No Value: Victoria Tice, etc., v. Trader Joe’s Company

On February 14, 2020 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Tice, Victoria, and Trader Joe'S Company, for Unlimited Other Employment (15) in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.

Preview
1 Helene Wasserman, Bar No. 130134
hwasserman@littler.com
2 Shannon R. Boyce, Bar No. 229041
sboyce@littler.com
3 Melissa Velez, Bar No. 316714
mvelez@littler.com
4 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East
5 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067.3107
6 Telephone: 310.553.0308
Fax No.: 310.553.5583
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
11

12
VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892
13 behalf of all others similarly situated,
DECLARATION OF MELISSA VELEZ
14 Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY’S
15 v. MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
16 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, RECORDS TO COMDATA, INC.
17
Defendant. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
18 JUDGE THOMAS P. ANDERLE, DEPT. 3

19 Date: August 31, 2022
Time: 10:00 a.m.
20 Dept.: 3

21 Trial Date: February 14, 2020
Complaint Filed: February 14, 2020
22

28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
1.
DECLARATION OF MELISSA VELEZ ISO MOTION TO QUASH COMDATA SUBPOENA
1 DECLARATION OF MELISSA VELEZ

2 I, MELISSA VELEZ, declare as follows:

3 1. I am an associate attorney with the law firm of Littler Mendelson, P.C., counsel of

4 record for Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Trader Joe’s” or “Defendant”), in this action. I make

5 this declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena for

6 Production of Business Records to Comdata, Inc. (the “Subpoena”) Except as otherwise indicated,

7 I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would

8 testify competently thereto.

9 2. On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”) sent a letter to Comdata, Inc.

10 (“Comdata”) informing Comdata of the forthcoming Subpoena and detailing Plaintiff’s

11 interpretation of her obligations under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3.

12 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s June 1, 2022, letter to

13 Comdata.

14 3. On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff issued the Subpoena to Comdata, and served my office

15 electronically via email . Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the June8,

16 2022, Subpoena.

17 4. On June 22, 2022, my office sent a meet and confer letter via email to Plaintiff’s

18 counsel Larry W. Lee, Max W. Gavron, and William L. Marder objecting to the Subpoena on

19 grounds that it is defective because Plaintiff failed to provide notice to consumer pursuant to

20 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3. The letter requested that Plaintiff withdraw the

21 Subpoena. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the June 22, 2022, meet and

22 confer letter to Mr. Lee, Mr. Gavron, and Mr. Marder.

23 5. On June 29, 2022, Mr. Gavron sent my office a response to the meet and confer

24 letter via email declining to comply with the consumer notice requirements of Section 1985.3.

25 Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Mr. Gavron’s June 29, 2022, letter.

26 6. Following the exchange of letters, on July 11, 2022, the Parties attended an informal

27 discovery conference with the Court, but did not reach an informal resolution on the consumer

28 notice issue.
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
2.
DECLARATION OF MELISSA VELEZ ISO MOTION TO QUASH COMDATA SUBPOENA
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

2 is true and correct.

3 Executed this 15th day of July, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.

4
________________________
5 MELISSA VELEZ
6

28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
3.
310.553.0308

DECLARATION OF MELISSA VELEZ ISO MOTION TO QUASH COMDATA SUBPOENA
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
515 S. FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1250
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 488-6555
FACSIMILE (213) 488-6554

Our File No.
20042.001

June 8, 2022

VIA E-MAIL

Sean Kirk
Comdata Inc.
5301 Maryland Way, Suite 100
Brentwood, TN 37027
Sean.Kirk@fleetcor.com

Re: Victoria Tice v. Trader Joe’s Company
Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. 20CV00892

Dear Mr. Kirk:

As we discussed on our call on June 8, 2022, this office represents Victoria Tice
(“Plaintiff”) in a civil action pending in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No.
20CV00892 against Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”).

