Preview
1 Norman B. Blumenthal (SBN 68687)
Kyle R. Nordrehaug (SBN 205975)
2 Aparajit Bhowmik (SBN 248066)
Jeffrey S. Herman (SBN 280058)
3 ELECTRONICALLY
Christine T. LeVu (SBN 288271)
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP F I L E D
4 2255 Calle Clara Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 07/14/2021
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Clerk of the Court
6 BY: ERNALYN BURA
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 GREGORY BARTLETT and CASSANDRA Case No. CGC-21-589761
VAGLIENTY, on behalf of the State of
14 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T.
California, as private attorney generals,
LEVU IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION TO
15 DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
16 v. COMPLAINT
17 Date: July 27, 2021
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California Time: 9:30 a.m.
18 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Dept. 302
Inclusive, Judge: Hon. Ethan Schulman
19
Defendants.
20
Action filed: February 16, 2021
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
LEVU DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU
2 I, Christine T. LeVu, declare as follows:
3 1. I am one of attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs GREGORY BARTLETT and
4 CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY (“Plaintiffs”) in the above entitled action, and have personal
5 knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness could testify
6 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on information and belief, and as to such
7 matters I believe them to be true.
8 2. On April 23, 2021, Defendant TRADER JOE’S COMPANY (“Defendant”) served
9 verified responses to Plaintiff s’ Special Interrogatories, Set One. In Defendant’s response No. 9,
10 Defendant asserted that “Defendant’s investigation and discovery are ongoing and Defendant
11 expressly reserves the right to assert any and all challenges to typicality. Based on a limited
12 investigation, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are not typical of the putative class members (1)
13 to the extent they did not work overtime, and (2) because Defendant has a decentralized model
14 under which the ‘Captain’ at each individual store makes decisions regarding working conditions
15 for that store.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s verified
16 responses to Plaintiff s’ Special Interrogatories, Set One.
17 3. Plaintiff CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY’s personnel records show that she worked
18 out of the Tustin store location for Defendant.
19 4. Plaintiff GREGORY BARTLETT’s personnel records show that he worked out of
20 the San Francisco store location for Defendant.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of July, 2021, at San Diego, California
23
24
_________________________________
25 Christine T. LeVu
26
27
28
2
LEVU DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 1
1 APALLA U. CHOPRA (S.B. #163207)
achopra@omm.com
2 SUSANNAH K. HOWARD (S.B. # 291326)
showard@omm.com
3 ANDREW LICHTENSTEIN (S.B. #279297)
alichtenstein@omm.com
4 MARNI F. BARTA (S.B. #313412)
mbarta@omm.com
5 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street
6 18ᵗʰ Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
7 Telephone: +1 213 430 6000
Facsimile: +1 213 430 6407
8
Attorneys for Defendant
9 Trader Joe’s Company
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13
GREGORY BARTLETT and CASSANDRA Case No. CGC-20-588293
14 VAGLIENTY, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF
15 similarly situated, DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S
COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS’
16 Plaintiffs,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
17 v. ONE
18 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California Complaint Filed: December 4, 2020
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive;
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY
23 RESPONDING PARTY: TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
24 SET NO.: One (Nos. 1-20)
25
26
27
28
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210 et seq., Defendant Trader Joe’s
2 Company (“Defendant” or “Trader Joe’s”) hereby submits its responses to Plaintiff Cassandra
3 Vaglienty (“Plaintiff’s”) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as follows:
4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
5 The following Responses are based on the information that is presently known and
6 available to Defendant and its attorneys, and include hearsay information and other data
7 inadmissible in evidence at trial, although it may be discoverable. Defendant’s discovery,
8 investigation, and preparation for trial are not yet completed and are continuing as of the date of
9 this response. Accordingly, the Responses set forth below represent only information currently
10 available and known following a reasonable investigation within the time permitted. Defendant
11 expressly reserves the right to continue in its discovery and investigation herein for facts,
12 documents, witnesses, and supplemental data that may reveal information which, if presently
13 within its knowledge, Defendant would have included in these Responses. Defendant specifically
14 reserves the right to present additional information as may be disclosed through its continuing
15 discovery and investigation.
16 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
17 The following General Objections, whether specifically stated or not, are incorporated into
18 each of Defendant’s Responses to the Interrogatories contained in Plaintiff’s Special
19 Interrogatories:
20 1. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that the Interrogatories
21 purport to impose any burdens that are inconsistent with, or not otherwise authorized by, the
22 California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court, or any other Order of this
23 Court. Defendant will construe and respond to the Interrogatories in a manner consistent with the
24 California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court.
25 2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
26 protected by: (1) the attorney-client privilege; (2) the attorney work-product doctrine; (3) the
27 common interest privilege; (4) the privilege for mediation discussions and offers of compromise;
28 or (5) any other privilege or immunity recognized by law. Any inadvertent production of
-2-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 privileged or protected information shall not constitute a waiver, in whole or in part, of any such
2 privilege.
