OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Hyelyn Johnson (“Johnson”) and Chae E. Ghim (“Ghim”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Queen’s Nail Art, Inc. d/b/a Dashing Diva Nail Salon (“Queen’s Nail Art”) and Seung Ae Choi (“Seung Choi”) (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages as well as gratuities, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq., §207, and §203(m)(2)(B), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law §§650 et seq., 196-d, 191, 195(1), 195(2), and 195(3), including liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 1.) Before me is Defendants’ motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ryan Kim Law, P.C., based on a prelitigation phone conversation between Defendant Seung Choi and attorney Kim’s paralegal. Because I find that Defendant Seung Choi did not disclose significant harmful confidential information during the phone call, Defendants’ motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel is DENIED. I. Factual Background1 Plaintiff Johnson and Plaintiff Ghim, both New York residents, are former employees of Defendants, having been employed as cosmetologists at Queen’s Nail Art from November 2014 to April 2022,2 and from January 2013 to January 2023, respectively. (Compl.
6-7.)3 Defendant Queen’s Nail Art is a New York corporation doing business as Dashing Diva, and is located at 105 West 72nd Street, New York, NY 10023. (Id. 8.) It is owned by Defendant Seung Choi, (id. 9), who is a resident of New York, (id.). After Plaintiff Johnson stopped working at Defendant Queen’s Nail Art, Defendant Seung Choi had “an eerie feeling that [her former employee] was about to cause trouble” by initiating legal proceedings against her. (Doc. 16-3 (“Seung Choi Decl.”) 5; Def. Mem. 2.) She therefore sought “advice from employment law counsel.” (Id. at 2.) After conducting an online search for such counsel, she called Ryan Kim Law, P.C.’s New York office on January 6, 2023. (Id. at 1-2). Mr. Ryan Kim’s paralegal, Ms. Jia Choi, answered the phone and spoke with Defendant Seung Choi for approximately 40 minutes. (Def. Mem. 2; Pl. Opp’n 5).4 Paralegal Jia Choi testified that, “[a]s part of my job screening cases, I ask callers general questions about the reason for their call to determine if it is worth scheduling a consultation with Ryan Kim.” (Doc. 23-1 (“Jia Choi Decl.”) 7.) The parties dispute whether Defendant Seung Choi disclosed the name of her business. (See Def. Mem. 2; see also Pl. Opp’n 2). They agree, however, that Defendant Seung Choi disclosed that she operated a nail salon in New York, and wanted to know whether her employees could sue her. (Jia Choi Decl. 6.) Defendant Seung Choi alleges that during the call, she “disclosed to the Kim Firm all the employment and wage-and-hour practices at Queen’s Nail, including the method of recording the employees’ work hours, the records she maintains, how cash and credit card tips are distributed, and how wages are paid.” (Def. Mem. 3; see also Seung Choi Decl.