Enclosed please find a subpoena requesting certain records related to your provision of
preloaded pay cards for distribution to Defendant’s former employees upon separation of
employment.

We only request information regarding Posting Date, Trans Type, Trans Date, Fee
Amount, and Payroll Load for certain individuals. The information regarding the identity of the
individuals for whom we seek information and their corresponding account and routing numbers
is subject to a protective order. Paragraph 7.e. of the protective order provides that confidential
information may be disclosed to “any deposition, trial, or hearing witness in the Proceeding who
previously has had access to the Confidential Materials, or who is currently or was previously an
officer, director, partner, member, employee or agent of an entity that has had access to the
Confidential Materials.” Here, Comdata has had access to the account and routing numbers of
the individuals for whom we seek information. As we discussed, Comdata is not inclined to sign
Exhibit A to the Protective Order because it is not required pursuant to the terms of the
Protective Order.

To preserve the confidentiality of the account and routing number information for the
employees for whom we seek information, you have graciously agreed to accept service of
Appendix A of to the subpoena directly via email, which includes the information subject to the
protective order. We will serve the subpoena on Comdata’s agent for service of process and
provide you with the Appendix directly under separate cover.

27.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

June 8, 2022
Page 2

We look forward to your response to the subpoena, and please reach out if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,

Max W. Gavron

Encls.

cc: Comdata Inc. c/o CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service via messenger
Helene Wasserman, Littler Mendelson, P.C. via email (hwasserman@littler.com)
Shannon R. Boyce, Littler Mendelson, P.C. via email (sboyce@littler.com)

28.
SUBP-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Max W. Gavron (SBN 291697)
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, CA 90071

TELEPHONE NO.:(213) 488-6555 FAX NO.:

mgavron@diversitylaw.com
E-MAIL ADDRESS:

Plaintiff Victoria Tice
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
STREET ADDRESS:1100 Anacapa Street
MAILING ADDRESS:

Santa Barbara, CA 93121
CITY AND ZIP CODE:
BRANCH NAME:Santa Barbara
PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER: Victoria Tice
DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT: Trader Joe's Company
CASE NUMBER:
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA 20CV00892
FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known):
Comdata Inc., 5301 Maryland Way, Suite 100, Brentwood, TN 37027
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows:
To (name of deposition officer): ACE Imaging Technologies, Inc.
On (date): July 14, 2022 At (time): 10:00 A.M.
Location (address): 811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above.
a. by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner
wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner
wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the
address in item 1.
b. by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the
witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as
determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b).
c. by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the
attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal
business hours.
2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the
deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them
available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be
accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561.
3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or
forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified):
See Attachment 3.
Continued on Attachment 3.
4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN
SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: June 8, 2022
Max W. Gavron
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)

Attorney for Plaintiff Victoria Tice
(TITLE)

(Proof of service on reverse) Page 1 of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2020.410–2020.440;
Judicial Council of California DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Government Code, § 68097.1
SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012]
OF BUSINESS RECORDS www.courts.ca.gov
29.
SUBP-010
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Victoria Tice CASE NUMBER:

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Trader Joe's Company 20CV00892

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
1. I served this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy to the person served
as follows:
a. Person served (name):
b. Address where served:

c. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
e. (1) Witness fees were paid.
$
Amount: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Copying fees were paid.
$
Amount: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Fee for service: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

2. I received this subpoena for service on (date):
3. Person serving:
a. Not a registered California process server.
b. California sheriff or marshal.
c. Registered California process server.
d. Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server.
e. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
f. Registered professional photocopier.
g. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451.
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoing is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: Date:

(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)

SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012] Page 2 of 2
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION
OF BUSINESS RECORDS
30.
1 ATTACHMENT A
2 DEFINITIONS
3 A. “YOU” or “YOUR” refer to COMDATA.
4 B. “DOCUMENT” OR “DOCUMENTS” means and includes the original or copies
5 of any written, printed, typed, recorded, computerized, electronic, taped, graphic or other matter,
6 in whatever form, whether in final or draft, including but not limited to all materials and things
7 that constitute “WRITINGS” or “RECORDINGS” as defined in California Evidence Code
8 § 250. “DOCUMENT” OR “DOCUMENTS” further include, but are not limited to, all records,
9 diaries, journals, letters, notes, memorandum, correspondence, telexes, facsimiles, sound
10 recordings, intra or inter-office communications, contracts, supplements, comments, agreements,
11 checks, bank statements, invoices, charge slips, receipts, bills, notebooks, complaints, intake
12 forms, instructions, pamphlets, booklets, questionnaires, computer data, however stored,
13 including data stored on or in diskettes and disk drives, time cards, printouts, data sheets, or
14 anything otherwise defined as a “writing,” “recording,” “photograph,” “original,” or “duplicate”
15 by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or anything similar to any of the foregoing,
16 however denominated by the responding party, as well as copies, including archived copies,
17 amendments, modifications and drafts of the foregoing. If you are not in custody or control of
18 the original document, “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean the original or any copy
19 or reproduction or facsimile thereof. If you are in custody or control of the original and copies,
20 reproductions or facsimiles, the term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean the
21 original and any copy or reproduction or facsimile thereof that is in any way different from the
22 original.
23 C. “PERTAINING TO,” “PERTAIN TO,” “RELATE TO,” and “RELATING TO”
24 mean referring to, relating to, concerning, reporting, regarding, embodying, establishing,
25 evidencing, comprising, connected with, commencing on, responding to, showing,
26 demonstrating, describing, setting forth, containing, analyzing, reflecting, presenting or being in
27 any way factually connected with.
28 ///
1

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF
31.
PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION – ATTACHMENT A
1 D. “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD” shall mean at any time from February 10, 2019,
2 through the present.
3 RECORDS TO BE PRODUCED
4 1. All DOCUMENTS showing, reflecting, or PERTAINING TO any and all
5 transactions, reflecting the Posting Date, Trans Type, Trans Date, Fee Amount of each respective
6 transaction for each account listed in Appendix A 1 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
7 2. All DOCUMENTS owing, reflecting, or PERTAINING TO any and all
8 transactions reflecting the Trans Type “Payroll Load” for each account listed in Appendix A
9 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 1
Pursuant to agreement of Plaintiff Victoria Tice and the deponent, Comdata, Inc. (“Comdata”),
Comdata has agreed to accept service of Appendix A under separate cover to preserve the
28 confidentiality of the information. 2

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF
32.
PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION – ATTACHMENT A
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5)
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ]
4 ]ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ]
5
6 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250,
7 Los Angeles, California 90071.
8 On June 8, 2022, I served the following document(s) described as: DEPOSITION
9 SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS on the interested parties in
this action as follows:
10
Helene Wasserman hwasserman@littler.com
11 Shannon R. Boyce sboyce@littler.com
12 Melissa Velez mvelez@littler.com
Carolyn Ward cward@littler.com
13 Littler Mendelson, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
14 Los Angeles, CA 90067
15 Attorneys for Defendant Trader Joe’s
Company
16
X BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: by personally sending a true and correct copy of
17 the above-described document(s) to the party(ies) listed above or on the attached mailing list
18 from the e-mail server diversitylaw.com, to the electronic transmission address of the recipient(s)
indicated above or on the attached mailing list. I certify that said electronic transmission was
19 completed and that all pages were received by the party(ies) identified herein or on the attached
mailing list.
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct. Executed on June 8, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
22
23 _________________________________
24 Linda Lee

25
26
27
28

33.
PROOF OF SERVICE
34.
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
2049 Century Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107

Shannon R. Boyce
310.712.7304 direct
310.553.0308 main
310.553.5583 fax
sboyce@littler.com

