1012-00004 · Stonefield Logistics Group · Pleadings & Court Filings

joint-rule-26f-report.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

33 / 35 ← → ✕

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and this Court's Standing Order Regarding Initial Pretrial Proceedings, counsel for Plaintiff Marcus Delano — Claudia Hartwell and Jordan Brashear of Hartwell & Brashear PLLC, 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750, Dallas, Texas 75201 — and counsel for Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. — Bernard Crawford, Renata Vasquez, James Underwood, and Devon Archer of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600, Dallas, Texas 75201 — conducted a discovery planning conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) on June 12, 2025, by videoconference, and hereby submit this Joint Report to the Court in advance of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference currently set for June 18, 2025.

The parties conferred in good faith regarding the matters set forth herein and have reached agreement on a number of issues. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement on all issues. Areas of agreement and areas of disagreement are identified and described separately below in each relevant section.

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 delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, thereby depriving them of overtime compensation required by 29 U.S.C. § 207. The named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, performed last-mile residential delivery services out of SLG's Fort Worth distribution hub, designated as HUB-01, located at 1015 Railhead Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76106, from approximately March 2021 through September 2024, pursuant to an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement ("ICOA"). Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated drivers regularly worked approximately 55 to 65 hours per week but were compensated exclusively on a per-delivery basis without any overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff further alleges that Stonefield exercised sufficient control over the manner and means of the drivers' work — including dictating routes, requiring the use of SLG's proprietary RouteSync dispatch platform, mandating SLG-branded uniforms and vehicle signage, imposing performance metrics and disciplinary standards, and restricting drivers' ability to work for competing platforms — to establish an employment relationship under the FLSA economic reality test.

Defendant's Description of the Case. Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. denies all material allegations in the Complaint. SLG is a Delaware-incorporated, Texas-headquartered transportation and logistics company with its principal offices at 4200 Commerce Gateway Boulevard, Suite 800, Irving, Texas 75039. SLG engages approximately 1,450 drivers as bona fide independent contractors under ICOAs across 14 distribution hubs located in four states. Defendant contends that its drivers are properly classified as independent contractors under the FLSA economic reality test, considering, among other factors, the drivers' ability to set their own schedules, accept or decline delivery assignments, hire helpers or subcontract, operate their own vehicles, and engage with multiple delivery platforms simultaneously. Defendant further contends that many of the claims asserted in this action are subject to binding individual arbitration under the terms of ICOA version 3.0, which was implemented in January 2023 and contains an arbitration clause with a class and collective action waiver enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

Procedural History. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 30, 2025. Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on June 2, 2025, asserting fourteen (14) affirmative defenses. No other motions are currently pending before the Court.

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.C. § 1367, as those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Defendant operates distribution hubs within this District, including the Fort Worth distribution hub (HUB-01) and the Dallas distribution hub (HUB-02), and because the named Plaintiff performed delivery services within this judicial district.

The parties do not dispute the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or the propriety of venue in this District and Division.

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 from April 30, 2022 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) through the date of final judgment in this action. Plaintiff contends that the proposed collective members are similarly situated in that they were all subject to SLG's uniform classification as independent contractors, performed the same type of last-mile residential delivery work, used the same RouteSync dispatch platform, and were compensated under the same per-delivery rate structure without overtime, regardless of the particular hub from which they operated.

Plaintiff estimates that the proposed collective includes approximately 1,200 current and former drivers who performed services during the relevant period. This estimate is based on Defendant's publicly available filings, including reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and on information obtained through initial discovery responses and Defendant's Answer.

Plaintiff proposes the following briefing schedule for the Motion for Conditional Certification:

• Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification: July 14, 2025

• Defendant's Response in Opposition: August 13, 2025 (30 days after filing of Plaintiff's motion)

• Plaintiff's Reply in Support: August 27, 2025 (14 days after Defendant's response)

B. Defendant's Position on Conditional Certification

Defendant opposes conditional certification and intends to argue that the proposed collective members are not "similarly situated" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendant contends that material variations among the putative collective members preclude the certification of a manageable collective, including without limitation:

(a) Differences among the three versions of the ICOA (v1.0, originally implemented in 2018; v2.0, revised in 2020; and v3.0, revised in January 2023), each of which contains materially different terms regarding the scope of driver autonomy, subcontracting rights, termination provisions, and dispute resolution mechanisms;

(b) Significant operational differences across SLG's 14 distribution hubs located in four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas), including variations in hub management practices, delivery territories, delivery volume, and the degree of oversight exercised by individual hub managers; and

(c) Varying degrees of driver autonomy with respect to scheduling, route selection, multi-platform engagement, and use of helpers or subcontractors.

Defendant further notes that approximately 640 of the 1,187 unique drivers who signed ICOAs during the relevant period executed ICOA version 3.0, which was implemented in January 2023 and contains a binding arbitration clause with a class and collective action waiver. Defendant contends that these arbitration provisions are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and that the claims of ICOA v3.0 signatories must be resolved through individual arbitration rather than through a collective proceeding. Defendant reserves the right to file a motion to compel individual arbitration for ICOA v3.0 signatories at an appropriate time, which may include filing such a motion concurrently with or shortly after its response to the Motion for Conditional Certification.

C. Agreed Briefing Schedule for Conditional Certification

Notwithstanding the parties' substantive disagreements, the parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Conditional Certification:

• Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification: July 14, 2025

• Defendant's Response in Opposition: August 13, 2025

• Plaintiff's Reply in Support: August 27, 2025

The parties further agree to request that the Court hear oral argument on the Motion for Conditional Certification if the Court deems oral argument appropriate.

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 litigation, including but not limited to the following individuals:

• Trevor Sandoval, Vice President of Operations, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.

• Karen Lund, Director of Driver Relations, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.

• Dennis Faulkner, Hub Manager, Fort Worth Distribution Hub (HUB-01)

• Aaron Turcotte, Chief People Officer, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.

• Margaret Hollis, General Counsel, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.

• Additional hub managers and corporate personnel to be identified in the initial disclosures

Plaintiff's initial disclosures will identify the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, and other potential witnesses with knowledge of SLG's driver operations, classification practices, day-to-day work conditions, compensation structures, and related matters.

