Preview
1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798)
2 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
Tagore O. Subramaniam (SBN 280126)
3 Email: tagore@maternlawgroup.com
Sydney A. Adams (SBN 319991)
4
Email: sadams@maternlawgroup.com
5 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
6 Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff RHINA BEATRIZ
8 CARRILLO individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF KERN
12 CASE NO.: BCV-19-101197-TSC
RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO, individually,
13 and on behalf of others similarly situated
CLASS ACTION
14 Plaintiff,
[Assigned for All Purposes to Honorable
vs. Thomas S. Clark, Dept. 17]
15
KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC, a California PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
16 Limited Liability Company; KERN RIDGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
GROWERS, INC., a California Corporation; MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
17 MA MEDINA FARM LABOR SERVICES, KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC TO
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
18 through 50, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
19
Defendants. [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion
20 and Motion to Compel; Declaration of
Sydney A. Adams]
21
Date: August 8, 2022
22 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Department: 17
23
Complaint Filed: April 30, 2019
24 Trial Date: None Set
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
1230 ROSECRANS PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISOMOTION TO
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
BEACH, CA 90266
1 Plaintiff RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO (“PLAINTIFF”) hereby submit this Separate
2 Statement in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant KERN RIDGE GROWERS,
3 LLC to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.
4 DEFINITIONS
5 “PLAINTIFF” refers to Plaintiff RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO.
6 2. “DEFENDANT”, “YOU,” “YOUR” or “KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC” refer
7 to Defendant KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC and to all directors, officers, agents, employees,
8 investigators, and all other persons employed by, representing or acting on behalf of Defendant
9 KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC.
10 3. “COMPLAINT,” as used herein, shall mean and refer to the operative complaint
11 on file in this action Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-19-101197-TSC.
12 4. “COVERED EMPLOYEE” is defined as any one of the individual COVERED
13 EMPLOYEES.
14 5. “COVERED EMPLOYEES” is defined as all employees who worked in any
15 COVERED POSITION during the COVERED PERIOD.
16 6. “COVERED PERIOD” is defined as the time period of April 30, 2015 to the
17 present.
18 7. “COVERED POSITION” is defined as any one of the COVERED POSITIONS.
19 8. “COVERED POSITIONS” is defined as all non-exempt positions
20 of DEFENDANT in the State of California during the COVERED PERIOD.
21 9. “ELECTRONIC” means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic,
22 wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capacities, as defined in California Code of Civil
23 Procedure section 2016.020(d).
24 10. “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” means information that is
25 stored in an electronic medium, as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section
26 2016.020(e). This includes but is not limited to any electronically stored data on magnetic or
27 optical storage media as an “active” file or files (readily readable by one or more computer
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -1-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 applications or forensics software); any "deleted" but recoverable electronic files on said media;
2 any electronic file fragments (files that have been deleted and partially overwritten with new
3 data); and slack (data fragments stored randomly from random access memory on a hard drive
4 during the normal operation of a computer or residual data left on the hard drive after new data
5 has overwritten some but not all of previously stored data).
6 11. “METADATA” is defined as information about when a DOCUMENT was
7 created, accessed and modified, and by whom.
8 12. “DOCUMENTS” means all “writing(s)” as defined in California Evidence Code
9 section 250 and all “electronically stored information” as defined in California Code of Civil
10 Procedure section 2016.020(e). In addition, the terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall
11 also include the file in which the DOCUMENTS are maintained. “DOCUMENT” or
12 “DOCUMENTS” used in its broadest sense and means the original and any and all copies of any
13 and all written, printed, typed, or otherwise recorded matter, however produced or reproduced, of
14 every kind and description, in whatever form (e.g., final and draft versions) in your actual or
15 constructive possession, custody, care or control, including but not limited to, all writings,
16 contracts, policy statements, manuals, telephone messages, checks, correspondence, letters,
17 telegrams, notes, mailgrams, minutes of any meetings, agendas, memoranda, interoffice
18 communications, reports, studies, forecasts, projects analyses, working papers, charts, expense
19 account reports, ledgers, journals, financial statements, statements of account, calendars,
20 appointment books, diaries, drawings, graphs, photographs, sound recordings, computer
21 documents, referring to any and all written or other graphic material, however produced or
22 reproduced, of every kind and description and to everything upon which sounds, words, symbols
23 or pictures are recorded or depicted by magnetic or electrical impulse, photography, or otherwise
24 or any other tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Section
25 2031.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The term "DOCUMENTS" also means originals and
26 copies of all of the above upon which notations in writing, print or otherwise have been made
27 which do not appear in the originals. The term “DOCUMENT” includes, by way of example and
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -2-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 not limitation, the following and anything similar to any of the following:
2 a. Letters, telegrams, telexes, cables, TXWs, memoranda, interoffice
3 correspondence and other forms of correspondence and written
4 communication;
5 b. Agreements, contracts, policies, handbooks, practice guidelines, reports,
6 studies, records, books, journals, papers, statements, pamphlets, circulars,
7 publications, stenographic notebooks, files and their contents, file folders,
8 file covers, file jackets, and notes;
9 c. Summaries, abstracts, indexes, tabulations, graphs, charts, lists and
10 inventories;
11 d. Calendars, desk calendars, appointment books, schedules, logs, telephone
12 messages, diaries, time sheets, minutes of meetings, and transcripts;
13 e. Financial statements, checks, invoices and accounting records and books;
14 f. Pleadings, deposition transcripts, trial transcripts, interrogatories, answers
15 to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, papers filed or lodged with
16 courts, and papers filed with or sent to administrative agencies;
17 g. Tape recordings, sound reproductions, objects, photographs, motion
18 pictures, microfilm, computer data stored on magnetic tape, computer
19 printouts, data processing cards or tapes, and computer disks or diskettes.