June 22, 2022

VIA EMAIL

Larry W. Lee
Max W. Gavron
Diversity Law Group, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
lwlee@diversitylaw.com
mgavron@diversitylaw.com

William L. Marder
Polaris Law Group LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
bill@polarislawgroup.com

Re: Victoria Tice v. Trader Joe’s Company, Santa Barbara County Superior Court,
Case No. 20CV00892

Counsel:

This letter serves as our good faith attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff Victoria Tice’s
(“Plaintiff”) defective June 8, 2022, Business Records Subpoena to Comdata, Inc. (the “Subpoena”). The
subpoena fails to adhere to the procedural requirements for Notice to Consumers of Privacy Rights under
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3, exploits repeated misrepresentations by Plaintiff to the
Court, and exceeds the scope of the subpoena as represented to the Court. For these reasons, the
Subpoena is improper and unenforceable, and Plaintiff must withdraw the Subpoena. This shall serve as
our attempt to meet and confer with you in an effort to avoid judicial intervention.

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff moved to compel the production of routing and account numbers for
Comdata cards issued to former crew members. In response to Trader Joe’s Company’s (“Defendant” or
“Trader Joe’s”) concern regarding the severe invasion of third‐party financial privacy rights, in her reply
brief Plaintiff purported to advance a “solution that balance[d] the privacy interests of aggrieved
employees with the need for information.” Plaintiff’s Reply Brief 2:10‐12. “Plaintiff proposed that Trans
Details, Trans City, Amount, and Running Balance Column from the account ledger could all be redacted

35.
littler.com
Larry W. Lee
Max W. Gavron
William L. Marder
June 22, 2022
Page 2

with the exception of the first row, which denotes the final wages loaded on the paycard by Defendant.
In other words, the records would reflect when the card was loaded, and whether the employee incurred
any fees, and if so, the type of fees and date incurred.” Id. at 2:23‐27. Additionally, Plaintiff assured the
Court that if it ordered “Defendant to produce the account and routing numbers, such that Plaintiff would
be able to subpoena COMDATA, Plaintiff would engage a third‐party administrator to assist in the
distribution of a notice to consumer to all aggrieved employees.” Id. at 4:14‐17. Plaintiff’s reply brief goes
on to represent that she “would be able to provide a notice to consumer to each aggrieved employee to
[sic] in conjunction with any subpoena issued, and allow the appropriate amount of time to transpire prior
to release of any records from COMDATA.” Id. at 4:19‐21. Plaintiff further stated in her reply that she
“generally [did] not dispute the requirements for obtaining consumer records in California . . . .” Id. at
4:6‐8.

In the February 1, 2022, Supplemental Declaration of Max W. Gavron in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel, Mr. Gavron similarly ensures the Court:

If the Court orders Defendant to produce the account and routing numbers, such that
Plaintiff would be able to subpoena COMDATA, I would engage a third‐party
administrator to assist in the distribution of a notice to consumer to all aggrieved
employees . . . Thus, Plaintiff would be able to provide a notice to consumer to each
aggrieved employee to in conjunction with any subpoena issued, and allow the
appropriate amount of time to transpire prior to release of any records from COMDATA.

Gavron Decl. 2:10‐16. In ordering the production of the routing and account numbers, the Court relied
upon Plaintiff’s and Mr. Gavron’s representations and assurances that Plaintiff would employ a solution
to balance the privacy interests of the former crew members.

In an about face, in her June 1, 2022, letter to Comdata, Inc.,Plaintiff drastically departed from her
previous representations to the Court. First, Plaintiff now indicated that she sought Posting Date Trans
Type, Trans Date, Fee Amount, and Payroll Load. Second, Plaintiff attempted to circumvent her
obligations under Section 1985.3 and previous representations to the Court by citing to vague authority
ostensibly supporting her position that as a PAGA plaintiff she is not subject to the provisions of Section
1985.3.