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 over its drivers to establish an employment relationship under the FLSA economic reality test. Plaintiff further contends that phasing discovery would cause unnecessary delay that is particularly prejudicial in light of the three-year FLSA limitations period applicable to willful violations, the ongoing accrual of potential opt-in claims, and the need to provide timely notice to putative collective members whose claims may otherwise become time-barred. Plaintiff notes that numerous courts in this Circuit have permitted integrated discovery in FLSA collective actions and that there is no requirement that discovery be bifurcated in connection with conditional certification proceedings.

Defendant's Position. Defendant contends that discovery should be phased in the interest of efficiency and proportionality. Under Defendant's proposed approach, Phase 1 discovery would be limited to issues relevant to conditional certification — i.e., whether the proposed collective members are "similarly situated" — including the terms of the various ICOA versions, hub-level operational differences, and driver classification practices generally. Phase 2, encompassing full merits discovery, would commence only after the Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification (and, if applicable, Defendant's anticipated motion to compel arbitration). Defendant contends that this phased approach is more efficient given the size of the proposed collective (approximately 1,187 drivers across 14 hubs in four states) and the likelihood that the motion to compel arbitration for approximately 640 ICOA v3.0 signatories may substantially reduce the scope of any conditionally certified collective, thereby narrowing the scope of merits discovery required.

B. Scope of discovery

The parties agree that discovery is governed by the scope set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The parties disagree, however, on the specific scope of discovery appropriate at this stage.

Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff seeks broad discovery encompassing all 14 SLG distribution hubs and all three ICOA versions, including the following categories of documents and information:

(i) All executed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements (ICOAs), in all versions (v1.0, v2.0, and v3.0), for all drivers who performed services during the relevant period;

(ii) All RouteSync dispatch records for all drivers during the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present), including delivery assignments, acceptance and refusal records, delivery completion timestamps, and delivery status logs;

(iii) GPS telematics data for all drivers, including real-time location data, route paths, stop times, mileage, and idle times;

(iv) Pay records and rate schedules for all drivers, including per-delivery rates, bonus or incentive structures, and any deductions or chargebacks;

(v) Training materials, onboarding documentation, and written policies applicable to drivers;

(vi) Communications between SLG management and drivers regarding scheduling, routing, uniforms, vehicle branding, performance metrics, and operational requirements;

(vii) Performance review and disciplinary records for all drivers;

(viii) Subcontracting requests submitted by drivers and records of SLG's approvals or denials of such requests; and

(ix) Corporate documents relating to SLG's decision to classify drivers as independent contractors, including internal memoranda, board materials, and communications with outside advisors (to the extent not privileged).

Defendant's Position. Defendant does not object to producing certain categories of documents that are centrally maintained and readily accessible, including executed ICOAs, corporate policies, template training materials, and rate schedule templates. However, Defendant contends that production of individualized RouteSync dispatch records and GPS telematics data for all 1,187 drivers across 14 hubs for the full relevant period would impose an undue burden and cost that is disproportionate to the needs of the case at the conditional certification stage. Defendant proposes that, during the conditional certification phase, it produce such individualized records for a representative sample of approximately 50 drivers across 5 representative hubs (Fort Worth HUB-01, Dallas HUB-02, Houston HUB-03, Oklahoma City HUB-06, and New Orleans HUB-09), with broader production to follow only if conditional certification is granted and the scope of the collective is defined. Defendant also objects to any discovery directed at privileged communications regarding SLG's classification decision, including legal advice received from prior outside counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, which advised SLG on driver classification matters.

C. Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Depositions

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 Production: Not subject to a numerical limit at this time. The parties agree that requests for production should be reasonably tailored to the claims and defenses in this action and should comply with the proportionality requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).

• Requests for Admission: Limited to 25 per side. The parties reserve the right to seek leave to serve additional requests for admission as warranted by the circumstances.

For scheduling purposes, and by agreement of the parties, the parties note that Defendant served its First Set of Interrogatories (25 interrogatories) and First Set of Requests for Production (30 requests) to Plaintiff on June 23, 2025. Although this service date postdates the filing of this Joint Report, the parties include this information to assist the Court in establishing the scheduling framework for this case.

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;

(d) Dennis Faulkner, Hub Manager, Fort Worth (HUB-01);

(e) Hub managers from at least four (4) additional hubs (to be identified following initial disclosures and preliminary document review); and

(f) A designee or designees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) on topics including, but not limited to: (1) the classification of drivers as independent contractors, (2) the design and functionality of the RouteSync dispatch platform, (3) the drafting history of the ICOA (all versions), (4) SLG's subcontracting policy and its application in practice, and (5) driver training requirements and compliance monitoring.

Plaintiff contends that depositions of SLG's corporate officers and hub managers are necessary to develop the factual record for conditional certification, particularly on issues relating to the uniformity (or lack thereof) of SLG's control over drivers across hubs.

Defendant's Position. Defendant contends that depositions of corporate officers and hub managers should be deferred until after the Court rules on the Motion for Conditional Certification, with the sole exception of the deposition of the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano. Defendant asserts that deposing multiple hub managers and senior corporate officers before conditional certification is premature, unduly burdensome, and inconsistent with the lenient evidentiary standard applied at the conditional certification stage, which typically relies on pleadings, declarations, and limited documentary evidence rather than deposition testimony.

Agreed Provisions. The parties agree that each deposition shall be limited to seven (7) hours of testimony in one day per witness, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1), unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court orders an extension.

D. Proposed discovery Cutoff

Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff proposes that all fact discovery be completed by February 28, 2026.

Defendant's Position. If discovery is phased, Defendant proposes that Phase 1 (conditional certification) discovery close 30 days before the deadline for Defendant's response to the Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant proposes that merits discovery close on March 15, 2026.

Agreed Provision. The parties agree that the overall merits discovery cutoff should be no later than March 15, 2026, subject to any modification ordered by the Court.

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 relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present). Defendant estimates that the RouteSync platform contains approximately 8.2 million delivery records generated during the relevant period.

GPS Telematics Data. SLG provides or requires the installation of telematics devices in driver vehicles. These devices generate GPS data capturing real-time location, stop times, route paths, mileage, idle time, and related telemetry. This data is stored in SLG's fleet management system. Defendant estimates that the raw GPS telemetry data across all hubs and the relevant period totals approximately 14 terabytes (TB).

