which it is alleged the defendant violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(3). The same character of information, required in (1) above, with respect to the employees who were not compensated at overtime rates, as alleged in paragraph VII of the complaint.
(4). Such information within the knowledge of the plaintiff as will, with proper diligence and investigation on the part of the defendant, enable the defendant to identify the periods of time referred to in paragraph VII, during which it is alleged that the defendant violated the provisions of the Act by not paying the required overtime compensation.
(5). To furnish such information within the knowledge of the plaintiff as will enable the defendant, by proper and diligent investigation, to determine within reasonable limits the shipments, deliveries and sales referred to in paragraph IX of the complaint.
(6). Such information within the knowledge of the plaintiff as will enable the defendant, by proper and diligent investigation, to determine what records required to be kept were not kept by the defendant, as alleged in paragraph XI of the complaint.
(7). Such information within the knowledge of the plaintiff as will enable the defendant, by proper and diligent investigation, to determine what records required to be kept by the defendant were inaccurately kept, as alleged in paragraph XII of the complaint.
When the information herein directed is furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant, its sufficiency, if questioned, can then be better determined.
It will be further ordered that such bill of particulars herein required may be supplemented if the plaintiff should subsequently learn of further particulars with respect to the allegations of the complaint, as to which the plaintiff is required to furnish information herein. Such supplementary bill of particulars will be served within ten days after learning of such further particulars, provided service be at least ten days prior to the trial.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.