Contract analysis

I. NATURE OF THE CASE Plaintiff's Description of the Case. This action is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and as an individual and representative action under the Texas Payday Law and the Texas Labor Code. Plaintiff Marcus Delano alleges that Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("SLG" or "Defendant") systematically misclassified approximately 1,200

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims arising under the Texas Payday Law (Tex. Lab. Code §§ 61.001 et seq.) and other provisions of the Texas Labor Code pursuant to 28 U.S.

III. PROPOSED COLLECTIVE/CLASS AND CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION A. Plaintiff's Position on Conditional Certification Plaintiff intends to file a Motion for Conditional Certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) seeking court-authorized notice to all individuals who performed delivery driving services for Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. pursuant to an ICOA at any of SLG's fourteen (14) distribution hubs at any time fro

IV. INITIAL DISCLOSURES The parties agree to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) no later than June 16, 2025, the date this Joint Report is filed with the Court. The parties anticipate completing the exchange of initial disclosures concurrently with this filing. Defendant's initial disclosures will identify key witnesses with knowledge of the facts at issue in this litiga

V. DISCOVERY PLAN A. Phasing of discovery The parties disagree as to whether discovery should be phased. Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff contends that discovery should proceed on an integrated basis without phasing. Plaintiff asserts that merits discovery and conditional certification discovery overlap significantly in this case, because the central issue in both contexts is whether SLG exercised sufficient control o

1. Written discovery. The parties agree to the following parameters for written discovery: • Interrogatories: Limited to 25 per side, consistent with the presumptive limit set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). The parties do not seek modification of this limit at this time but reserve the right to seek leave of Court to serve additional interrogatories as the case progresses. • Requests for Productio

2. Depositions. The parties disagree as to the timing and scope of depositions. Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff seeks to depose up to fifteen (15) witnesses during the conditional certification phase of the case, including the following: (a) Aaron Turcotte, Chief People Officer; (b) Trevor Sandoval, Vice President of Operations; (c) Karen Lund, Director of Driver Relations; (d) Dennis Faulkner, Hub Manager, Fort Wort

VI. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (ESI) A. ESI Sources Identified The parties have identified the following sources of electronically stored information relevant to this action:

1. Defendant's ESI Sources. RouteSync Platform. RouteSync is SLG's proprietary dispatch and route management platform used to assign deliveries to drivers. The platform contains dispatch records, delivery assignment data, acceptance and refusal records, delivery completion timestamps, delivery status logs, and related operational data. RouteSync data exists for all 14 SLG distribution hubs and covers the entire relev

2. Plaintiff's ESI Sources. Plaintiff has identified the following ESI sources: • Personal email accounts used for communications with SLG personnel, including onboarding correspondence, dispatch notifications, and operational communications; • Text messages and phone records reflecting communications with SLG hub managers and dispatch personnel; • Records from other delivery platforms, if any, used by Marcus Delano

1. RouteSync Data. Plaintiff's Position. Defendant should produce complete RouteSync dispatch records for all 1,187 drivers who performed services during the relevant period, for the full relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present), in a structured and query-able format (such as CSV export or database export). Plaintiff contends that the RouteSync data is central to the merits of this case, as it reflects th

2. GPS Telematics Data. Plaintiff's Position. Defendant should produce GPS telematics data for all drivers, or at a minimum, aggregated summaries derived from the GPS data reflecting hours worked, routes traveled, and idle times for each driver on each workday during the relevant period. Plaintiff contends that GPS data is the most reliable and objective source of information regarding the number of hours drivers act

3. Clawback / Non-Waiver Agreement. The parties agree to enter into and submit to the Court a stipulated order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) providing that the inadvertent production of documents or information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine shall not constitute a waiver of such privilege or protection in this action or in any other federal or state proceeding. T

VII. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES A. Plaintiff's Claims Plaintiff asserts the following claims in this action:

1. Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 — Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). This claim is brought as a collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and all sim

2. Violation of the Texas Payday Law, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 61.001 *et seq.* Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay wages due and owing to Plaintiff in a timely manner, in violation of the Texas Payday Law.

3. Violation of the Texas Labor Code — Wage and Hour Provisions. Plaintiff alleges additional violations of the wage and hour provisions of the Texas Labor Code arising from Defendant's failure to compensate drivers for all hours worked at the legally required rates. Remedies Sought. Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the form of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an equal amount pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

1. Independent Contractor Status. Defendant contends that its drivers are properly classified as independent contractors under the FLSA economic reality test and therefore are not entitled to overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. § 207.

2. Enforceability of Arbitration Clause and Class/Collective Action Waiver. Defendant contends that the arbitration clause and class/collective action waiver contained in ICOA version 3.0 (January 2023 revision) are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and that the claims of the approximately 640 drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 must be resolved through binding individual arbitration.

3. Statute of Limitations. Defendant asserts that the FLSA provides a two-year statute of limitations for non-willful violations and a three-year statute of limitations for willful violations. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Defendant denies that any alleged violation was willful and contends that the two-year limitations period applies, thereby limiting the temporal scope of any collective.

4. Good-Faith Defense Under 29 U.S.C. § 259. Defendant asserts a good-faith defense based on its reliance on legal advice from prior outside counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, regarding the classification of drivers as independent contractors. Defendant contends that it acted in conformity with and in reliance upon a written opinion of counsel and that it should not be subject to liability under the FLSA in light of such

5. Failure to State a Claim. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

6. Additional Affirmative Defenses. Defendant has asserted fourteen (14) affirmative defenses in its Answer filed June 2, 2025, the full text of which is incorporated by reference herein.

VIII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR The parties have not engaged in any settlement discussions to date. Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff is willing to participate in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings but believes that mediation would be most productive after the Court has ruled on the Motion for Conditional Certification, as the outcome of that motion will materially affect the scope of the case and t

IX. PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER — KEY DATES The parties respectfully propose the following schedule for the Court's consideration in connection with the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference: The parties note that the expert disclosure and discovery deadlines set forth above are proposed in relation to the anticipated trial date and will be refined once the Court sets a firm trial date.

X. MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES The parties do not seek modification of the presumptive limits on interrogatories (25 per side) established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) at this time. The parties likewise do not seek modification of the presumptive limit of 10 depositions per side established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i), though Plaintiff reserves the right to seek leave to

XI. OTHER MATTERS A. Preservation Obligations The parties acknowledge their respective obligations under federal law to preserve relevant documents and electronically stored information. Defendant represents that it issued a litigation hold on May 2, 2025, two days after the Complaint was filed, directed to all relevant custodians and departments and covering all driver-related records, executed ICOAs (all versions),