Plaintiff then issued the June 8, 2022, Subpoena without any evidence that she either provided a notice
to consumer to each former crew member whose private financial information was the subject of the
subpoena nor did she provide any evidence that she engaged a third‐party administrator to assist in the
distribution of a notice to consumer to the affected former crew members. Moreover, the Subpoena
exceeded the scope of the categories of information Plaintiff represented to the Court she intended to
seek in the Subpoena by seeking in Request 1 Posting Date, Trans Type, Trans Date, and Fee Amount data
and in Request 2 Payroll Load data without any redactions.

36.
littler.com
Larry W. Lee
Max W. Gavron
William L. Marder
June 22, 2022
Page 3

The Subpoena Fails to Satisfy the Requirements of Section 1985.3

The Subpoena lacks any evidence or indication that Plaintiff complied with the consumer notice of privacy
rights requirements under Section 1985.3 nor engaged any third‐party administrator to provide notice.
Special notice and procedures are required for production of the “personal records” of a “consumer” or
employee, to protect that person’s right of privacy. Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 1985.3. Especially in
circumstances such as these where highly sensitive personal financial information is at stake, the purpose
is to provide consumers the opportunity to seek a court order to quash or limit the subpoena before the
records are disclosed. The information sought here reveals when and where former crew members
banked, made purchases, checked their account balances, and made banking transfers, amongst other
financial data points. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3(b), a consumer must receive
a copy of the subpoena which seeks their records, as well as a notice of privacy rights. Failure to comply
with these requirements by itself invalidates the service. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3(k).

Plaintiff now claims that as a PAGA plaintiff she is not subject to the requirements of Section 1985.3, but
her position is severely misguided. California Government Code Section 7465 does not contemplate the
exemption of a PAGA plaintiff from the procedural requirements of Section 1985.3. Particularly where
highly sensitive personal financial information is at stake, Plaintiff’s misplaced reliance on a convenient,
albeit vague, reading of the code section fails to make a credible argument. Section 1985.3(j) sets forth
an exhaustive list of the types of proceedings under the California Labor Code to which the requirements
of Section 1985 do not apply. Proceedings under the Private Attorney General Act pursuant to Labor Code
Section 2699 are not included in this list. Accordingly, Plaintiff must withdraw the defective Subpoena
and comply with the requirements of Section 1985.3 pursuant to the representations made to the Court
in her reply brief, including engaging a third‐party administrator.

The Court’s Order Was Based Upon on Representations by Plaintiff

Notably, Plaintiff did not raise with the Court this interesting, new argument. Rather, Plaintiff stated in
her reply that she “generally [did] not dispute the requirements for obtaining consumer records in
California . . . .”
Plaintiff repeatedly represented to the Court her commitment to a solution that balanced
the privacy interests of former crew members but now abandons these critical safeguards. Despite
assurances that she would engage a third‐party administrator to provide consumer notice of privacy rights
with the appropriate amount of time, Plaintiff failed to do so and now scoffs at any obligations to provide
notice. The Court ordered the production of account and routing numbers based on the representation
in Plaintiff’s briefing and in the declaration of Max W. Gavron. Plaintiff’s and Mr. Gavron’s departure from
these obligations exploits the representations she made to the Court. Should this issue require further
judicial intervention, Defendant anticipates the Court will necessarily identify this significant departure
and apparent violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See California Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal.

37.
littler.com
Larry W. Lee
Max W. Gavron
William L. Marder
June 22, 2022
Page 4

Plaintiff’s Subpoena Exceeds the Scope of Her Representations to the Court

The scope of the Subpoena is also broader than what Plaintiff previously represented to the
Court. Specifically, as noted above, Plaintiff stated in her reply brief that she would seek the following:
“Trans Details, Trans City, Amount, and Running Balance Column from the account ledger could all be
redacted with the exception of the first row, which denotes the final wages loaded on the paycard by
Defendant. In other words, the records would reflect when the card was loaded, and whether the
employee incurred any fees, and if so, the type of fees and date incurred.” Yet, in Request 1 and 2 the
Subpoena seeks the following categories of documentation without any redactions or limitations: Posting
Date, Trans Type, Trans Date, Fee Amount data, and Payroll Load data. Again, the Subpoena departs from
representations Plaintiff made to the Court as to the contents of the planned subpoena. Additionally, the
term “Payroll Load” is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff must limit the requests in the Subpoena to only the
categories identified in her reply brief and include the redactions she represented to the Court.

