MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge
Courts
must, at times, balance the judicial interest in requiring
timely compliance with discovery schedules and the judicial
interest in deciding cases on the merits. This is such a
case.
Plaintiffs
are four former employees of Charlie’s Corner, a liquor
store located in Washington, D.C. Dkt. 1 at 1–2
(Compl.). They allege that the store is owned by Defendants
Charles Moon Suk Oh and Wade Road Inc. and that Defendants
willfully failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime wages
in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
(“FLSA”), and the District of Columbia Wage
Payment and Collection Law (“DCWPCL”), D.C. Code
§ 32-1301 et seq. Id. at 1–2
(Compl.). On September 10, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel
served requests for admission, interrogatories, and document
requests on Defendants. See Dkt. 12 at 2
(Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J.). By the time discovery closed on
December 28, 2018, however, Defendants had not responded to
any of these requests. Dkt. 12-1 (Pls.’ Discovery
Request). So, five days later, Plaintiffs moved for summary
judgment, relying principally on Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 36(a)(3), which deemed each of their requests for
admission “admitted” because Defendants failed to
timely answer or object. Dkt. 12 (Pls.’ Mot. for Summ.
J.). In response, Defendants have sought leave under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) to withdraw or amend their
(non)responses, Dkt. 14, and, on the assumption that Court
will grant that relief, have opposed Plaintiffs’ motion
for summary judgment, Dkt. 13.
For the
reasons discussed below, the Court will grant
Defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw or amend their
(non)responses; will direct that Defendants fully respond to
all outstanding discovery requests within 21 days of this
order; will award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees
for the cost of preparing their motion for summary judgment;
and will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment
without prejudice.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
The Pleadings
On
April 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this FLSA and DCWPCL action
against Defendants, Charles Moon Suk Oh (“Oh”)
and Wade Road, Inc (“WRI”), a corporation
organized under District of Columbia law.[1] Dkt. 1 (Compl.
1–2). Oh is the owner of WRI; WRI, in turn, owns and
operates Charlie’s Corner, a liquor store located in
Washington, D.C. Dkt. 5 at 1–2 (Answer ¶¶ 3,
11). Plaintiffs Keong Kyu Seo, Danita Evette Chase, Michelle
Johnson, and Tamora Agnew are all former employees of
Charlie’s Corner. Dkt. 1 at (Compl. ¶ 5). They
allege that Seo worked as a a cashier, although Defendants
dispute this fact and allege that Seo was actually the store
manager; Plaintiffs and Defendants, however, agree that Seo
was paid a monthly salary. See Dkt. 1 at 4 (Compl.
¶¶ 4, 18); Dkt. 5 at 8 (Answer ¶¶ 90,
92). Plaintiffs also allege that Chase, Johnson, and Agnew
were each employed at Charlie’s Corner as cashiers
earning $11 an hour; that Charlie’s Corner paid them
for only about 20 or 30 hours each week, even though they
worked longer hours; and that they were compensated for hours
in excess of 20 or 30 hours a week only
“occasionally.” See Dkt. 1 at 5–8
(Compl. ¶¶ 28–46). They further allege that
to the extent they were paid for those additional hours, the
compensation came in the form of cash or store credits.
See Id . at 5–8 (Compl. ¶¶
28–46).
In
their answer, Defendants allege that each Plaintiff was
“paid at least the minimum wage and any overtime
wages.” Dkt. 5 at 8 (Answer ¶ 89). They also
allege that Oh is not a party to the employment contracts at
issue and that, even if Plaintiffs are owed additional
compensation under the FLSA, Defendants “acted in good
faith.” Id. at 10 (Answer ¶¶ 107,
110). Defendants also assert counterclaims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust
enrichment against Seo. Dkt. 5 at 10–13 (Answer
¶¶ 111–37). According to Defendants’
counterclaims, Seo served as the manager of Charlie’s
Corner; in that position, he was required to keep timesheets
for all the store’s employees, including for Agnew,
Chase, and Johnson; and that he was entrusted to take his and
the employees’ salaries from the store’s gross
receipts. Id. at 8–9 (Answer ¶¶ 90,
102). The counterclaim further alleges that Seo embezzled
approximately $12, 000 from the store. Id. at 9
(Answer ¶¶ 98–99).
B.
Subsequent Procedural History
After
Defendants answered the complaint, the Court entered an
initial scheduling order requiring, among other things, that
the parties serve their initial disclosures on or before
August 14, 2018 and ordered that “[f]act discovery
shall close on December 28, 2018.” See Dkt.
10. Although only required to serve their initial
disclosures on opposing counsel, Defendants filed
them with the Court on August 15, 2018. Dkt. 11 (Defs.’
Initial Disclosure). On September 10, 2018, Plaintiffs served
a fourteen-page discovery request on Defendants, which
included requests for admission, interrogatories, and
requests for documents. See Dkt. 12 at 2
(Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J.); Dkt. 14 at 2 (Defs.’ Rule
36 Mot.); Dkt. 14-1 (Copy of Pls.’ Discovery Request).
Of particular relevance to the pending motions, the requests
for admission (“RFA”) asked Defendants to admit
or deny eighteen assertions, including the following:
2. Each defendant at all times relevant here was an
“employer” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C.
§203(d).
4. Each defendant improperly failed to compensate each
plaintiff for all time he or she was at work discharging his
or her work-related duties.
5. Each defendant failed to properly administer a plan under
which each plaintiff was to be compensated for excess hours
worked, in the form of comp time or overtime payments, for
hours worked in excess of the statutory maximum.
6. Each defendant failed to compensate each plaintiff for the
hours actually worked ...