Email Systems. SLG uses Strathmore Data Systems/Outlook email for corporate employees, including hub managers, corporate officers, and Driver Relations personnel. Email custodians relevant to this action will be identified in connection with the ESI protocol and document preservation and collection efforts.

HRIS / Driver Management System. SLG maintains a human resources information system and driver management system that stores ICOA execution records, driver onboarding records, training completion records, performance reviews, disciplinary records, and payment and compensation records for all drivers.

Paper Records. Defendant has identified that certain older hub-level records, particularly those predating 2020, may exist only in hard-copy format at individual hub locations. Defendant will make reasonable efforts to identify and, where appropriate, produce responsive hard-copy documents.

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 during the relevant period;

• Tax records, including Schedule C filings, reflecting income reported as an independent contractor; and

• Bank records and personal financial records reflecting payments received from SLG and related expenses.

B. ESI Protocol — Agreed Provisions

The parties have reached agreement on the following provisions governing the format, organization, and production of ESI:

Format of Production. All documents shall be produced in single-page TIFF image format with corresponding load files compatible with Ashgrove Technologies and Relativity review platforms, together with associated extracted text (for electronically generated documents) or OCR text (for scanned documents). Natively produced files shall be permitted for spreadsheets (e.g., Ashbury Holdings Excel), databases, and other file types that cannot be meaningfully reviewed in TIFF format, upon agreement of the parties.

Bates Numbering. Documents produced by Defendant shall bear the prefix "SLG-" followed by sequential Bates numbering beginning at SLG-000001. Documents produced by Plaintiff shall bear the prefix "DELANO-" followed by sequential Bates numbering beginning at DELANO-000001.

Metadata Fields. The parties agree to produce the following metadata fields:

• For email: To, From, CC, BCC, Date Sent, Subject, and Attachment Names.

• For other electronic documents: File Name, File Path, Date Created, Date Modified, Author, and Custodian.

De-duplication. The parties agree to de-duplicate ESI on a global (cross-custodian) basis using MD5 or SHA-1 hash values. Where duplicates are suppressed, the producing party shall retain a record of de-duplication sufficient to identify which custodians possessed copies of de-duplicated documents.

Privilege Logs. Privilege logs shall be produced on a rolling basis, with each log delivered no later than 30 days after each substantive production of documents. Privilege log entries shall identify the following information for each withheld or redacted document: (a) the date of the document; (b) the author of the document; (c) the recipient(s) of the document; (d) a general description of the subject matter of the document (without revealing privileged content); and (e) the specific privilege(s) asserted as the basis for withholding or redacting the document.

C. ESI Protocol — Disputed Provisions

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 the degree of control SLG exercised over drivers' daily work assignments, the extent to which drivers could accept or decline deliveries, and the total hours drivers spent performing deliveries. Plaintiff further contends that a complete dataset is necessary to demonstrate that SLG's control over drivers was uniform across hubs, which is directly relevant to conditional certification.

Defendant's Position. Full production of RouteSync data for all 1,187 drivers is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case at the conditional certification stage. The RouteSync platform contains approximately 8.2 million delivery records, and extracting, processing, and producing such data in a usable format would require significant technical resources and expense. Defendant proposes that, during Phase 1 (conditional certification), it produce RouteSync data for the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, and a representative sample of 50 drivers across 5 representative hubs: Fort Worth (HUB-01), Dallas (HUB-02), Houston (HUB-03), Oklahoma City (HUB-06), and New Orleans (HUB-09). Defendant will produce broader RouteSync data if and when conditional certification is granted, at which point the scope and identity of the collective will be defined.

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 actually worked and is essential to proving both liability (the degree of SLG's control) and damages (unpaid overtime).

Defendant's Position. The raw GPS telematics data is approximately 14 terabytes in volume and consists of granular, machine-generated telemetry that cannot be meaningfully produced in standard document format. The cost and burden of extracting, processing, and converting this data into a reviewable format for all 1,187 drivers would be extraordinary and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this stage. Defendant proposes to produce aggregated GPS-derived summaries — including daily start and stop times, total hours, and total mileage — for the named Plaintiff and the 50-driver sample referenced above, together with a description of the data fields and the methodology used to compute the summaries. Broader production of GPS-derived data may be considered after conditional certification, if granted.

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. The parties will submit the proposed stipulated order to the Court within 14 days of this Report.

D. Costs of ESI Production

Plaintiff's Position. Defendant should bear the costs of producing its own ESI, including any costs associated with extracting, processing, and hosting RouteSync dispatch data and GPS telematics data. Plaintiff contends that these costs are ordinary litigation expenses attributable to Defendant's own record-keeping systems and that shifting such costs to Plaintiff would be inequitable and inconsistent with the FLSA's remedial purpose.

Defendant's Position. Defendant does not object to bearing the costs of producing ESI within the scope of Defendant's proposed sample-based production. However, to the extent the Court orders production of ESI beyond Defendant's proposed sample scope — including full RouteSync or GPS data for all drivers — the parties should share the incremental costs of extraction, processing, and hosting, or alternatively, the requesting party should bear the additional cost attributable to the expanded production. Defendant contends that cost-sharing is appropriate under the proportionality framework of Rule 26(b)(1) given the volume and complexity of the data at issue.

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 similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

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. § 216(b), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the applicable rates.

B. Defendant's Defenses

Defendant asserts the following defenses, among others:

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 good-faith reliance.

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 the parties' respective evaluations of the claims and defenses.

Defendant's Position. Defendant is open to early mediation or other ADR proceedings and will confer with Plaintiff regarding scheduling a mediation session if appropriate. Defendant believes that early engagement in settlement discussions may promote the efficient resolution of this matter or at least narrow the issues in dispute.

No mediator has been selected at this time. The parties are aware of the Court's ADR program administered through the Northern District of Texas and will comply with any Court-ordered mediation or other ADR process.

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 exceed this limit if necessary as the case develops, particularly in light of the number of hubs and hub managers at issue.

The parties reserve the right to seek leave to serve additional interrogatories, requests for admission, or other discovery as the case progresses and as warranted by developments in the litigation, including the outcome of the Motion for Conditional Certification and any motion to compel arbitration.

The parties agree that all discovery disputes shall first be presented to the opposing party through a good-faith conferral in compliance with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of Texas and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) before any motion is filed with the Court. Such conferral shall be conducted by telephone or videoconference and the parties shall make genuine efforts to resolve disputes without Court intervention.

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), RouteSync dispatch data, GPS telematics logs, pay records, driver communications, training materials, performance reviews, disciplinary records, and related documents across all 14 distribution hubs. Defendant states that its litigation hold was communicated in writing to relevant custodians and that compliance is being monitored by Defendant's General Counsel, Margaret Hollis.

Plaintiff represents that he has preserved all personal records, communications, text messages, email correspondence, financial documents (including tax records and bank statements), and any other documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

B. Confidentiality / Protective Order

The parties anticipate that discovery in this action will involve commercially sensitive and proprietary information belonging to Defendant, including but not limited to:

• SLG's financial data, including revenue and profitability information (SLG reported $312.7 million in FY 2024 revenue and $28.4 million in EBITDA);

• The architecture, functionality, and source code components of the RouteSync dispatch platform;

• Driver compensation data, including per-delivery rates, incentive structures, and aggregate compensation information;

• Driver personal identifying information, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and tax identification numbers; and

• Internal business strategies, operational plans, and competitive information.

The parties have agreed in principle to a stipulated protective order designating two tiers of confidentiality:

1. "Confidential" — Information that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes constitutes confidential business information, the disclosure of which to unauthorized persons could cause competitive harm.

2. "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" — Information that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes is of such a commercially sensitive or personally identifiable nature that disclosure should be restricted to outside counsel of record, their staff, experts and consultants retained for purposes of this litigation, and the Court.

The parties will submit a proposed stipulated protective order to the Court within 14 days of the filing of this Report.

C. Third-Party discovery

Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff anticipates serving third-party subpoenas in connection with this action, including:

(a) A subpoena directed to Pennfield & Daye LLP, 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1400, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, which drafted the original ICOA template in 2018 and advised SLG on driver classification matters. Plaintiff seeks documents and communications relating to the drafting of the ICOA and the legal analysis underlying SLG's decision to classify drivers as independent contractors, to the extent such materials are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiff notes that Defendant's assertion of a good-faith defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259 based on reliance on counsel's advice may constitute an implied waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject matter of that advice.

(b) Subpoenas directed to competing delivery platforms — to be identified through initial discovery — to determine the extent of multi-platform engagement by SLG drivers during the relevant period, which is relevant to the economic reality analysis and the degree to which drivers were economically dependent on SLG.

Defendant's Position. Defendant objects to any third-party subpoena directed to Pennfield & Daye LLP on the grounds that such a subpoena would improperly seek attorney-client privileged communications regarding SLG's classification decisions. Defendant has not waived the attorney-client privilege by asserting the good-faith defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259 and reserves all rights to assert privilege over communications with Pennfield & Daye LLP. Defendant will produce a privilege log identifying all such withheld communications in accordance with the agreed privilege log protocol. Defendant does not object in principle to third-party discovery directed to competing delivery platforms, subject to relevance and proportionality limitations under Rule 26(b)(1) and the issuance of properly noticed subpoenas under Rule 45.

D. Trial. The parties agree to request a trial by jury. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in the Complaint, and Defendant does not object to a jury trial.

The parties have differing estimates of the anticipated trial length. Plaintiff estimates that the trial will require approximately 7 to 10 trial days. Defendant estimates that the trial will require approximately 5 to 7 trial days. In light of these estimates, the parties jointly request a two-week trial setting.

The parties agree that a trial setting of September 14, 2026 is appropriate and respectfully request that the Court set the trial for that date or as close thereto as the Court's calendar permits.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of June, 2025.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

HARTWELL & BRASHEAR PLLC

By: ________

Claudia Hartwell Texas Bar No. 24078341 chartwell@hartwellbrashear.com

Jordan Brashear Texas Bar No. 24091265 jbrashear@hartwellbrashear.com

500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-3200 Facsimile: (214) 555-3201

Counsel for Plaintiff Marcus Delano

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Bernard Crawford Texas Bar No. 24056893 bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com

Renata Vasquez Texas Bar No. 24082710 rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com

James Underwood Texas Bar No. 24099437 junderwood@calderwoodharkness.com

Devon Archer Texas Bar No. 24104582 darcher@calderwoodharkness.com

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-7800 Facsimile: (214) 555-7801

Counsel for Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 16, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint Report of the Parties Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

________________________________________

Claudia Hartwell Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned counsel of record hereby certify that they conferred in good faith on June 12, 2025, by videoconference, regarding all matters addressed in this Joint Report, including the nature of the case, jurisdiction and venue, proposed conditional certification, initial disclosures, the discovery plan, electronically stored information, claims and defenses, settlement and alternative dispute resolution, the proposed scheduling order, modification of discovery procedures, preservation obligations, confidentiality protections, third-party discovery, and trial. The parties have accurately identified in this Joint Report all areas of agreement and all areas of disagreement.

________________________________________

Claudia Hartwell Counsel for Plaintiff

________________________________________

Bernard Crawford Counsel for Defendant

MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,

U.S. District Judge

Defendant.

Hon. Timothy Farrell

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Event	Proposed Date
Initial Disclosures	June 16, 2025 (completed concurrently with this Report)
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification	July 14, 2025
Defendant's Response to Conditional Certification Motion	August 13, 2025
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Conditional Certification	August 27, 2025
Opt-In Deadline (if conditionally certified)	To be determined by Court order
Fact discovery Cutoff (merits)	March 15, 2026
Expert Disclosures — Plaintiff	To be determined (parties propose 120 days before trial)
Expert Disclosures — Defendant	To be determined (parties propose 90 days before trial)
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures	To be determined (parties propose 60 days before trial)
Expert discovery Cutoff	To be determined (parties propose 45 days before trial)
Dispositive Motion Deadline	April 30, 2026
Pretrial Conference	To be determined by the Court
Trial Setting	September 14, 2026 (two-week trial setting requested)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and this Court's Standing Order Regarding Initial Pretrial Proceedings, counsel for Plaintiff Marcus Delano — Claudia Hartwell and Jordan Brashear of Hartwell & Brashear PLLC, 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750, Dallas, Texas 75201 — and counsel for Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. — Bernard Crawford, Renata Vasquez, James Underwood, and Devon Archer of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600, Dallas, Texas 75201 — conducted a discovery planning conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) on June 12, 2025, by videoconference, and hereby submit this Joint Report to the Court in advance of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference currently set for June 18, 2025.
The parties conferred in good faith regarding the matters set forth herein and have reached agreement on a number of issues. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement on all issues. Areas of agreement and areas of disagreement are identified and described separately below in each relevant section.
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 delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, thereby depriving them of overtime compensation required by 29 U.S.C. § 207. The named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, performed last-mile residential delivery services out of SLG's Fort Worth distribution hub, designated as HUB-01, located at 1015 Railhead Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76106, from approximately March 2021 through September 2024, pursuant to an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement ("ICOA"). Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated drivers regularly worked approximately 55 to 65 hours per week but were compensated exclusively on a per-delivery basis without any overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff further alleges that Stonefield exercised sufficient control over the manner and means of the drivers' work — including dictating routes, requiring the use of SLG's proprietary RouteSync dispatch platform, mandating SLG-branded uniforms and vehicle signage, imposing performance metrics and disciplinary standards, and restricting drivers' ability to work for competing platforms — to establish an employment relationship under the FLSA economic reality test.
Defendant's Description of the Case. Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. denies all material allegations in the Complaint. SLG is a Delaware-incorporated, Texas-headquartered transportation and logistics company with its principal offices at 4200 Commerce Gateway Boulevard, Suite 800, Irving, Texas 75039. SLG engages approximately 1,450 drivers as bona fide independent contractors under ICOAs across 14 distribution hubs located in four states. Defendant contends that its drivers are properly classified as independent contractors under the FLSA economic reality test, considering, among other factors, the drivers' ability to set their own schedules, accept or decline delivery assignments, hire helpers or subcontract, operate their own vehicles, and engage with multiple delivery platforms simultaneously. Defendant further contends that many of the claims asserted in this action are subject to binding individual arbitration under the terms of ICOA version 3.0, which was implemented in January 2023 and contains an arbitration clause with a class and collective action waiver enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
Procedural History. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 30, 2025. Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on June 2, 2025, asserting fourteen (14) affirmative defenses. No other motions are currently pending before the Court.
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.C. § 1367, as those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Defendant operates distribution hubs within this District, including the Fort Worth distribution hub (HUB-01) and the Dallas distribution hub (HUB-02), and because the named Plaintiff performed delivery services within this judicial district.
The parties do not dispute the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or the propriety of venue in this District and Division.
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 from April 30, 2022 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) through the date of final judgment in this action. Plaintiff contends that the proposed collective members are similarly situated in that they were all subject to SLG's uniform classification as independent contractors, performed the same type of last-mile residential delivery work, used the same RouteSync dispatch platform, and were compensated under the same per-delivery rate structure without overtime, regardless of the particular hub from which they operated.
Plaintiff estimates that the proposed collective includes approximately 1,200 current and former drivers who performed services during the relevant period. This estimate is based on Defendant's publicly available filings, including reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and on information obtained through initial discovery responses and Defendant's Answer.
Plaintiff proposes the following briefing schedule for the Motion for Conditional Certification:
• Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification: July 14, 2025
• Defendant's Response in Opposition: August 13, 2025 (30 days after filing of Plaintiff's motion)
• Plaintiff's Reply in Support: August 27, 2025 (14 days after Defendant's response)
B. Defendant's Position on Conditional Certification
Defendant opposes conditional certification and intends to argue that the proposed collective members are not "similarly situated" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendant contends that material variations among the putative collective members preclude the certification of a manageable collective, including without limitation:
(a) Differences among the three versions of the ICOA (v1.0, originally implemented in 2018; v2.0, revised in 2020; and v3.0, revised in January 2023), each of which contains materially different terms regarding the scope of driver autonomy, subcontracting rights, termination provisions, and dispute resolution mechanisms;
(b) Significant operational differences across SLG's 14 distribution hubs located in four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas), including variations in hub management practices, delivery territories, delivery volume, and the degree of oversight exercised by individual hub managers; and
(c) Varying degrees of driver autonomy with respect to scheduling, route selection, multi-platform engagement, and use of helpers or subcontractors.
Defendant further notes that approximately 640 of the 1,187 unique drivers who signed ICOAs during the relevant period executed ICOA version 3.0, which was implemented in January 2023 and contains a binding arbitration clause with a class and collective action waiver. Defendant contends that these arbitration provisions are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and that the claims of ICOA v3.0 signatories must be resolved through individual arbitration rather than through a collective proceeding. Defendant reserves the right to file a motion to compel individual arbitration for ICOA v3.0 signatories at an appropriate time, which may include filing such a motion concurrently with or shortly after its response to the Motion for Conditional Certification.
C. Agreed Briefing Schedule for Conditional Certification
Notwithstanding the parties' substantive disagreements, the parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Conditional Certification:
• Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification: July 14, 2025
• Defendant's Response in Opposition: August 13, 2025
• Plaintiff's Reply in Support: August 27, 2025
The parties further agree to request that the Court hear oral argument on the Motion for Conditional Certification if the Court deems oral argument appropriate.
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 litigation, including but not limited to the following individuals:
• Trevor Sandoval, Vice President of Operations, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.
• Karen Lund, Director of Driver Relations, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.
• Dennis Faulkner, Hub Manager, Fort Worth Distribution Hub (HUB-01)
• Aaron Turcotte, Chief People Officer, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.
• Margaret Hollis, General Counsel, Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.
• Additional hub managers and corporate personnel to be identified in the initial disclosures
Plaintiff's initial disclosures will identify the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, and other potential witnesses with knowledge of SLG's driver operations, classification practices, day-to-day work conditions, compensation structures, and related matters.
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 over its drivers to establish an employment relationship under the FLSA economic reality test. Plaintiff further contends that phasing discovery would cause unnecessary delay that is particularly prejudicial in light of the three-year FLSA limitations period applicable to willful violations, the ongoing accrual of potential opt-in claims, and the need to provide timely notice to putative collective members whose claims may otherwise become time-barred. Plaintiff notes that numerous courts in this Circuit have permitted integrated discovery in FLSA collective actions and that there is no requirement that discovery be bifurcated in connection with conditional certification proceedings.
Defendant's Position. Defendant contends that discovery should be phased in the interest of efficiency and proportionality. Under Defendant's proposed approach, Phase 1 discovery would be limited to issues relevant to conditional certification — i.e., whether the proposed collective members are "similarly situated" — including the terms of the various ICOA versions, hub-level operational differences, and driver classification practices generally. Phase 2, encompassing full merits discovery, would commence only after the Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification (and, if applicable, Defendant's anticipated motion to compel arbitration). Defendant contends that this phased approach is more efficient given the size of the proposed collective (approximately 1,187 drivers across 14 hubs in four states) and the likelihood that the motion to compel arbitration for approximately 640 ICOA v3.0 signatories may substantially reduce the scope of any conditionally certified collective, thereby narrowing the scope of merits discovery required.
B. Scope of discovery
The parties agree that discovery is governed by the scope set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The parties disagree, however, on the specific scope of discovery appropriate at this stage.
Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff seeks broad discovery encompassing all 14 SLG distribution hubs and all three ICOA versions, including the following categories of documents and information:
(i) All executed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements (ICOAs), in all versions (v1.0, v2.0, and v3.0), for all drivers who performed services during the relevant period;
(ii) All RouteSync dispatch records for all drivers during the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present), including delivery assignments, acceptance and refusal records, delivery completion timestamps, and delivery status logs;
(iii) GPS telematics data for all drivers, including real-time location data, route paths, stop times, mileage, and idle times;
(iv) Pay records and rate schedules for all drivers, including per-delivery rates, bonus or incentive structures, and any deductions or chargebacks;
(v) Training materials, onboarding documentation, and written policies applicable to drivers;
(vi) Communications between SLG management and drivers regarding scheduling, routing, uniforms, vehicle branding, performance metrics, and operational requirements;
(vii) Performance review and disciplinary records for all drivers;
(viii) Subcontracting requests submitted by drivers and records of SLG's approvals or denials of such requests; and
(ix) Corporate documents relating to SLG's decision to classify drivers as independent contractors, including internal memoranda, board materials, and communications with outside advisors (to the extent not privileged).
Defendant's Position. Defendant does not object to producing certain categories of documents that are centrally maintained and readily accessible, including executed ICOAs, corporate policies, template training materials, and rate schedule templates. However, Defendant contends that production of individualized RouteSync dispatch records and GPS telematics data for all 1,187 drivers across 14 hubs for the full relevant period would impose an undue burden and cost that is disproportionate to the needs of the case at the conditional certification stage. Defendant proposes that, during the conditional certification phase, it produce such individualized records for a representative sample of approximately 50 drivers across 5 representative hubs (Fort Worth HUB-01, Dallas HUB-02, Houston HUB-03, Oklahoma City HUB-06, and New Orleans HUB-09), with broader production to follow only if conditional certification is granted and the scope of the collective is defined. Defendant also objects to any discovery directed at privileged communications regarding SLG's classification decision, including legal advice received from prior outside counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, which advised SLG on driver classification matters.
C. Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Depositions
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 Production: Not subject to a numerical limit at this time. The parties agree that requests for production should be reasonably tailored to the claims and defenses in this action and should comply with the proportionality requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).
• Requests for Admission: Limited to 25 per side. The parties reserve the right to seek leave to serve additional requests for admission as warranted by the circumstances.
For scheduling purposes, and by agreement of the parties, the parties note that Defendant served its First Set of Interrogatories (25 interrogatories) and First Set of Requests for Production (30 requests) to Plaintiff on June 23, 2025. Although this service date postdates the filing of this Joint Report, the parties include this information to assist the Court in establishing the scheduling framework for this case.
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 Worth (HUB-01);
(e) Hub managers from at least four (4) additional hubs (to be identified following initial disclosures and preliminary document review); and
(f) A designee or designees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) on topics including, but not limited to: (1) the classification of drivers as independent contractors, (2) the design and functionality of the RouteSync dispatch platform, (3) the drafting history of the ICOA (all versions), (4) SLG's subcontracting policy and its application in practice, and (5) driver training requirements and compliance monitoring.
Plaintiff contends that depositions of SLG's corporate officers and hub managers are necessary to develop the factual record for conditional certification, particularly on issues relating to the uniformity (or lack thereof) of SLG's control over drivers across hubs.
Defendant's Position. Defendant contends that depositions of corporate officers and hub managers should be deferred until after the Court rules on the Motion for Conditional Certification, with the sole exception of the deposition of the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano. Defendant asserts that deposing multiple hub managers and senior corporate officers before conditional certification is premature, unduly burdensome, and inconsistent with the lenient evidentiary standard applied at the conditional certification stage, which typically relies on pleadings, declarations, and limited documentary evidence rather than deposition testimony.
Agreed Provisions. The parties agree that each deposition shall be limited to seven (7) hours of testimony in one day per witness, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1), unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court orders an extension.
D. Proposed discovery Cutoff
Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff proposes that all fact discovery be completed by February 28, 2026.
Defendant's Position. If discovery is phased, Defendant proposes that Phase 1 (conditional certification) discovery close 30 days before the deadline for Defendant's response to the Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant proposes that merits discovery close on March 15, 2026.
Agreed Provision. The parties agree that the overall merits discovery cutoff should be no later than March 15, 2026, subject to any modification ordered by the Court.