Based on the foregoing, it is Defendant’s position that Plaintiff should withdraw the Subpoena. Please let
me know by Friday, July 1, 2022, if Plaintiff intends to withdraw the current subpoena. We are hopeful
that we can resolve the noted issues without judicial intervention, and we look forward to hearing from
you.

Sincerely,

Shannon R. Boyce

Cc: Sean Kirk (Sean.Kirk@fleetcor.com)
Helene Wasserman. Esq. (hwasserman@littler.com)
Melissa Velez, Esq. (mvelez@littler.com)

4881-8489-2197.1 / 099507-1024

38.
littler.com
39.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
515 S. FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1250
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 488-6555
FACSIMILE (213) 488-6554

Our File No.
20042.001

June 29, 2022

VIA EMAIL

Shannon R. Boyce
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067

Re: Victoria Tice v. Trader Joe’s Company
Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. 20CV00892

Dear Shannon:

I address the concerns raised in your letter of June 22, 2022 regarding the subpoena to
COMDATA below. Once you’ve had an opportunity to review this correspondence, I’m happy
to set some time to discuss over the phone to the extent that will further our meet and confer
efforts.

Scope of Subpoena

As you note, I proposed previously that Trans Details, Trans City, Amount, and Running
Balance could all be redacted with the exception of the first row, which denotes the final wages
loaded on the paycard by Defendant. Plaintiff’s subpoena requests:

I am confused as to Defendant’s objection regarding the information requested in the subpoena
versus what I proposed in Plaintiff’s briefing on her motion to compel.

The information requested in the subpoena does not encompass the Trans Details, Trans
City, Amount, or Running Balance data fields, which is the information I previously suggested
40.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

June 29, 2022
Page 2

could be redacted. Perhaps we can address this on a call so I can be sure I understand the
objection.

The Applicability of Section 1985.3

As I mentioned at the Case Management Conference, I think we need the Court to weigh
in on this issue.

I did anticipate serving Section 1985.3 notices to consumer at the time we were briefing
the motion to compel and represented as much to you and the Court. I also explained that the
issues regarding Section 1985.3 that Defendant raised were not ripe for consideration by the
Court on the motion to compel because the motion was focused on discovery responses—not a
subpoena to a third party. See Plaintiff’s Reply Section IV (“If the Court grants Plaintiff’s current
Motion and Plaintiff subpoenas the aggrieved employees’ records from COMDATA, Defendant may
move to quash any subpoena it deems defective, Code Civ. Pro. § 1987.1—at which point, the issues
raised in Defendant’s opposition might be ripe for the Court’s consideration”).

Case Info

Judge

Anderle, Thomas P Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 15, 2022

Case Filing Date

February 14, 2020

County

Parties

Gavron, Max W Attorney for the Plaintiff
Marder, William L Attorney for the Plaintiff
Tice, Victoria Plaintiff
Trader Joe's Company Defendant
Wasserman, Helene J Attorney for the Defendant
Shannon Boyce Attorneys for Defendants
Melissa Velez Attorneys for Defendants
Larry Lee Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Veronica Ramos Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Thomas Pier Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kennell Sambour Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Kneale Attorney
Martha Escutia Attorney
Amagda Perez Attorney
Darrell Steinberg Attorney
Ellen Corbett Attorney
Joel Garcia Attorneys for Defendants
Donald Miller Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: Victoria Tice, etc., v. Trader Joe’s Company

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties