UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11/3/2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANA CARRASQUILLO on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, 23-cv-04931 (MKV) -against- ORDER TO PRODUCE WESTECH SECURITY AND AND RETAIN COUNSEL INVESTIGATION INC., Defendant.

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:

At the beginning of June, 2025, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Figueredo’s Report and Recommendation partially granting Plaintiff’s motion for Conditional Class Certification. [ECF No. 82]. In connection with that Order, on June 10, 2025, the Court approved Plaintiff’s Revised Proposed Notice and Consent to Sue Forms, and authorized Plaintiff to distribute those Forms. [ECF No. 84]. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendant to produce the list of employees relevant to that distribution, and preemptively sought sanctions in the event “that Defendants [did] not produce the discovery by July 2.” [ECF No. 85]. The Court denied the motion for sanctions without prejudice to timely renewal, and ordered production by July 2, 2025. [ECF No. 86]. The Court sternly warned Defendant that failure to comply with the Order’s deadline would put it “at risk of sanctions.” Id. (emphasis original). The Court also on multiple occasions has admonished Defendant, proceeding pro se, that a corporate entity cannot appear pro se, see Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.,

, 22 (2d Cir. 1983), and that continued failure to retain counsel may result in sanctions, including the entry of a default judgment. [ECF No. 86]; see also [ECF No. 88] at 1 n.1; [ECF No. 75] at 1; [ECF No. 69]. Months later, on October 22, 2025, the Court’s review of the docket indicated that no further action had been taken by the Parties. As a result, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 88]. Plaintiff timely responded, asserting that “Defendant has no intention of complying with the

Court’s Order granting the collective and ordering production of the collective employee list.” [ECF No. 89]. In that response, Plaintiff renewed his request for sanctions in the form of “$100 per weekday from June 16, 2025 until the date that the collective list is ultimately produced.” Id. The Court declines at this time to impose sanctions. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. However, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that at or before 4:00 PM on November 10, 2025, Defendant shall produce the previously Ordered information, [ECF Nos. 86, 82], to Plaintiff. Defendant is further directed to retain counsel to appear on its behalf on or before that same date. Defendant is on notice that failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions, the preclusion of defenses, or the entry of a default judgment.

Defendant is further warned that continued failure to retain counsel will result in the entry of a default judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to serve this Order, and any response, on Defendant on or before November 5, 2025.

SO ORDERED. _________________________________ Date: November 3, 2025 MARY KAY VYSKOCIL New York, NY United States District Judge