20 h. Computer files and documents, electronic documents, and any and all
21 ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION in its native format with
22 METADATA intact.
23 13. “PERSONNEL FILE” shall include any file, collection of DOCUMENTS or other
24 forms in which information is stored concerning an individual, and includes all such collections
25 of DOCUMENTS regardless of the names given them DEFENDANT. which include information
26 on the work history, job titles, job descriptions, employee status change forms, promotions,
27 demotions, transfers, and discipline of any person; wage or benefit increases granted to any
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -3-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 person; investigations concerning any person; job performance evaluations, labor files, attendance
2 records or calendars, records of sick leave, leaves of absences and vacation leaves concerning any
3 person; complaints, charges or grievances by or against any person and the responses to such
4 complaints, charges or grievances. Except as otherwise specifically requested, when referring to
5 someone other than a named plaintiff, the term “PERSONNEL FILE” shall not include
6 collections of DOCUMENTS that are limited to the medical history of the person or to the
7 person’s marital status (including information regarding support payments).
8 14. You are required to produce not only the original or an exact copy of the original
9 of all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following numbered requests, but also all copies of
10 such DOCUMENTS which bear any notes or markings not found on the originals and all
11 preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such DOCUMENTS.
12 15. You are required to produce all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following
13 numbered requests, including but not limited to computer files and documents, electronic
14 documents, and any and all ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION in its native format
15 with METADATA intact.
16 16. It is not intended that this request require production of any DOCUMENTS which
17 are privileged. Ifyou are not producing any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the numbered
18 requests below on the basis of a claimed privilege, or for any other reason, state the following
19 information:
20 a. Describe the DOCUMENTS with specificity;
21 b. Identify the privilege claimed or other reason why the DOCUMENTS is
22 not produced;
23 c. State the names and capacities of all persons who participated in the
24 preparation of the DOCUMENTS; and
25 d. State the names and capacities of all persons to whom the document was
26 circulated or its contents communicated.
27 17. In the event that, subsequent to the service of YOUR responses to these Requests
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -4-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 for Production of Documents, any DOCUMENTS, information, or material come to YOUR
2 attention, possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to any request herein, YOU are
3 required to supplement YOUR response(s) and furnish such additional DOCUMENTS,
4 information, or material to PLAINTIFF as soon as possible.
5 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
6 Defendant has not yet fully completed an investigation of the circumstances and facts
7 relating to this lawsuit and has not completed preparation for trial of this action. It is anticipated
8 that further discovery, independent investigation, and further analysis shall supply additional
9 documents, evidence and information. Defendant's responses herein are based upon such
10 documents, evidence, and information presently known to defendant and are given without
11 prejudice to defendant's right to revise these responses, produce subsequently discovered
12 documents, evidence or information at the time of trial or the hearing of any motion. Furthermore,
13 defendant reserves the right to produce documents, evidence and information of any facts which
14
may later be discovered.
15
Nothing set forth herein by defendant is intended, or shall be construed, as a
16
waiver of any objection defendant may assert under the California Evidence Code, California
17
Code of Civil Procedure, or otherwise which would require the exclusion of any response herein
18
at the time of trial or at the hearing of any motion. Such objections are expressly reserved and
19
may be made at such later time.
20
Defendant further specifically objects to all instructions, definitions, and requests
21
22 to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
23 work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or immunity. Any response provided
24 herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any privilege available to defendant.
25 Defendant also objects to each and every demand on the ground that it improperly
26 requests documents from more than one defendant. Accordingly, Defendant answers only on
27 behalf of Defendant KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC.
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -5-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, each response will be as complete and
2 straightforward as the information reasonably available to these responding parties permits.
3 Where a part of a demand is objectionable, the remainder of the demand will be answered when
4 possible.
5 Defendant further objects to all references to Plaintiff as "employee" and
6 Defendant as "employer" on the basis that it constitutes an impermissible legal conclusion.
7 Defendant further objects that the foregoing terminology is vague, ambiguous and
8 unintelligible in that it does not specify whether it is referring to the employment relationship
9
between Plaintiff and MA Medina or attributing any relationship between Plaintiff and
10
Defendant to be an employment relationship.
11
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections and incorporating the foregoing
12
preliminary statement into each and every of the following responses to the extent applicable,
13
defendant responds to the request for production and inspection of documents as follows:
14
15 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
17 All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR
18 policies, procedures or practices regarding the provision, timing and enforcement of rest periods
19 for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
21 Defendant objects that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and oppressive, is
22 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and improperly violates
23 the right of privacy of third parties, to the extent the request seeks information relating to
24 Defendant's employees who did not work through MA Medina. Without waiving said objections,
25 and limiting the request to responsive documents relating to co-Defendant MA Medina workers,
26 Defendant responds as follows: The requested documents, if any, are in the possession, custody
27 and control of co-Defendant MA Medina.
