FRUCTUOUSO ZAVALA-ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. DARBAR MANAGEMENT, INC., IRFAN MOTEN, M. SALIM MOTEN, IMRAN MOTEN, SKAANZ ENTERPRISE, INC., and ASIF RANGOONWALA, Defendants Case No. 19 C 4041 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division Filed: March 05, 2021 Fuentes, Gabriel A., United States Magistrate Judge SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the magistrate judge on referral for discovery supervision (D.E. 14). After the district court granted plaintiff's sanction motion in an order (D.E. 105) largely adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (D.E. 102) that defendants Darbar Management and Irfan Moten be barred from presenting evidence on core issues in this Fair Labor Standards Act case such as plaintiff's wages and hours, the parties have submitted a joint status report D.E. 113) in which each side presents its view of the discovery that should be permitted in the wake of the sanctions ruling. Plaintiff wants additional discovery on his dependent claims under the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Counts VII and VIII of the Second Amended Complaint), and defendants want what they describe as “a broad array of discovery,” through depositions of the plaintiff and of “multiple unidentified witnesses,” on plaintiff's wages, hours, payment and other issues as to which Irfan Moten and Darbar Management are barred by the sanctions ruling from offering evidence. Defendants brazenly say they want this discovery so that they may “challeng[e] Plaintiff's allegations concerning his term of employment, hours of work performed, and wage payments,” which again are issues on which Irfan Moten and Darbar Management are barred from presenting evidence. The magistrate judge recommends that: (1) plaintiff be given 45 days from the district court's scheduling order to issue and complete his Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act written discovery described on pages 1-2 of the status report along with the oral deposition of witness Rangoonwala as proposed; and (2) the proposed “broad array” of defense discovery sought by all defendants be denied, but that defendants be permitted to conduct a deposition of plaintiff only, with the district court reserving ruling on what evidence may be considered at summary judgment or trial. First, defendants' discovery proposal is as if the sanctions ruling (and the misconduct that led to that ruling) had never happened. Shortly before the district court initially set the discovery cutoff at 1/21/20 at the parties' request (D.E.13), the matters the parties (including defendants) listed for discovery in their initial status report (D.E. 12) included the defendants' record-keeping obligations, the work schedules and hours of work performed by plaintiff, plaintiff's work duties, wages paid to plaintiff by defendants and the method of payment, and defendants' revenue. In short, those issues are matters upon which defendants Irfan Moten and Darbar Management proceeded to obstruct discovery for many months by providing false sworn written discovery responses, false deposition testimony, and false testimony at the sanctions hearing, as detailed in the Report and Recommendation (D.E. 102). In the meantime, in the time available to them to conduct discovery, defendants conducted almost no discovery before the earlier 8/7/20 cutoff. Report (D.E. 113) at 3. The scope of the sanctions ruling make the proposed “broad array” of discovery unavailable at least to defendants Irfan Moten and Darbar Management, so that this discovery by them can no longer be proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Second, the proposed “broad array” of discovery by the other defendants (Imran Moten, Salim Moten, Asif Rangoonwala, and Skaanz Enterprises, all of whom were named as defendants month after the initial complaint against Irfan and Darbar) presents a slightly different posture. The evidence adduced at the sanctions hearing indicated: (1) that Darbar Management was a family-run company in which Imran and Salim Moten were deeply involved with Irfan Moten; and (2) that the restaurant's murky transition to ownership and control by Rangoonwala and Skaanz evinced a close business relationship between the Motens (and Darbar) and Rangoonwala and Skaanz). At times, according to the testimony, Rangoonwala and Skaanz were said to have taken over the business as a sort of trial period, while the Motens remained involved in running it. But given that only Irfan Moten and Darbar Management were sanctioned, the discovery to be permitted now by the other defendants is a matter of proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) and the Court's discretion over controlling discovery. Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013). The magistrate judge agrees that the later entry of these unsanctioned defendants into the case suggests that the other defendants ought to have at least an opportunity to conduct discovery in their defense. On the other hand, the collectively close relationship between them and the sanctioned defendants suggests strongly that all defendants had rough access to the same information (and opportunities to access the information) as Irfan Moten and Darbar Management, which largely controlled the relevant information anyway. The only information truly not in defendants' possession or control about plaintiff's hours, wages and wage payments, and about defendants' revenues, might be plaintiff's recollection of his wages and hours, and whatever limited information he has about restaurant revenues. At the same time, nothing prevented the unsanctioned defendants (or the sanctioned ones) from pursuing additional discovery while the sanctions motion was pending and during a time in which the Court had said the 8/7/20 cutoff would have to be revisited. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommends that defendants (whether the discovery is taken on behalf of only the unsanctioned defendants or by all of them matters little) be permitted to take one three-hour deposition (extendable to six hours if an interpreter is needed) of plaintiff only, that the examination not be limited by the sanctions ruling, but that admissibility of information discovered in the deposition, either at trial or at summary judgment, be reserved for later ruling by the district court so that the sanctioned defendants may not do indirectly what they are barred from doing directly. After all, it may turn out that none of the plaintiff's evidence is favorable to defendants and that plaintiff wants to offer all of it at trial or at summary judgment. Admissibility (and on whose behalf evidence is admitted) may be decided later. The magistrate judge does not recommend denying any defendant the basic ability to depose the plaintiff about the issues in the case. But the time for a “broad array” of discovery by all defendants, including those not sanctioned, into the core issues addressed by the sanctions motion and from witnesses whose identities were never turned over to plaintiff until the sanctions hearing, has long passed. Discovery from plaintiff of his story about his wages and hours, and not the “broad array” from multiple other witnesses, is sufficient and proportional in this case's current stage and posture. The magistrate judge recommends that plaintiff be given his requested 45 days to issue and complete his written discovery, and 30 days thereafter to complete the Rangoonwala deposition. Our recommendation is that the deadline for completion of the Rangoonwala deposition be the deadline for the completion of plaintiff's deposition as well. SO ORDERED. ENTER: