Eppich v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

No. 2:25-cv-00522-SDN (D. Me. Mar. 20, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Maine · March 20, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-00522-SDN

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted in part FedEx’s motion to compel Plaintiff Frederick Eppich to disclose the methodology and supporting basis for his FLSA and Maine-law damages calculations. The court awarded FedEx reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, but denied FedEx’s request to bar Eppich from presenting damages evidence at trial. The court ordered the parties to confer regarding the fee amount and set deadlines for any fee application.

Holdings

  1. Rule 26 required Plaintiff to disclose an explanation of the methodology used to calculate his alleged damages, in addition to the total amount sought and itemized weekly breakdowns.
  2. FedEx was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in preparing and filing the motion to compel, excluding time spent briefing the request to preclude all damages evidence.
  3. Plaintiff would not be barred entirely from presenting damages evidence at trial because that sanction was disproportionate and unsupported by the record.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 required Plaintiff to disclose an explanation of the methodology used to calculate his alleged unpaid overtime damages.
  2. Whether FedEx was entitled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to reasonable attorney fees incurred in filing the motion to compel.
  3. Whether Plaintiff should be barred from presenting damages-calculation evidence at trial as a discovery sanction.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Claiborne v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 18-CV-1698, 2025 WL 2772339 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2025)(followed for procedural history)
  • Lennar Ne. Props., Inc. v. Barton Partners Architects Planners Inc., No. 16-cv-12330, 2021 WL 927520, at *3 (D. Mass. Mar. 11, 2021)(followed)
  • W.N. Motors, Inc. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 21-cv-11266, 2022 WL 1568443, at *5 (D. Mass. May 18, 2022)(followed)
  • Clark v. Berkshire Med. Ctr., Inc., No. CV 17-30186, 2019 WL 78994, at *3 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2019)(followed)
  • Dorado Gardens LLC v. Efron, 749 F. Supp. 3d 263, 264 (D.P.R. 2024)(followed)
  • Corinth Pellets, LLC v. Andritz, Inc., No. 20-cv-00082, 2022 WL 17843877, at *3 (D. Me. Dec. 22, 2022)(followed)
  • Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72, 78 (1st Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Lawes v. CSA Architects & Eng'rs LLP, 963 F.3d 72, 91 (1st Cir. 2020)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…