3 3. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
4 outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.
5 4. In providing these responses to the Special Interrogatories, Defendant does not in
6 any way waive, or intend to waive, but rather intends to preserve and is preserving: (a) all
7 objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility; (b) all rights to object on
8 any ground to the use of the Special Interrogatories in any subsequent proceedings, including any
9 hearing or trial of this or any other claim; (c) all objections as to vagueness and ambiguity; and
10 (d) all rights to object on any ground to any further discovery demands involving or related to the
11 Interrogatories.
12 5. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent that they seeks
13 information that is neither relevant to any material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to
14 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression,
15 harassment, and unreasonable burden and expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate
16 discovery needs.
17 6. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent that they are
18 overbroad in terms of time period and/or scope.
19 7. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek disclosure
20 of information where such disclosure would violate the privacy rights of any individual or entity,
21 any confidentiality agreement between Defendant and any other person or entity, the
22 confidentiality of settlement discussions or agreements, court orders restricting the disclosure of
23 information, or which otherwise result in the disclosure of confidential or proprietary commercial
24 information, trade secrets, self-critical analyses, or proprietary information the disclosure of
25 which would unduly and improperly invade Defendant’s protected rights.
26 8. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent Plaintiff seeks
27 information that is publicly available, already in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff, or
28 equally available to Plaintiff. Such Special Interrogatories are beyond the scope of permissible
-3-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 discovery and would impose an undue burden on Defendant.
2 9. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they are vague,
3 ambiguous, or potentially subject to multiple interpretations, understandings, or meanings. To the
4 extent that Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Special Interrogatories differ in a material way,
5 Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response(s).
6 Each of the above General Objections is hereby incorporated by reference, as if fully
7 stated therein, in Defendant’s Specific Objections and Responses.
8 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
10 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all job duties performed by the CLASS
11 MEMBERS (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify
12 the specific Bates numbers for the responsive documents).
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
14 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous,
15 particularly with regard to the terms “job duties” and “CLASS MEMBERS.” Defendant also
16 objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to any
17 material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
18 evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and
19 expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to
20 this Interrogatory on the ground that its fact investigation and preparation for trial are not
21 complete and are continuing as of the date of these objections and responses.
22 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with
23 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and
24 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows:
25 Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the documents Defendant will produce in response to Request for
26 Production Nos. 3, 6, and 8. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.
27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
28 Please IDENTIFY all of DEFENDANT’S employees responsible for scheduling work
-4-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 schedules for the CLASS MEMBERS, including PLAINTIFFS, during the RELEVANT TIME
2 PERIOD.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
4 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous,
5 particularly with regard to the phrase “scheduling work schedules” and the term “CLASS
6 MEMBERS.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks personal
7 and private information which, if disclosed, would unduly and improperly invade the protected
8 privacy rights of employees/third-party nonlitigants to an extent incommensurate with Plaintiff’s
9 legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it
10 seeks information that is neither relevant to any material issue in this case nor reasonably
11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would subject Defendant to
12 oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s
13 legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it
14 exceeds the scope of permissible discovery before a Belaire-West notice has been disseminated to
15 current and former employees allowing them to opt out of the disclosure of their information to
16 Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that its fact
17 investigation and preparation for trial are not complete and are continuing as of the date of these
18 objections and responses.
19 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with
20 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and
21 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: This
22 Interrogatory is premature, duplicative, and wasteful in light of the other overlapping actions
23 involving the same causes of action and parties as this case. Given that this Interrogatory seeks the
24 personal and/or private information of current and former crew members, they should have the
25 opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of such information pursuant to the Belaire-West process. See
26 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554 (2007). Putative class
27 members, however, should not receive several Belaire-West notices in separate lawsuits involving the
28 same causes of action, and they should not have their privacy intruded upon multiple times.
-5-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Accordingly, while Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the Belaire-West
2 process, Defendant maintains that no Belaire-West notices should be distributed or class contact
3 information produced until after the Court rules on Defendant’s motion seeking to abate or stay this
4 action while earlier-filed overlapping cases are resolved.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
6 Please IDENTIFY all CLASS MEMBERS.
7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
8 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, and
9 ambiguous, particularly with regard to the term “CLASS MEMBERS.” Defendant also objects to
10 this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks personal and private information which, if disclosed,
11 would unduly and improperly invade the protected privacy rights of employees/third-party
12 nonlitigants to an extent incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant
13 also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to
14 any material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
15 evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and
16 expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to
17 this Interrogatory on the ground that it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery before a
18 Belaire-West notice has been disseminated to current and former employees allowing them to opt
19 out of the disclosure of their information to Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant also objects to this
20 Interrogatory on the ground that its fact investigation and preparation for trial are not complete
21 and are continuing as of the date of these objections and responses.
22 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with
23 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and
24 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: This
25 Interrogatory is premature, duplicative, and wasteful in light of the other overlapping actions
26 involving the same causes of action and parties as this case. Given that this Interrogatory seeks the
27 personal and/or private information of current and former crew members, they should have the
28 opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of such information pursuant to the Belaire-West process. See
-6-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554 (2007). Putative class
2 members, however, should not receive several Belaire-West notices in separate lawsuits involving the
3 same causes of action, and they should not have their privacy intruded upon multiple times.
4 Accordingly, while Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the Belaire-West
5 process, Defendant maintains that no Belaire-West notices should be distributed or class contact
6 information produced until after the Court rules on Defendant’s motion seeking to abate or stay this
7 action while earlier-filed overlapping cases are resolved.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
9 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all pay codes used by
10 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to
11 documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific Bates numbers for
12 the responsive documents).
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
14 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous,
15 particularly with regard to the term “CLASS MEMBERS.” Defendant also objects to this
16 Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to any material issue
17 in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would
18 subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and expense
19 incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to the
20 Interrogatory on the ground that the information is already in the possession, custody, or control
21 of Plaintiff, or equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the
22 ground that its fact investigation and preparation for trial are not complete and are continuing as
23 of the date of these objections and responses.
24 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with
25 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and
26 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows:
27 Name Display Name
1XADJ One Time Adjust
28 Additional Comp Additional
-7-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Compensation
2 Alt HSA Earn Alt HSA Earn
AR AR
3
AR Day AR Day
4 AR Pay Out AR Pay Out
Bonus Bonus
5
Bonus DT Bonus DT
6 Bonus OT Bonus OT
Bonus Other BONOTH
7
Bonus Special Earnings 2021 Bonus Special
8 CA Testing Pay CA Testing Pay
9 CA Meal California Meal
Cash B Thank You
10 Cash Bonus Cash-Bonus
11 Cash M Cash M
Comp Absence Comp Absence
12 Daily Daily
13 Dom Partner Domestic Part
Doubletime Doubletime
14
EE - ER Health Care Costs EE-ER Health co
15 ER - AD&D Cost ER-AD&D
ER - Life Cost ER-Life-Cost
16
ER -Dental/Vision Cost ER -Dent/Vision
17 ER HSA ER HSA
ER-EAP Cost ER-EAP Cost
18
FT - DP1 TXS FT-DP1 TXS
19 FT - Family FT-Family
FT - Family TXS FT-Family TXS
20
FT DP1 FT - DP1
21 GTL GTL
22 GTLB GTLB
Holiday Holiday
23 Holiday Exempt Holiday Exempt
24 HSA ER HSA ER
Jury Duty Jury Duty
25 Life Imputed income Life imputed income
26 MA Holiday MA Holiday
MA Sunday MA Sunday
27 Mileage Mileage
28 Moving Non-tax Moving Non-Tax
-8-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Moving taxable Moving Taxable
2 Moving taxable – Moving Taxable
Manual Check
3 Non-Tax Fringe Non-Tax Fringe
4 OTAR Summer Friday
Overtime Overtime
5
Overtime Corrections Overtime
6 Pers. Paid Time Pers. Paid Time
PT - HMO DP1 PT-HMO DP1
7
PT - HMO DP1 TXS PT-HMO DP1 TXS
8 PT - HMO Fam TXS PT-HMO Fam TXS
PT - HMO Family PT-HMO Family
9
PT - PPO DP1 PT-PPO DP1
10 PT - PPO DP1 TXS PT-PPO DP1 TXS
11 PT - PPO Fam TXS PT-PPO Fam TXS
PT - PPO Family PT-PPO Family
12 Rate Adj. Rate Adjustment
13 Regular Regular
Regular - Not Worked Reg. Not Worked
14 Reimbursement Reimbursement
15 Retro Pay Retro Pay
RI FT - DP1 RI FT-DP1
16 RI FT - Family RI FT-Family
17 RI PT - PPO DP1 RI PT-PPO DP1
RI PT - PPO Fam RI PT-PPO Fam
18
RPBOA RPBOA
19 RPCHA RPCHA
RPWF RPWF
20
Scheduling Premium Scheduling Prem.
21 Scholarship Scholarship
Scholarship Award Scholar Award
22
Settlement Settlement
23 Severance Severance
SF-Paid Parental Leave SFPPL
24
Split Shift Split Shift
25 Taxable Fringe Taxable Fringe
26 Testing Reimbursement Test Reimb
Thank You Thank You
27 Third Party Sick Pay Non- Taxable TPSP
28 Third Party Sick Pay Taxable 3Pty Sick Txbl
-9-
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Vaccine Pay Vaccine Pay
2 Vesting earnings Vesting hours
Vesting hours Vesting hours
3 Weather Weather
4 Wellness Reward Wellness Reward
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
6 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 4, please provide an
7 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this
8 special interrogatory, please identify the specific Bates numbers for the responsive documents).
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
10 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is
11 neither relevant to any material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
12 discovery of admissible evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and
13 unreasonable burden and expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs.