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -6-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 LEGAL AND FACTUAL ARGUMENT FOR COMPELLING KERN RIDGE GROWER,
2 LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS NO. 2:
3 Parties are entitled to broad discovery rights and discovery rules are applied liberally in
4 favor of discovery. Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546. California Code of
5 Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
6 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved...if the matter either is itself admissible
7 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8 Discovery may relate to the claim...of the party seeking discovery. Discovery may be obtained of
9 the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of
10 the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible
11 thing, or land or other property....[.]”
12 Furthermore, due process requires that Plaintiff be allowed to conduct discovery on class
13 issues before filing a motion for class certification. Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26
14 Cal.App.4th 239, 244; see also, Cal. Rule of Court 3.763 (“… the court may make an order: …
15 (2) Establishing a schedule for discovery….”); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531,
16 543-544; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 562;
17 Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257-1259; Bartold v. Glendale Federal
18 Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 836; Hill v. Eddie Bauer (2007) 242 F.R.D. 556, 565. “Doubts
19 as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial should generally be
20 resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]” Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978)
21 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 9–11. Here, Defendant’s objections are vague and improper, and seek to evade
22 Defendant’s statutory obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to discover relevant and
23 discoverable materials within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
24 Defendant’s objections that this request is overbroad and that the request seeks documents
25 which are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
26 are without merit. Plaintiff’s Request seeks discovery of basic documents that are routinely
27 produced in wage-and-hour class actions. Such documents are directly relevant to certification of
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -7-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 the wage-and-hour claims asserted in this lawsuit, and Plaintiff can articulate fact-specific reasons
2 why the discovery is appropriate, See Glenfed, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117. The request is
3 specifically tailored to the persons and time period at issue in the operative complaint; that is, the
4 “COVERED EMPLOYEES” are defined to match the definition of the proposed Class Members
5 as defined by the operative complaint, and the “COVERED PERIOD” is defined to match the
6 “Class Period” as defined by the operative complaint. Furthermore, the complaint expressly
7 asserts a claim based on Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members
8 with lawful rest breaks, so the requested documents are directly relevant to this litigation. Thus,
9 by limiting the request to the persons, time period and issues encompassed by the allegations
10 in the complaint, the request falls squarely within the scope of permissible discovery. Code
11 Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. To the extent that Defendant may disagree that Plaintiff will
12 ultimately be able to represent all of the putative class members as defined by the operative
13 complaint, this is not a proper basis for Defendant’s refusal to respond to the request; it is
14 well-established that a discovery motion is not the right vehicle to limit the scope of an action,
15 and there has been no ruling limiting the proposed class as defined by the operative complaint to
16 date. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 12. The Court
17 conditionally granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Kern Ridge Growers, LLC to provide further
18 responses to specially prepared interrogatories set two. In opposition of that motion, Defendant
19 raised arguments predicated on the same basis which the Court rejected.
20 Defendant’s objection that the request seeks information which “improperly violates
21 the right of privacy of third parties, to the extent the request seeks information relating to
22 Defendant’s employees who did not work through MA Medina” is also without merit. The
23 request is limited to persons who are putative class members as defined by the operative
24 complaint. Based on the plain language of the request, the request does not seek privileged
25 or private materials, and Defendant has not identified any private information which it
26 believes is encompassed by the Request. Even assuming arguendo that the request did seek
27 private information (which Plaintiff disputes), Plaintiff is agreeable to the use of a protective
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -8-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 order which would immediately absolve any purported concerns regarding third party privacy.
2 Defendant’s vague and speculative objection regarding some unidentified privacy consideration
3 does not outweigh the need for the discovery sought.
4 Defendant’s objections that this request is unduly burdensome also lacks merit. The
5 request is not unduly burdensome. In any case, it is well-established that an “objection based upon
6 burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” West Pico
7 Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. Here, Defendant has failed to
8 quantify or provide any evidence regarding its contentions of undue burden. Defendant has
9 provided no information which would allow Plaintiff or the Court to assess the actual burden of
10 production such as, e.g., the number of responsive documents that may exist, how or where the
11 documents are maintained, or the time or expense it would take to pull the documents. In
12 addition, the objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in
13 injustice. Id. at 418 (noting that the objecting party must demonstrate that the burden involved in
14 answering the request is so unjust that it amounts to oppression); see also Columbia Broadcasting
15 System, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (explaining that in order to determine
16 whether the burden is unjust involves a weighing process as to whether the utility of the
17 information sought so minimal, and the amount of work is so great, that it would defeat the ends
18 of justice to require the responding party to answer). Here, the interests of Plaintiff and the
19 putative class members outweigh Defendant’s vague and unsupported assertions of burden.
20 Additionally, Defendant’s attempt to pass its discovery obligations onto its co-Defendant
21 is improper. Responses to Request for Productions must contain “a statement that the party will
22 comply with the particular demand,” or “a representation that the party lacks the ability to
23 comply.” Code Civ. Proc. §2031.210(a). Defendant is thus obligated to make a good faith attempt
24 to respond to the discovery. Defendant cannot evade producing documents by telling Plaintiff to
25 ask Defendant MA Medina.
26 In sum, Defendant’s objections, its failure to provide a response which complies with the
27 requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its efforts to unilaterally limit the scope of the
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -9-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 request (so as not to pertain to all “COVERED EMPOYEES” as defined by the Request) are
2 without merit. Thus, good cause exists for an order requiring Defendant to supplement its
3 response to this Request.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
5 All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR
6 policies, procedures or practices regarding the provision, timing and enforcement of meal periods
7 for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
9 Defendant objects that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and oppressive, is
10 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and improperly violates
11 the right of privacy of third parties, to the extent the request seeks information relating to
12 Defendant's employees who did not work through MA Medina. Without waiving said objections,
13 and limiting the request to responsive documents relating to co-Defendant MA Medina workers,,
14 Defendant responds as follows: The requested documents, if any, are in the possession, custody
15 and control of co-Defendant MA Medina.
16 LEGAL AND FACTUAL ARGUMENT FOR COMPELLING KERN RIDGE GROWER,
17 LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
18 Parties are entitled to broad discovery rights and discovery rules are applied liberally in
19 favor of discovery. Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546. California Code of
20 Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
21 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved...if the matter either is itself admissible
22 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
23 Discovery may relate to the claim...of the party seeking discovery. Discovery may be obtained of
24 the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of
25 the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible
26 thing, or land or other property....[.]”
27
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -10-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 Furthermore, due process requires that Plaintiff be allowed to conduct discovery on class
2 issues before filing a motion for class certification. Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26
3 Cal.App.4th 239, 244; see also, Cal. Rule of Court 3.763 (“… the court may make an order: …
4 (2) Establishing a schedule for discovery….”); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531,
5 543-544; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 562;
6 Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257-1259; Bartold v. Glendale Federal
7 Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 836; Hill v. Eddie Bauer (2007) 242 F.R.D. 556, 565. “Doubts
8 as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial should generally be
9 resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]” Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978)
10 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 9–11. Here, Defendant’s objections are vague and improper, and seek to evade
11 Defendant’s statutory obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to discover relevant and
12 discoverable materials within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
13 Defendant’s objections that this request is overbroad and that the request seeks documents
14 which are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
15 are without merit. The request is specifically tailored to the persons and time period at issue in the
16 operative complaint; that is, the “COVERED EMPLOYEES” are defined to match the definition
17 of the proposed Class Members as defined by the operative complaint, and the “COVERED
18 PERIOD” is defined to match the “Class Period” as defined by the operative complaint.
19 Furthermore, the complaint expressly asserts a claim based on Defendants’ failure to provide
20 Plaintiff and other putative class members with lawful meal periods, so the requested documents
21 are directly relevant to this litigation. Thus, by limiting the request to the persons, time period and
22 issues encompassed by the allegations in the complaint, the request falls squarely within the scope
23 of permissible discovery. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. To the extent that Defendant may disagree
24 that Plaintiff will ultimately be able to represent all of the putative class members as defined by
25 the operative complaint, this is not a proper basis for Defendant’s refusal to respond to the
26 request; it is well-established that a discovery motion is not the right vehicle to limit the scope of
27 an action, and there has been no ruling limiting the proposed class as defined by the operative
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -11-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 complaint to date. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 12. The
2 Court conditionally granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Kern Ridge Growers, LLC to provide
3 further responses to specially prepared interrogatories set two. In opposition of that motion,
4 Defendant raised arguments predicated on the same basis which the Court rejected.
5 Defendant’s objection that the request seeks information which “may violate the privacy
6 rights of third persons” is also without merit. Based on the plain language of the request, the
7 request does not seek privileged or private materials, and Defendant has not identified any private
8 information which it believes is encompassed by the Request. Even assuming arguendo that the
9 request did seek private information (which Plaintiff disputes), Plaintiff is agreeable to the use of
10 a protective order which would immediately absolve any purported concerns regarding third party
11 privacy. Defendant’s vague and speculative objection regarding some unidentified privacy
12 consideration does not outweigh the need for the discovery sought.
13 Defendant’s objections that this request is unduly burdensome also lacks merit. The
14 request is not unduly burdensome. In any case, it is well-established that an “objection based
15 upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” West Pico
16 Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. Here, Defendant has failed to quantify
17 or provide any evidence regarding its contentions of undue burden. Defendant has provided no
18 information which would allow Plaintiff or the Court to assess the actual burden of production
19 such as, e.g., the number of responsive documents that may exist, how or where the documents
20 are maintained, or the time or expense it would take to pull the documents. In addition, the
21 objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice. Id. at 418
22 (noting that the objecting party must demonstrate that the burden involved in answering the
23 request is so unjust that it amounts to oppression); see also Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
24 v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (explaining that in order to determine whether the
25 burden is unjust involves a weighing process as to whether the utility of the information sought so
26 minimal, and the amount of work is so great, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the
27
28
MATERN LAW
GROU P, PC
PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO
1230 ROSECRANS -12-
AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
MANHATTAN
1 responding party to answer). Here, the interests of Plaintiff and the putative class members
2 outweigh Defendant’s vague and unsupported assertions of burden.
3 In sum, Defendant’s objections, its failure to provide a response which complies with the
4 requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its efforts to unilaterally limit the scope of the
5 request (so as not to pertain to all “COVERED EMPOYEES” as defined by the Request) are
6 without merit. Thus, good cause
Preview
1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798) 2 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com Tagore O. Subramaniam (SBN 280126) 3 Email: tagore@maternlawgroup.com Sydney A. Adams (SBN 319991) 4 Email: sadams@maternlawgroup.com 5 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 6 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff RHINA BEATRIZ 8 CARRILLO individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF KERN 12 CASE NO.: BCV-19-101197-TSC RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO, individually, 13 and on behalf of others similarly situated CLASS ACTION 14 Plaintiff, [Assigned for All Purposes to Honorable vs. Thomas S. Clark, Dept. 17] 15 KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC, a California PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 16 Limited Liability Company; KERN RIDGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S GROWERS, INC., a California Corporation; MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 17 MA MEDINA FARM LABOR SERVICES, KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC TO INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO 18 through 50, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 19 Defendants. [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion 20 and Motion to Compel; Declaration of Sydney A. Adams] 21 Date: August 8, 2022 22 Time: 8:30 a.m. Department: 17 23 Complaint Filed: April 30, 2019 24 Trial Date: None Set 25 26 27 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC 1230 ROSECRANS PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISOMOTION TO AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 1 Plaintiff RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO (“PLAINTIFF”) hereby submit this Separate 2 Statement in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant KERN RIDGE GROWERS, 3 LLC to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. 4 DEFINITIONS 5 “PLAINTIFF” refers to Plaintiff RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO. 6 2. “DEFENDANT”, “YOU,” “YOUR” or “KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC” refer 7 to Defendant KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC and to all directors, officers, agents, employees, 8 investigators, and all other persons employed by, representing or acting on behalf of Defendant 9 KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC. 10 3. “COMPLAINT,” as used herein, shall mean and refer to the operative complaint 11 on file in this action Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-19-101197-TSC. 12 4. “COVERED EMPLOYEE” is defined as any one of the individual COVERED 13 EMPLOYEES. 14 5. “COVERED EMPLOYEES” is defined as all employees who worked in any 15 COVERED POSITION during the COVERED PERIOD. 16 6. “COVERED PERIOD” is defined as the time period of April 30, 2015 to the 17 present. 18 7. “COVERED POSITION” is defined as any one of the COVERED POSITIONS. 19 8. “COVERED POSITIONS” is defined as all non-exempt positions 20 of DEFENDANT in the State of California during the COVERED PERIOD. 21 9. “ELECTRONIC” means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, 22 wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capacities, as defined in California Code of Civil 23 Procedure section 2016.020(d). 24 10. “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” means information that is 25 stored in an electronic medium, as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section 26 2016.020(e). This includes but is not limited to any electronically stored data on magnetic or 27 optical storage media as an “active” file or files (readily readable by one or more computer 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -1- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 applications or forensics software); any "deleted" but recoverable electronic files on said media; 2 any electronic file fragments (files that have been deleted and partially overwritten with new 3 data); and slack (data fragments stored randomly from random access memory on a hard drive 4 during the normal operation of a computer or residual data left on the hard drive after new data 5 has overwritten some but not all of previously stored data). 6 11. “METADATA” is defined as information about when a DOCUMENT was 7 created, accessed and modified, and by whom. 8 12. “DOCUMENTS” means all “writing(s)” as defined in California Evidence Code 9 section 250 and all “electronically stored information” as defined in California Code of Civil 10 Procedure section 2016.020(e). In addition, the terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall 11 also include the file in which the DOCUMENTS are maintained. “DOCUMENT” or 12 “DOCUMENTS” used in its broadest sense and means the original and any and all copies of any 13 and all written, printed, typed, or otherwise recorded matter, however produced or reproduced, of 14 every kind and description, in whatever form (e.g., final and draft versions) in your actual or 15 constructive possession, custody, care or control, including but not limited to, all writings, 16 contracts, policy statements, manuals, telephone messages, checks, correspondence, letters, 17 telegrams, notes, mailgrams, minutes of any meetings, agendas, memoranda, interoffice 18 communications, reports, studies, forecasts, projects analyses, working papers, charts, expense 19 account reports, ledgers, journals, financial statements, statements of account, calendars, 20 appointment books, diaries, drawings, graphs, photographs, sound recordings, computer 21 documents, referring to any and all written or other graphic material, however produced or 22 reproduced, of every kind and description and to everything upon which sounds, words, symbols 23 or pictures are recorded or depicted by magnetic or electrical impulse, photography, or otherwise 24 or any other tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Section 25 2031.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The term "DOCUMENTS" also means originals and 26 copies of all of the above upon which notations in writing, print or otherwise have been made 27 which do not appear in the originals. The term “DOCUMENT” includes, by way of example and 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -2- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 not limitation, the following and anything similar to any of the following: 2 a. Letters, telegrams, telexes, cables, TXWs, memoranda, interoffice 3 correspondence and other forms of correspondence and written 4 communication; 5 b. Agreements, contracts, policies, handbooks, practice guidelines, reports, 6 studies, records, books, journals, papers, statements, pamphlets, circulars, 7 publications, stenographic notebooks, files and their contents, file folders, 8 file covers, file jackets, and notes; 9 c. Summaries, abstracts, indexes, tabulations, graphs, charts, lists and 10 inventories; 11 d. Calendars, desk calendars, appointment books, schedules, logs, telephone 12 messages, diaries, time sheets, minutes of meetings, and transcripts; 13 e. Financial statements, checks, invoices and accounting records and books; 14 f. Pleadings, deposition transcripts, trial transcripts, interrogatories, answers 15 to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, papers filed or lodged with 16 courts, and papers filed with or sent to administrative agencies; 17 g. Tape recordings, sound reproductions, objects, photographs, motion 18 pictures, microfilm, computer data stored on magnetic tape, computer 19 printouts, data processing cards or tapes, and computer disks or diskettes. 20 h. Computer files and documents, electronic documents, and any and all 21 ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION in its native format with 22 METADATA intact. 23 13. “PERSONNEL FILE” shall include any file, collection of DOCUMENTS or other 24 forms in which information is stored concerning an individual, and includes all such collections 25 of DOCUMENTS regardless of the names given them DEFENDANT. which include information 26 on the work history, job titles, job descriptions, employee status change forms, promotions, 27 demotions, transfers, and discipline of any person; wage or benefit increases granted to any 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -3- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 person; investigations concerning any person; job performance evaluations, labor files, attendance 2 records or calendars, records of sick leave, leaves of absences and vacation leaves concerning any 3 person; complaints, charges or grievances by or against any person and the responses to such 4 complaints, charges or grievances. Except as otherwise specifically requested, when referring to 5 someone other than a named plaintiff, the term “PERSONNEL FILE” shall not include 6 collections of DOCUMENTS that are limited to the medical history of the person or to the 7 person’s marital status (including information regarding support payments). 8 14. You are required to produce not only the original or an exact copy of the original 9 of all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following numbered requests, but also all copies of 10 such DOCUMENTS which bear any notes or markings not found on the originals and all 11 preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such DOCUMENTS. 12 15. You are required to produce all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following 13 numbered requests, including but not limited to computer files and documents, electronic 14 documents, and any and all ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION in its native format 15 with METADATA intact. 16 16. It is not intended that this request require production of any DOCUMENTS which 17 are privileged. Ifyou are not producing any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the numbered 18 requests below on the basis of a claimed privilege, or for any other reason, state the following 19 information: 20 a. Describe the DOCUMENTS with specificity; 21 b. Identify the privilege claimed or other reason why the DOCUMENTS is 22 not produced; 23 c. State the names and capacities of all persons who participated in the 24 preparation of the DOCUMENTS; and 25 d. State the names and capacities of all persons to whom the document was 26 circulated or its contents communicated. 27 17. In the event that, subsequent to the service of YOUR responses to these Requests 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -4- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 for Production of Documents, any DOCUMENTS, information, or material come to YOUR 2 attention, possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to any request herein, YOU are 3 required to supplement YOUR response(s) and furnish such additional DOCUMENTS, 4 information, or material to PLAINTIFF as soon as possible. 5 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 6 Defendant has not yet fully completed an investigation of the circumstances and facts 7 relating to this lawsuit and has not completed preparation for trial of this action. It is anticipated 8 that further discovery, independent investigation, and further analysis shall supply additional 9 documents, evidence and information. Defendant's responses herein are based upon such 10 documents, evidence, and information presently known to defendant and are given without 11 prejudice to defendant's right to revise these responses, produce subsequently discovered 12 documents, evidence or information at the time of trial or the hearing of any motion. Furthermore, 13 defendant reserves the right to produce documents, evidence and information of any facts which 14 may later be discovered. 15 Nothing set forth herein by defendant is intended, or shall be construed, as a 16 waiver of any objection defendant may assert under the California Evidence Code, California 17 Code of Civil Procedure, or otherwise which would require the exclusion of any response herein 18 at the time of trial or at the hearing of any motion. Such objections are expressly reserved and 19 may be made at such later time. 20 Defendant further specifically objects to all instructions, definitions, and requests 21 22 to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney 23 work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or immunity. Any response provided 24 herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any privilege available to defendant. 25 Defendant also objects to each and every demand on the ground that it improperly 26 requests documents from more than one defendant. Accordingly, Defendant answers only on 27 behalf of Defendant KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC. 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -5- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, each response will be as complete and 2 straightforward as the information reasonably available to these responding parties permits. 3 Where a part of a demand is objectionable, the remainder of the demand will be answered when 4 possible. 5 Defendant further objects to all references to Plaintiff as "employee" and 6 Defendant as "employer" on the basis that it constitutes an impermissible legal conclusion. 7 Defendant further objects that the foregoing terminology is vague, ambiguous and 8 unintelligible in that it does not specify whether it is referring to the employment relationship 9 between Plaintiff and MA Medina or attributing any relationship between Plaintiff and 10 Defendant to be an employment relationship. 11 Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections and incorporating the foregoing 12 preliminary statement into each and every of the following responses to the extent applicable, 13 defendant responds to the request for production and inspection of documents as follows: 14 15 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 17 All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR 18 policies, procedures or practices regarding the provision, timing and enforcement of rest periods 19 for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 21 Defendant objects that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and oppressive, is 22 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and improperly violates 23 the right of privacy of third parties, to the extent the request seeks information relating to 24 Defendant's employees who did not work through MA Medina. Without waiving said objections, 25 and limiting the request to responsive documents relating to co-Defendant MA Medina workers, 26 Defendant responds as follows: The requested documents, if any, are in the possession, custody 27 and control of co-Defendant MA Medina. 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -6- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 LEGAL AND FACTUAL ARGUMENT FOR COMPELLING KERN RIDGE GROWER, 2 LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS NO. 2: 3 Parties are entitled to broad discovery rights and discovery rules are applied liberally in 4 favor of discovery. Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546. California Code of 5 Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not 6 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved...if the matter either is itself admissible 7 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 Discovery may relate to the claim...of the party seeking discovery. Discovery may be obtained of 9 the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of 10 the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible 11 thing, or land or other property....[.]” 12 Furthermore, due process requires that Plaintiff be allowed to conduct discovery on class 13 issues before filing a motion for class certification. Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 14 Cal.App.4th 239, 244; see also, Cal. Rule of Court 3.763 (“… the court may make an order: … 15 (2) Establishing a schedule for discovery….”); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 16 543-544; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 562; 17 Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257-1259; Bartold v. Glendale Federal 18 Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 836; Hill v. Eddie Bauer (2007) 242 F.R.D. 556, 565. “Doubts 19 as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial should generally be 20 resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]” Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 21 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 9–11. Here, Defendant’s objections are vague and improper, and seek to evade 22 Defendant’s statutory obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to discover relevant and 23 discoverable materials within Defendant’s possession, custody or control. 24 Defendant’s objections that this request is overbroad and that the request seeks documents 25 which are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 26 are without merit. Plaintiff’s Request seeks discovery of basic documents that are routinely 27 produced in wage-and-hour class actions. Such documents are directly relevant to certification of 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -7- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 the wage-and-hour claims asserted in this lawsuit, and Plaintiff can articulate fact-specific reasons 2 why the discovery is appropriate, See Glenfed, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117. The request is 3 specifically tailored to the persons and time period at issue in the operative complaint; that is, the 4 “COVERED EMPLOYEES” are defined to match the definition of the proposed Class Members 5 as defined by the operative complaint, and the “COVERED PERIOD” is defined to match the 6 “Class Period” as defined by the operative complaint. Furthermore, the complaint expressly 7 asserts a claim based on Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members 8 with lawful rest breaks, so the requested documents are directly relevant to this litigation. Thus, 9 by limiting the request to the persons, time period and issues encompassed by the allegations 10 in the complaint, the request falls squarely within the scope of permissible discovery. Code 11 Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. To the extent that Defendant may disagree that Plaintiff will 12 ultimately be able to represent all of the putative class members as defined by the operative 13 complaint, this is not a proper basis for Defendant’s refusal to respond to the request; it is 14 well-established that a discovery motion is not the right vehicle to limit the scope of an action, 15 and there has been no ruling limiting the proposed class as defined by the operative complaint to 16 date. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 12. The Court 17 conditionally granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Kern Ridge Growers, LLC to provide further 18 responses to specially prepared interrogatories set two. In opposition of that motion, Defendant 19 raised arguments predicated on the same basis which the Court rejected. 20 Defendant’s objection that the request seeks information which “improperly violates 21 the right of privacy of third parties, to the extent the request seeks information relating to 22 Defendant’s employees who did not work through MA Medina” is also without merit. The 23 request is limited to persons who are putative class members as defined by the operative 24 complaint. Based on the plain language of the request, the request does not seek privileged 25 or private materials, and Defendant has not identified any private information which it 26 believes is encompassed by the Request. Even assuming arguendo that the request did seek 27 private information (which Plaintiff disputes), Plaintiff is agreeable to the use of a protective 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -8- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 order which would immediately absolve any purported concerns regarding third party privacy. 2 Defendant’s vague and speculative objection regarding some unidentified privacy consideration 3 does not outweigh the need for the discovery sought. 4 Defendant’s objections that this request is unduly burdensome also lacks merit. The 5 request is not unduly burdensome. In any case, it is well-established that an “objection based upon 6 burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” West Pico 7 Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. Here, Defendant has failed to 8 quantify or provide any evidence regarding its contentions of undue burden. Defendant has 9 provided no information which would allow Plaintiff or the Court to assess the actual burden of 10 production such as, e.g., the number of responsive documents that may exist, how or where the 11 documents are maintained, or the time or expense it would take to pull the documents. In 12 addition, the objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in 13 injustice. Id. at 418 (noting that the objecting party must demonstrate that the burden involved in 14 answering the request is so unjust that it amounts to oppression); see also Columbia Broadcasting 15 System, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (explaining that in order to determine 16 whether the burden is unjust involves a weighing process as to whether the utility of the 17 information sought so minimal, and the amount of work is so great, that it would defeat the ends 18 of justice to require the responding party to answer). Here, the interests of Plaintiff and the 19 putative class members outweigh Defendant’s vague and unsupported assertions of burden. 20 Additionally, Defendant’s attempt to pass its discovery obligations onto its co-Defendant 21 is improper. Responses to Request for Productions must contain “a statement that the party will 22 comply with the particular demand,” or “a representation that the party lacks the ability to 23 comply.” Code Civ. Proc. §2031.210(a). Defendant is thus obligated to make a good faith attempt 24 to respond to the discovery. Defendant cannot evade producing documents by telling Plaintiff to 25 ask Defendant MA Medina. 26 In sum, Defendant’s objections, its failure to provide a response which complies with the 27 requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its efforts to unilaterally limit the scope of the 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -9- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 request (so as not to pertain to all “COVERED EMPOYEES” as defined by the Request) are 2 without merit. Thus, good cause exists for an order requiring Defendant to supplement its 3 response to this Request. 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 5 All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR 6 policies, procedures or practices regarding the provision, timing and enforcement of meal periods 7 for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. 8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 9 Defendant objects that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and oppressive, is 10 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and improperly violates 11 the right of privacy of third parties, to the extent the request seeks information relating to 12 Defendant's employees who did not work through MA Medina. Without waiving said objections, 13 and limiting the request to responsive documents relating to co-Defendant MA Medina workers,, 14 Defendant responds as follows: The requested documents, if any, are in the possession, custody 15 and control of co-Defendant MA Medina. 16 LEGAL AND FACTUAL ARGUMENT FOR COMPELLING KERN RIDGE GROWER, 17 LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 18 Parties are entitled to broad discovery rights and discovery rules are applied liberally in 19 favor of discovery. Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546. California Code of 20 Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not 21 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved...if the matter either is itself admissible 22 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23 Discovery may relate to the claim...of the party seeking discovery. Discovery may be obtained of 24 the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of 25 the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible 26 thing, or land or other property....[.]” 27 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -10- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 Furthermore, due process requires that Plaintiff be allowed to conduct discovery on class 2 issues before filing a motion for class certification. Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 3 Cal.App.4th 239, 244; see also, Cal. Rule of Court 3.763 (“… the court may make an order: … 4 (2) Establishing a schedule for discovery….”); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 5 543-544; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 562; 6 Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257-1259; Bartold v. Glendale Federal 7 Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 836; Hill v. Eddie Bauer (2007) 242 F.R.D. 556, 565. “Doubts 8 as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial should generally be 9 resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]” Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 10 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 9–11. Here, Defendant’s objections are vague and improper, and seek to evade 11 Defendant’s statutory obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to discover relevant and 12 discoverable materials within Defendant’s possession, custody or control. 13 Defendant’s objections that this request is overbroad and that the request seeks documents 14 which are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 15 are without merit. The request is specifically tailored to the persons and time period at issue in the 16 operative complaint; that is, the “COVERED EMPLOYEES” are defined to match the definition 17 of the proposed Class Members as defined by the operative complaint, and the “COVERED 18 PERIOD” is defined to match the “Class Period” as defined by the operative complaint. 19 Furthermore, the complaint expressly asserts a claim based on Defendants’ failure to provide 20 Plaintiff and other putative class members with lawful meal periods, so the requested documents 21 are directly relevant to this litigation. Thus, by limiting the request to the persons, time period and 22 issues encompassed by the allegations in the complaint, the request falls squarely within the scope 23 of permissible discovery. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. To the extent that Defendant may disagree 24 that Plaintiff will ultimately be able to represent all of the putative class members as defined by 25 the operative complaint, this is not a proper basis for Defendant’s refusal to respond to the 26 request; it is well-established that a discovery motion is not the right vehicle to limit the scope of 27 an action, and there has been no ruling limiting the proposed class as defined by the operative 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -11- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 complaint to date. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 12. The 2 Court conditionally granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Kern Ridge Growers, LLC to provide 3 further responses to specially prepared interrogatories set two. In opposition of that motion, 4 Defendant raised arguments predicated on the same basis which the Court rejected. 5 Defendant’s objection that the request seeks information which “may violate the privacy 6 rights of third persons” is also without merit. Based on the plain language of the request, the 7 request does not seek privileged or private materials, and Defendant has not identified any private 8 information which it believes is encompassed by the Request. Even assuming arguendo that the 9 request did seek private information (which Plaintiff disputes), Plaintiff is agreeable to the use of 10 a protective order which would immediately absolve any purported concerns regarding third party 11 privacy. Defendant’s vague and speculative objection regarding some unidentified privacy 12 consideration does not outweigh the need for the discovery sought. 13 Defendant’s objections that this request is unduly burdensome also lacks merit. The 14 request is not unduly burdensome. In any case, it is well-established that an “objection based 15 upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” West Pico 16 Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. Here, Defendant has failed to quantify 17 or provide any evidence regarding its contentions of undue burden. Defendant has provided no 18 information which would allow Plaintiff or the Court to assess the actual burden of production 19 such as, e.g., the number of responsive documents that may exist, how or where the documents 20 are maintained, or the time or expense it would take to pull the documents. In addition, the 21 objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice. Id. at 418 22 (noting that the objecting party must demonstrate that the burden involved in answering the 23 request is so unjust that it amounts to oppression); see also Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. 24 v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (explaining that in order to determine whether the 25 burden is unjust involves a weighing process as to whether the utility of the information sought so 26 minimal, and the amount of work is so great, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the 27 28 MATERN LAW GROU P, PC PL.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO 1230 ROSECRANS -12- AVENUE, STE 200 COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MANHATTAN 1 responding party to answer). Here, the interests of Plaintiff and the putative class members 2 outweigh Defendant’s vague and unsupported assertions of burden. 3 In sum, Defendant’s objections, its failure to provide a response which complies with the 4 requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its efforts to unilaterally limit the scope of the 5 request (so as not to pertain to all “COVERED EMPOYEES” as defined by the Request) are 6 without merit. Thus, good cause