OPINION AND ORDER

MELINDA HARMON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act is Defendants Capstone Logistics, LLC and LMS Intellibound, LLC's motion for more definite statement (instrument #17) on the ground that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (#9) is too vague and ambiguous for Defendants to prepare a response.

Plaintiffs perform manual labor unloading pallets of groceries from trucks owned by Defendants' clients, for which they are paid on a piece rate or production basis, i.e., based on the number and weight of the trucks they unload.1 In their First Amended Complaint they claim that Defendants failed to accurately pay Plaintiffs for their work on an hourly basis. Among specific claims, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants under-reported the number of hours Plaintiffs actually worked each week in subtracting time for meal breaks even though Plaintiffs worked through them, failing to count the time Plaintiffs were on duty waiting to unload trucks or perform other tasks for Defendants, and consistently clocking out the unloaders before they finished working.

Rule 12(e) states, "A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous and the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." Such motions are not favored and are granted sparingly. Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959); Conceal City, LLC v. Looper Law Enforcement, LLC, 917 F.Supp.2d 611, 621 (N.D. Tex. 2013). The motion must be made prior to filing a responsive pleading and "must point out the defects complained of and the details desired." Rule 12(e). A court should only grant a motion for more definite statement when the complaint is "so excessively vague and ambiguous to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it." Phillips v. ABB Combustion Eng'g, Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-594, 2012 WL 3155224, at *2 (E.D. La. June 19, 2013). A motion for more definite statement should not be used as a substitute for discovery; it should be used as a remedy for unintelligible pleading, not for correcting a lack of detail. Davenport v. Rodriguez, 147 F.Supp.2d 630, 639 (S.D. Tex. 2001). The court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant such a motion. Ditcharo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 376 Fed. Appx. 432, 440 n.9 (5th Cir. 2010), citing Old Time Enterprises, Inc. v. International Coffee Corp., 862 F.2d 1213, 1217 (5th Cir. 1989).

After reviewing the Amended Complaint and the briefs, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they have adequately pleaded their claims. Accordingly, the Court

ORDERS that the motion for more definite statement (#17) is DENIED.