14 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that its fact investigation and
15 preparation for trial are not complete and are continuing as of the date of these objections and
16 responses.
17 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with
18 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and
19 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows:
Name Display Name Use
20
1XADJ One Time Adjust Misc. Taxable Payment
21 Additional Comp Additional Hazard Pay – Local Mandate
Compensation
22
Alt HSA Earn Alt HSA Earn Earnings for participating in HSA
23 AR AR Absence Reserve Payments
AR Day AR Day Exempt Absence Reserve Payments
24
AR Pay Out AR Pay Out Absence Reserve Pay Out
25 Bonus Bonus Bonus Payment
Bonus DT Bonus DT FLSA Earnings on Bonus
26
Bonus OT Bonus OT FLSA Earnings on Bonus
27 Bonus Other BONOTH Bonus Payment
28 Bonus Special 2021 Bonus Special 2020 Special Bonus – Retirement Plan Bonus
- 10 -
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Earnings
2 CA Testing Pay CA Testing Pay CAL OSHA Required Pay – COVID-19 Test
Time
3 CA Meal California Meal California Meal Penalty
Cash B Thank You Bonus
4
Cash Bonus Cash-Bonus Bonus
5 Cash M Cash M Bonus – Affordable Care Act Related
6 Comp Absence Comp Absence COVID-19 Related Absence Payments
Daily Daily Exempt Earnings Payments
7 Dom Partner Domestic Part Domestic Partner Ins Premium – Taxable Wages
8 Doubletime Doubletime Doubletime Payments
EE - ER Health Care EE-ER Health co Employer & Employee Total Health Care Costs
9 Costs
10 ER - AD&D Cost ER-AD&D Employer Cost of AD&D Insurance
ER - Life Cost ER-Life-Cost Employer Cost of Life Insurance
11 ER -Dental/Vision ER -Dent/Vision Employer Cost of Dental/Vision Insurance
Cost
12
ER HSA ER HSA Employer Contribution to HSA
13 ER-EAP Cost ER-EAP Cost Employer Cost of Employee Assistance Program
FT - DP1 TXS FT-DP1 TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
14
FT - Family FT-Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
15 FT - Family TXS FT-Family TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
16 FT DP1 FT - DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
GTL GTL Taxable Group Term life
17 GTLB GTLB Taxable Group term Life - Bonus
18 Holiday Holiday Holiday Payments
Holiday Exempt Holiday Exempt Exempt Holiday Payments
19 HSA ER HSA ER Employer Contribution to HSA
20 Jury Duty Jury Duty Jury Duty Payments
Life Imputed income Life imputed Life Insurance – Imputed Income
21 income
22 MA Holiday MA Holiday Massachusetts Blue Laws - Holiday Pay
MA Sunday MA Sunday Massachusetts Blue Laws - Sunday Pay
23 Mileage Mileage Mileage Reimbursement
24 Moving Non-tax Moving Non-Tax Non-Taxable Moving Reimbursement Payments
Moving taxable Moving Taxable Taxable Moving Expense Payments
25
Moving taxable – Moving Taxable Taxable Moving Expense Payments
26 Manual Check
Non-Tax Fringe Non-Tax Fringe Non-Taxable Fringe Benefit
27
OTAR Summer Friday Summer Friday Earnings
28 Overtime Overtime Overtime Payments
- 11 -
TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Overtime Overtime Misc. OT Correction – Not Calculated by
Corrections Dayforce
2
Pers. Paid Time Pers. Paid Time Paid Time Off – Not Absence Reserve
3 PT - HMO DP1 PT-HMO DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
4 PT - HMO DP1 TXS PT-HMO DP1 TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
PT - HMO Fam TXS PT-HMO Fam TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
5 PT - HMO Family PT-HMO Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
6 PT - PPO DP1 PT-PPO DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
PT - PPO DP1 TXS PT-PPO DP1 TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
7 PT - PPO Fam TXS PT-PPO Fam TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
8 PT - PPO Family PT-PPO Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
Rate Adj. Rate Adjustment Additional Pay – Rate Adjustment Related
9 Payment
10 Regular Regular Regular Earnings Payments
Regular - Not Reg. Not Worked Regular Earnings – Not Worked
11 Worked
12 Reimbursement Reimbursement Misc. Reimbursement
Retro Pay Retro Pay Misc. Retro – Not Calculated by Dayforce
13 RI FT - DP1 RI FT-DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
14 RI FT - Family RI FT-Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
RI PT - PPO DP1 RI PT-PPO DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
15 RI PT - PPO Fam RI PT-PPO Fam Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium
16 RPBOA RPBOA Net Replacement – Lost/Expired Checks
RPCHA RPCHA Net Replacement – Lost/Expired Checks
17 RPWF RPWF Net Replacement – Lost/Expired Checks
18
Preview
1 Norman B. Blumenthal (SBN 68687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (SBN 205975) 2 Aparajit Bhowmik (SBN 248066) Jeffrey S. Herman (SBN 280058) 3 ELECTRONICALLY Christine T. LeVu (SBN 288271) BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP F I L E D 4 2255 Calle Clara Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco La Jolla, CA 92037 5 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 07/14/2021 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Clerk of the Court 6 BY: ERNALYN BURA Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 GREGORY BARTLETT and CASSANDRA Case No. CGC-21-589761 VAGLIENTY, on behalf of the State of 14 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. California, as private attorney generals, LEVU IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION TO 15 DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 16 v. COMPLAINT 17 Date: July 27, 2021 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California Time: 9:30 a.m. 18 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Dept. 302 Inclusive, Judge: Hon. Ethan Schulman 19 Defendants. 20 Action filed: February 16, 2021 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 LEVU DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE T. LEVU 2 I, Christine T. LeVu, declare as follows: 3 1. I am one of attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs GREGORY BARTLETT and 4 CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY (“Plaintiffs”) in the above entitled action, and have personal 5 knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness could testify 6 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on information and belief, and as to such 7 matters I believe them to be true. 8 2. On April 23, 2021, Defendant TRADER JOE’S COMPANY (“Defendant”) served 9 verified responses to Plaintiff s’ Special Interrogatories, Set One. In Defendant’s response No. 9, 10 Defendant asserted that “Defendant’s investigation and discovery are ongoing and Defendant 11 expressly reserves the right to assert any and all challenges to typicality. Based on a limited 12 investigation, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are not typical of the putative class members (1) 13 to the extent they did not work overtime, and (2) because Defendant has a decentralized model 14 under which the ‘Captain’ at each individual store makes decisions regarding working conditions 15 for that store.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s verified 16 responses to Plaintiff s’ Special Interrogatories, Set One. 17 3. Plaintiff CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY’s personnel records show that she worked 18 out of the Tustin store location for Defendant. 19 4. Plaintiff GREGORY BARTLETT’s personnel records show that he worked out of 20 the San Francisco store location for Defendant. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of July, 2021, at San Diego, California 23 24 _________________________________ 25 Christine T. LeVu 26 27 28 2 LEVU DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 1 1 APALLA U. CHOPRA (S.B. #163207) achopra@omm.com 2 SUSANNAH K. HOWARD (S.B. # 291326) showard@omm.com 3 ANDREW LICHTENSTEIN (S.B. #279297) alichtenstein@omm.com 4 MARNI F. BARTA (S.B. #313412) mbarta@omm.com 5 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street 6 18ᵗʰ Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-2899 7 Telephone: +1 213 430 6000 Facsimile: +1 213 430 6407 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 Trader Joe’s Company 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 GREGORY BARTLETT and CASSANDRA Case No. CGC-20-588293 14 VAGLIENTY, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF 15 similarly situated, DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS’ 16 Plaintiffs, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 17 v. ONE 18 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California Complaint Filed: December 4, 2020 Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive; 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY 23 RESPONDING PARTY: TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 24 SET NO.: One (Nos. 1-20) 25 26 27 28 TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210 et seq., Defendant Trader Joe’s 2 Company (“Defendant” or “Trader Joe’s”) hereby submits its responses to Plaintiff Cassandra 3 Vaglienty (“Plaintiff’s”) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as follows: 4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 5 The following Responses are based on the information that is presently known and 6 available to Defendant and its attorneys, and include hearsay information and other data 7 inadmissible in evidence at trial, although it may be discoverable. Defendant’s discovery, 8 investigation, and preparation for trial are not yet completed and are continuing as of the date of 9 this response. Accordingly, the Responses set forth below represent only information currently 10 available and known following a reasonable investigation within the time permitted. Defendant 11 expressly reserves the right to continue in its discovery and investigation herein for facts, 12 documents, witnesses, and supplemental data that may reveal information which, if presently 13 within its knowledge, Defendant would have included in these Responses. Defendant specifically 14 reserves the right to present additional information as may be disclosed through its continuing 15 discovery and investigation. 16 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 17 The following General Objections, whether specifically stated or not, are incorporated into 18 each of Defendant’s Responses to the Interrogatories contained in Plaintiff’s Special 19 Interrogatories: 20 1. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that the Interrogatories 21 purport to impose any burdens that are inconsistent with, or not otherwise authorized by, the 22 California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court, or any other Order of this 23 Court. Defendant will construe and respond to the Interrogatories in a manner consistent with the 24 California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court. 25 2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information 26 protected by: (1) the attorney-client privilege; (2) the attorney work-product doctrine; (3) the 27 common interest privilege; (4) the privilege for mediation discussions and offers of compromise; 28 or (5) any other privilege or immunity recognized by law. Any inadvertent production of -2- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 privileged or protected information shall not constitute a waiver, in whole or in part, of any such 2 privilege. 3 3. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek information 4 outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 5 4. In providing these responses to the Special Interrogatories, Defendant does not in 6 any way waive, or intend to waive, but rather intends to preserve and is preserving: (a) all 7 objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility; (b) all rights to object on 8 any ground to the use of the Special Interrogatories in any subsequent proceedings, including any 9 hearing or trial of this or any other claim; (c) all objections as to vagueness and ambiguity; and 10 (d) all rights to object on any ground to any further discovery demands involving or related to the 11 Interrogatories. 12 5. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent that they seeks 13 information that is neither relevant to any material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to 14 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, 15 harassment, and unreasonable burden and expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate 16 discovery needs. 17 6. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent that they are 18 overbroad in terms of time period and/or scope. 19 7. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek disclosure 20 of information where such disclosure would violate the privacy rights of any individual or entity, 21 any confidentiality agreement between Defendant and any other person or entity, the 22 confidentiality of settlement discussions or agreements, court orders restricting the disclosure of 23 information, or which otherwise result in the disclosure of confidential or proprietary commercial 24 information, trade secrets, self-critical analyses, or proprietary information the disclosure of 25 which would unduly and improperly invade Defendant’s protected rights. 26 8. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent Plaintiff seeks 27 information that is publicly available, already in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff, or 28 equally available to Plaintiff. Such Special Interrogatories are beyond the scope of permissible -3- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 discovery and would impose an undue burden on Defendant. 2 9. Defendant objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they are vague, 3 ambiguous, or potentially subject to multiple interpretations, understandings, or meanings. To the 4 extent that Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Special Interrogatories differ in a material way, 5 Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response(s). 6 Each of the above General Objections is hereby incorporated by reference, as if fully 7 stated therein, in Defendant’s Specific Objections and Responses. 8 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 10 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all job duties performed by the CLASS 11 MEMBERS (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify 12 the specific Bates numbers for the responsive documents). 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 14 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, 15 particularly with regard to the terms “job duties” and “CLASS MEMBERS.” Defendant also 16 objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to any 17 material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 18 evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and 19 expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to 20 this Interrogatory on the ground that its fact investigation and preparation for trial are not 21 complete and are continuing as of the date of these objections and responses. 22 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with 23 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and 24 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: 25 Defendant refers Plaintiffs to the documents Defendant will produce in response to Request for 26 Production Nos. 3, 6, and 8. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230. 27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 28 Please IDENTIFY all of DEFENDANT’S employees responsible for scheduling work -4- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 schedules for the CLASS MEMBERS, including PLAINTIFFS, during the RELEVANT TIME 2 PERIOD. 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 4 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, 5 particularly with regard to the phrase “scheduling work schedules” and the term “CLASS 6 MEMBERS.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks personal 7 and private information which, if disclosed, would unduly and improperly invade the protected 8 privacy rights of employees/third-party nonlitigants to an extent incommensurate with Plaintiff’s 9 legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it 10 seeks information that is neither relevant to any material issue in this case nor reasonably 11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would subject Defendant to 12 oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s 13 legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it 14 exceeds the scope of permissible discovery before a Belaire-West notice has been disseminated to 15 current and former employees allowing them to opt out of the disclosure of their information to 16 Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that its fact 17 investigation and preparation for trial are not complete and are continuing as of the date of these 18 objections and responses. 19 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with 20 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and 21 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: This 22 Interrogatory is premature, duplicative, and wasteful in light of the other overlapping actions 23 involving the same causes of action and parties as this case. Given that this Interrogatory seeks the 24 personal and/or private information of current and former crew members, they should have the 25 opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of such information pursuant to the Belaire-West process. See 26 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554 (2007). Putative class 27 members, however, should not receive several Belaire-West notices in separate lawsuits involving the 28 same causes of action, and they should not have their privacy intruded upon multiple times. -5- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Accordingly, while Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the Belaire-West 2 process, Defendant maintains that no Belaire-West notices should be distributed or class contact 3 information produced until after the Court rules on Defendant’s motion seeking to abate or stay this 4 action while earlier-filed overlapping cases are resolved. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 6 Please IDENTIFY all CLASS MEMBERS. 7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 8 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, and 9 ambiguous, particularly with regard to the term “CLASS MEMBERS.” Defendant also objects to 10 this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks personal and private information which, if disclosed, 11 would unduly and improperly invade the protected privacy rights of employees/third-party 12 nonlitigants to an extent incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant 13 also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to 14 any material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 15 evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and 16 expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to 17 this Interrogatory on the ground that it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery before a 18 Belaire-West notice has been disseminated to current and former employees allowing them to opt 19 out of the disclosure of their information to Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant also objects to this 20 Interrogatory on the ground that its fact investigation and preparation for trial are not complete 21 and are continuing as of the date of these objections and responses. 22 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with 23 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and 24 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: This 25 Interrogatory is premature, duplicative, and wasteful in light of the other overlapping actions 26 involving the same causes of action and parties as this case. Given that this Interrogatory seeks the 27 personal and/or private information of current and former crew members, they should have the 28 opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of such information pursuant to the Belaire-West process. See -6- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554 (2007). Putative class 2 members, however, should not receive several Belaire-West notices in separate lawsuits involving the 3 same causes of action, and they should not have their privacy intruded upon multiple times. 4 Accordingly, while Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the Belaire-West 5 process, Defendant maintains that no Belaire-West notices should be distributed or class contact 6 information produced until after the Court rules on Defendant’s motion seeking to abate or stay this 7 action while earlier-filed overlapping cases are resolved. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 9 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all pay codes used by 10 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to 11 documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific Bates numbers for 12 the responsive documents). 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 14 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, 15 particularly with regard to the term “CLASS MEMBERS.” Defendant also objects to this 16 Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to any material issue 17 in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would 18 subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and unreasonable burden and expense 19 incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. Defendant also objects to the 20 Interrogatory on the ground that the information is already in the possession, custody, or control 21 of Plaintiff, or equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the 22 ground that its fact investigation and preparation for trial are not complete and are continuing as 23 of the date of these objections and responses. 24 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with 25 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and 26 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: 27 Name Display Name 1XADJ One Time Adjust 28 Additional Comp Additional -7- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Compensation 2 Alt HSA Earn Alt HSA Earn AR AR 3 AR Day AR Day 4 AR Pay Out AR Pay Out Bonus Bonus 5 Bonus DT Bonus DT 6 Bonus OT Bonus OT Bonus Other BONOTH 7 Bonus Special Earnings 2021 Bonus Special 8 CA Testing Pay CA Testing Pay 9 CA Meal California Meal Cash B Thank You 10 Cash Bonus Cash-Bonus 11 Cash M Cash M Comp Absence Comp Absence 12 Daily Daily 13 Dom Partner Domestic Part Doubletime Doubletime 14 EE - ER Health Care Costs EE-ER Health co 15 ER - AD&D Cost ER-AD&D ER - Life Cost ER-Life-Cost 16 ER -Dental/Vision Cost ER -Dent/Vision 17 ER HSA ER HSA ER-EAP Cost ER-EAP Cost 18 FT - DP1 TXS FT-DP1 TXS 19 FT - Family FT-Family FT - Family TXS FT-Family TXS 20 FT DP1 FT - DP1 21 GTL GTL 22 GTLB GTLB Holiday Holiday 23 Holiday Exempt Holiday Exempt 24 HSA ER HSA ER Jury Duty Jury Duty 25 Life Imputed income Life imputed income 26 MA Holiday MA Holiday MA Sunday MA Sunday 27 Mileage Mileage 28 Moving Non-tax Moving Non-Tax -8- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Moving taxable Moving Taxable 2 Moving taxable – Moving Taxable Manual Check 3 Non-Tax Fringe Non-Tax Fringe 4 OTAR Summer Friday Overtime Overtime 5 Overtime Corrections Overtime 6 Pers. Paid Time Pers. Paid Time PT - HMO DP1 PT-HMO DP1 7 PT - HMO DP1 TXS PT-HMO DP1 TXS 8 PT - HMO Fam TXS PT-HMO Fam TXS PT - HMO Family PT-HMO Family 9 PT - PPO DP1 PT-PPO DP1 10 PT - PPO DP1 TXS PT-PPO DP1 TXS 11 PT - PPO Fam TXS PT-PPO Fam TXS PT - PPO Family PT-PPO Family 12 Rate Adj. Rate Adjustment 13 Regular Regular Regular - Not Worked Reg. Not Worked 14 Reimbursement Reimbursement 15 Retro Pay Retro Pay RI FT - DP1 RI FT-DP1 16 RI FT - Family RI FT-Family 17 RI PT - PPO DP1 RI PT-PPO DP1 RI PT - PPO Fam RI PT-PPO Fam 18 RPBOA RPBOA 19 RPCHA RPCHA RPWF RPWF 20 Scheduling Premium Scheduling Prem. 21 Scholarship Scholarship Scholarship Award Scholar Award 22 Settlement Settlement 23 Severance Severance SF-Paid Parental Leave SFPPL 24 Split Shift Split Shift 25 Taxable Fringe Taxable Fringe 26 Testing Reimbursement Test Reimb Thank You Thank You 27 Third Party Sick Pay Non- Taxable TPSP 28 Third Party Sick Pay Taxable 3Pty Sick Txbl -9- TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Vaccine Pay Vaccine Pay 2 Vesting earnings Vesting hours Vesting hours Vesting hours 3 Weather Weather 4 Wellness Reward Wellness Reward 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 6 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 4, please provide an 7 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this 8 special interrogatory, please identify the specific Bates numbers for the responsive documents). 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 10 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is 11 neither relevant to any material issue in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 12 discovery of admissible evidence and would subject Defendant to oppression, harassment, and 13 unreasonable burden and expense incommensurate with Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery needs. 14 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that its fact investigation and 15 preparation for trial are not complete and are continuing as of the date of these objections and 16 responses. 17 Notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General Objections, consistent with 18 them, and without waiving any of them, with the understanding that the discovery process and 19 Defendant’s factual and legal investigation is still ongoing, Defendant responds as follows: Name Display Name Use 20 1XADJ One Time Adjust Misc. Taxable Payment 21 Additional Comp Additional Hazard Pay – Local Mandate Compensation 22 Alt HSA Earn Alt HSA Earn Earnings for participating in HSA 23 AR AR Absence Reserve Payments AR Day AR Day Exempt Absence Reserve Payments 24 AR Pay Out AR Pay Out Absence Reserve Pay Out 25 Bonus Bonus Bonus Payment Bonus DT Bonus DT FLSA Earnings on Bonus 26 Bonus OT Bonus OT FLSA Earnings on Bonus 27 Bonus Other BONOTH Bonus Payment 28 Bonus Special 2021 Bonus Special 2020 Special Bonus – Retirement Plan Bonus - 10 - TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Earnings 2 CA Testing Pay CA Testing Pay CAL OSHA Required Pay – COVID-19 Test Time 3 CA Meal California Meal California Meal Penalty Cash B Thank You Bonus 4 Cash Bonus Cash-Bonus Bonus 5 Cash M Cash M Bonus – Affordable Care Act Related 6 Comp Absence Comp Absence COVID-19 Related Absence Payments Daily Daily Exempt Earnings Payments 7 Dom Partner Domestic Part Domestic Partner Ins Premium – Taxable Wages 8 Doubletime Doubletime Doubletime Payments EE - ER Health Care EE-ER Health co Employer & Employee Total Health Care Costs 9 Costs 10 ER - AD&D Cost ER-AD&D Employer Cost of AD&D Insurance ER - Life Cost ER-Life-Cost Employer Cost of Life Insurance 11 ER -Dental/Vision ER -Dent/Vision Employer Cost of Dental/Vision Insurance Cost 12 ER HSA ER HSA Employer Contribution to HSA 13 ER-EAP Cost ER-EAP Cost Employer Cost of Employee Assistance Program FT - DP1 TXS FT-DP1 TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 14 FT - Family FT-Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 15 FT - Family TXS FT-Family TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 16 FT DP1 FT - DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium GTL GTL Taxable Group Term life 17 GTLB GTLB Taxable Group term Life - Bonus 18 Holiday Holiday Holiday Payments Holiday Exempt Holiday Exempt Exempt Holiday Payments 19 HSA ER HSA ER Employer Contribution to HSA 20 Jury Duty Jury Duty Jury Duty Payments Life Imputed income Life imputed Life Insurance – Imputed Income 21 income 22 MA Holiday MA Holiday Massachusetts Blue Laws - Holiday Pay MA Sunday MA Sunday Massachusetts Blue Laws - Sunday Pay 23 Mileage Mileage Mileage Reimbursement 24 Moving Non-tax Moving Non-Tax Non-Taxable Moving Reimbursement Payments Moving taxable Moving Taxable Taxable Moving Expense Payments 25 Moving taxable – Moving Taxable Taxable Moving Expense Payments 26 Manual Check Non-Tax Fringe Non-Tax Fringe Non-Taxable Fringe Benefit 27 OTAR Summer Friday Summer Friday Earnings 28 Overtime Overtime Overtime Payments - 11 - TRADER JOE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Overtime Overtime Misc. OT Correction – Not Calculated by Corrections Dayforce 2 Pers. Paid Time Pers. Paid Time Paid Time Off – Not Absence Reserve 3 PT - HMO DP1 PT-HMO DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 4 PT - HMO DP1 TXS PT-HMO DP1 TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium PT - HMO Fam TXS PT-HMO Fam TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 5 PT - HMO Family PT-HMO Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 6 PT - PPO DP1 PT-PPO DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium PT - PPO DP1 TXS PT-PPO DP1 TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 7 PT - PPO Fam TXS PT-PPO Fam TXS Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 8 PT - PPO Family PT-PPO Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium Rate Adj. Rate Adjustment Additional Pay – Rate Adjustment Related 9 Payment 10 Regular Regular Regular Earnings Payments Regular - Not Reg. Not Worked Regular Earnings – Not Worked 11 Worked 12 Reimbursement Reimbursement Misc. Reimbursement Retro Pay Retro Pay Misc. Retro – Not Calculated by Dayforce 13 RI FT - DP1 RI FT-DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 14 RI FT - Family RI FT-Family Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium RI PT - PPO DP1 RI PT-PPO DP1 Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 15 RI PT - PPO Fam RI PT-PPO Fam Domestic Partner – Taxable Premium 16 RPBOA RPBOA Net Replacement – Lost/Expired Checks RPCHA RPCHA Net Replacement – Lost/Expired Checks 17 RPWF RPWF Net Replacement – Lost/Expired Checks 18