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 relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present). Defendant estimates that the RouteSync platform contains approximately 8.2 million delivery records generated during the relevant period.
GPS Telematics Data. SLG provides or requires the installation of telematics devices in driver vehicles. These devices generate GPS data capturing real-time location, stop times, route paths, mileage, idle time, and related telemetry. This data is stored in SLG's fleet management system. Defendant estimates that the raw GPS telemetry data across all hubs and the relevant period totals approximately 14 terabytes (TB).
Email Systems. SLG uses Strathmore Data Systems/Outlook email for corporate employees, including hub managers, corporate officers, and Driver Relations personnel. Email custodians relevant to this action will be identified in connection with the ESI protocol and document preservation and collection efforts.
HRIS / Driver Management System. SLG maintains a human resources information system and driver management system that stores ICOA execution records, driver onboarding records, training completion records, performance reviews, disciplinary records, and payment and compensation records for all drivers.
Paper Records. Defendant has identified that certain older hub-level records, particularly those predating 2020, may exist only in hard-copy format at individual hub locations. Defendant will make reasonable efforts to identify and, where appropriate, produce responsive hard-copy documents.
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 during the relevant period;
• Tax records, including Schedule C filings, reflecting income reported as an independent contractor; and
• Bank records and personal financial records reflecting payments received from SLG and related expenses.
B. ESI Protocol — Agreed Provisions
The parties have reached agreement on the following provisions governing the format, organization, and production of ESI:
Format of Production. All documents shall be produced in single-page TIFF image format with corresponding load files compatible with Ashgrove Technologies and Relativity review platforms, together with associated extracted text (for electronically generated documents) or OCR text (for scanned documents). Natively produced files shall be permitted for spreadsheets (e.g., Ashbury Holdings Excel), databases, and other file types that cannot be meaningfully reviewed in TIFF format, upon agreement of the parties.
Bates Numbering. Documents produced by Defendant shall bear the prefix "SLG-" followed by sequential Bates numbering beginning at SLG-000001. Documents produced by Plaintiff shall bear the prefix "DELANO-" followed by sequential Bates numbering beginning at DELANO-000001.
Metadata Fields. The parties agree to produce the following metadata fields:
• For email: To, From, CC, BCC, Date Sent, Subject, and Attachment Names.
• For other electronic documents: File Name, File Path, Date Created, Date Modified, Author, and Custodian.
De-duplication. The parties agree to de-duplicate ESI on a global (cross-custodian) basis using MD5 or SHA-1 hash values. Where duplicates are suppressed, the producing party shall retain a record of de-duplication sufficient to identify which custodians possessed copies of de-duplicated documents.
Privilege Logs. Privilege logs shall be produced on a rolling basis, with each log delivered no later than 30 days after each substantive production of documents. Privilege log entries shall identify the following information for each withheld or redacted document: (a) the date of the document; (b) the author of the document; (c) the recipient(s) of the document; (d) a general description of the subject matter of the document (without revealing privileged content); and (e) the specific privilege(s) asserted as the basis for withholding or redacting the document.
C. ESI Protocol — Disputed Provisions
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 the degree of control SLG exercised over drivers' daily work assignments, the extent to which drivers could accept or decline deliveries, and the total hours drivers spent performing deliveries. Plaintiff further contends that a complete dataset is necessary to demonstrate that SLG's control over drivers was uniform across hubs, which is directly relevant to conditional certification.
Defendant's Position. Full production of RouteSync data for all 1,187 drivers is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case at the conditional certification stage. The RouteSync platform contains approximately 8.2 million delivery records, and extracting, processing, and producing such data in a usable format would require significant technical resources and expense. Defendant proposes that, during Phase 1 (conditional certification), it produce RouteSync data for the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, and a representative sample of 50 drivers across 5 representative hubs: Fort Worth (HUB-01), Dallas (HUB-02), Houston (HUB-03), Oklahoma City (HUB-06), and New Orleans (HUB-09). Defendant will produce broader RouteSync data if and when conditional certification is granted, at which point the scope and identity of the collective will be defined.
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 actually worked and is essential to proving both liability (the degree of SLG's control) and damages (unpaid overtime).
Defendant's Position. The raw GPS telematics data is approximately 14 terabytes in volume and consists of granular, machine-generated telemetry that cannot be meaningfully produced in standard document format. The cost and burden of extracting, processing, and converting this data into a reviewable format for all 1,187 drivers would be extraordinary and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this stage. Defendant proposes to produce aggregated GPS-derived summaries — including daily start and stop times, total hours, and total mileage — for the named Plaintiff and the 50-driver sample referenced above, together with a description of the data fields and the methodology used to compute the summaries. Broader production of GPS-derived data may be considered after conditional certification, if granted.
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. The parties will submit the proposed stipulated order to the Court within 14 days of this Report.
D. Costs of ESI Production
Plaintiff's Position. Defendant should bear the costs of producing its own ESI, including any costs associated with extracting, processing, and hosting RouteSync dispatch data and GPS telematics data. Plaintiff contends that these costs are ordinary litigation expenses attributable to Defendant's own record-keeping systems and that shifting such costs to Plaintiff would be inequitable and inconsistent with the FLSA's remedial purpose.
Defendant's Position. Defendant does not object to bearing the costs of producing ESI within the scope of Defendant's proposed sample-based production. However, to the extent the Court orders production of ESI beyond Defendant's proposed sample scope — including full RouteSync or GPS data for all drivers — the parties should share the incremental costs of extraction, processing, and hosting, or alternatively, the requesting party should bear the additional cost attributable to the expanded production. Defendant contends that cost-sharing is appropriate under the proportionality framework of Rule 26(b)(1) given the volume and complexity of the data at issue.
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 similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
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. § 216(b), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the applicable rates.
B. Defendant's Defenses
Defendant asserts the following defenses, among others:
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 good-faith reliance.
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 the parties' respective evaluations of the claims and defenses.
Defendant's Position. Defendant is open to early mediation or other ADR proceedings and will confer with Plaintiff regarding scheduling a mediation session if appropriate. Defendant believes that early engagement in settlement discussions may promote the efficient resolution of this matter or at least narrow the issues in dispute.
No mediator has been selected at this time. The parties are aware of the Court's ADR program administered through the Northern District of Texas and will comply with any Court-ordered mediation or other ADR process.
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 exceed this limit if necessary as the case develops, particularly in light of the number of hubs and hub managers at issue.
The parties reserve the right to seek leave to serve additional interrogatories, requests for admission, or other discovery as the case progresses and as warranted by developments in the litigation, including the outcome of the Motion for Conditional Certification and any motion to compel arbitration.
The parties agree that all discovery disputes shall first be presented to the opposing party through a good-faith conferral in compliance with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of Texas and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) before any motion is filed with the Court. Such conferral shall be conducted by telephone or videoconference and the parties shall make genuine efforts to resolve disputes without Court intervention.
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), RouteSync dispatch data, GPS telematics logs, pay records, driver communications, training materials, performance reviews, disciplinary records, and related documents across all 14 distribution hubs. Defendant states that its litigation hold was communicated in writing to relevant custodians and that compliance is being monitored by Defendant's General Counsel, Margaret Hollis.
Plaintiff represents that he has preserved all personal records, communications, text messages, email correspondence, financial documents (including tax records and bank statements), and any other documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
B. Confidentiality / Protective Order
The parties anticipate that discovery in this action will involve commercially sensitive and proprietary information belonging to Defendant, including but not limited to:
• SLG's financial data, including revenue and profitability information (SLG reported $312.7 million in FY 2024 revenue and $28.4 million in EBITDA);
• The architecture, functionality, and source code components of the RouteSync dispatch platform;
• Driver compensation data, including per-delivery rates, incentive structures, and aggregate compensation information;
• Driver personal identifying information, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and tax identification numbers; and
• Internal business strategies, operational plans, and competitive information.
The parties have agreed in principle to a stipulated protective order designating two tiers of confidentiality:
1. "Confidential" — Information that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes constitutes confidential business information, the disclosure of which to unauthorized persons could cause competitive harm.
2. "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" — Information that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes is of such a commercially sensitive or personally identifiable nature that disclosure should be restricted to outside counsel of record, their staff, experts and consultants retained for purposes of this litigation, and the Court.
The parties will submit a proposed stipulated protective order to the Court within 14 days of the filing of this Report.
C. Third-Party discovery
Plaintiff's Position. Plaintiff anticipates serving third-party subpoenas in connection with this action, including:
(a) A subpoena directed to Pennfield & Daye LLP, 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1400, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, which drafted the original ICOA template in 2018 and advised SLG on driver classification matters. Plaintiff seeks documents and communications relating to the drafting of the ICOA and the legal analysis underlying SLG's decision to classify drivers as independent contractors, to the extent such materials are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiff notes that Defendant's assertion of a good-faith defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259 based on reliance on counsel's advice may constitute an implied waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject matter of that advice.
(b) Subpoenas directed to competing delivery platforms — to be identified through initial discovery — to determine the extent of multi-platform engagement by SLG drivers during the relevant period, which is relevant to the economic reality analysis and the degree to which drivers were economically dependent on SLG.
Defendant's Position. Defendant objects to any third-party subpoena directed to Pennfield & Daye LLP on the grounds that such a subpoena would improperly seek attorney-client privileged communications regarding SLG's classification decisions. Defendant has not waived the attorney-client privilege by asserting the good-faith defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259 and reserves all rights to assert privilege over communications with Pennfield & Daye LLP. Defendant will produce a privilege log identifying all such withheld communications in accordance with the agreed privilege log protocol. Defendant does not object in principle to third-party discovery directed to competing delivery platforms, subject to relevance and proportionality limitations under Rule 26(b)(1) and the issuance of properly noticed subpoenas under Rule 45.
D. Trial. The parties agree to request a trial by jury. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in the Complaint, and Defendant does not object to a jury trial.
The parties have differing estimates of the anticipated trial length. Plaintiff estimates that the trial will require approximately 7 to 10 trial days. Defendant estimates that the trial will require approximately 5 to 7 trial days. In light of these estimates, the parties jointly request a two-week trial setting.
The parties agree that a trial setting of September 14, 2026 is appropriate and respectfully request that the Court set the trial for that date or as close thereto as the Court's calendar permits.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of June, 2025.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:
HARTWELL & BRASHEAR PLLC
By: ________
Claudia Hartwell Texas Bar No. 24078341 chartwell@hartwellbrashear.com
Jordan Brashear Texas Bar No. 24091265 jbrashear@hartwellbrashear.com
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-3200 Facsimile: (214) 555-3201
Counsel for Plaintiff Marcus Delano
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Bernard Crawford Texas Bar No. 24056893 bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com
Renata Vasquez Texas Bar No. 24082710 rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com
James Underwood Texas Bar No. 24099437 junderwood@calderwoodharkness.com
Devon Archer Texas Bar No. 24104582 darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-7800 Facsimile: (214) 555-7801
Counsel for Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 16, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint Report of the Parties Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
________________________________________
Claudia Hartwell Counsel for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned counsel of record hereby certify that they conferred in good faith on June 12, 2025, by videoconference, regarding all matters addressed in this Joint Report, including the nature of the case, jurisdiction and venue, proposed conditional certification, initial disclosures, the discovery plan, electronically stored information, claims and defenses, settlement and alternative dispute resolution, the proposed scheduling order, modification of discovery procedures, preservation obligations, confidentiality protections, third-party discovery, and trial. The parties have accurately identified in this Joint Report all areas of agreement and all areas of disagreement.
________________________________________
Claudia Hartwell Counsel for Plaintiff
________________________________________
Bernard Crawford Counsel for Defendant
MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, | Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-01847-RBC
v.
STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC., | Hon. Rebecca Chen
U.S. District Judge
Defendant.
Hon. Timothy Farrell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Event | Proposed Date
Initial Disclosures | June 16, 2025 (completed concurrently with this Report)
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification | July 14, 2025
Defendant's Response to Conditional Certification Motion | August 13, 2025
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Conditional Certification | August 27, 2025
Opt-In Deadline (if conditionally certified) | To be determined by Court order
Fact discovery Cutoff (merits) | March 15, 2026
Expert Disclosures — Plaintiff | To be determined (parties propose 120 days before trial)
Expert Disclosures — Defendant | To be determined (parties propose 90 days before trial)
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures | To be determined (parties propose 60 days before trial)
Expert discovery Cutoff | To be determined (parties propose 45 days before trial)
Dispositive Motion Deadline | April 30, 2026
Pretrial Conference | To be determined by the Court
Trial Setting | September 14, 2026 (two-week trial setting requested)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

III. PROPOSED COLLECTIVE/CLASS AND CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

IV. INITIAL DISCLOSURES

V. DISCOVERY PLAN

VI. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (ESI)

VII. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

VIII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR

X. MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

XI. OTHER MATTERS

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

HARTWELL & BRASHEAR PLLC

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts