On February 14, 2020 a
220818 - Tice - MG Dec iso Opp to MTQ
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 Larry W. Lee, Bar No. 228175
Max W. Gavron, Bar No. 291697
2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
3 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
4 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
VICTORIA TICE
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11
VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892
12 behalf of all others similarly situated,
DECLARATION OF MAX W.
13 Plaintiff, GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
14 v. MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
15 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, RECORDS TO COMDATA, INC.
16
Defendant. Date: August 31, 2022
17 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: 3
18
19
20 Trial Date: February 14, 2023
Complaint Filed: February 14, 2021
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO
COMDATA, INC.
1 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON
2 I, Max W. Gavron, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of
4 California, and am with the law firm Diversity Law Group, P.C., counsel of record for Plaintiff
5 Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and if called to
6 testify I could and would do so competently.
2. Plaintiff previously moved to compel the production of the account and routing
7
numbers of the Comdata paycards issued to Defendant’s employees. The purpose of obtaining
8
that information was to allow Plaintiff to subpoena records from Comdata that would identify
9
whether any of those employees incurred fees while using the paycards issued to them without
10
their consent. On February 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and ordered Defendant
11
to produce the routing and accounting numbers.
12
3. I did anticipate serving Section 1985.3 notices to consumer at the time the Parties
13
briefed the motion to compel and represented as much to the Court.
14
4. I met and conferred with counsel for Comdata, who indicated Comdata would not
15
agree to sign the protective order. When I subpoenaed Comdata, I provided the routing and
16
accounting numbers to Comdata under separate cover and with employee names redacted so that
17
the confidentiality of that information would be maintained.
18 5. The scope of the subpoena is also narrowly tailored because it proposes that the
19 following categories of information would be redacted in the production: Trans Details, Trans
20 City, Amount, and Running Balance except for the first row, which denotes the final wages
21 loaded on the paycard by Defendant. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an exemplar of the type of
22 records requested, with proposed redactions. This exemplar is based on Plaintiff’s records.
23 6. The Parties entered a protective order, and Plaintiff has proposed redactions that
24 limit the information to be disclosed pursuant to the subpoena to quantitative information
25 regarding how much Comdata charged a particular account number in fees.
26 7. To the extent the information obtained from the subpoena is necessary at trial,
27 similar safeguards may be put in place. For example, Plaintiff would present evidence of how
28
2
DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO
COMDATA, INC.
1 many individuals, without reference to their name, incurred fees as a result of Defendant’s
2 practices. If Plaintiff succeeds in her claims and the Court awards penalties under the PAGA, the
3 Parties would be required to engage a third-party administrator to distribute the aggrieved
4 employees’ share of penalties, and the remainder would be distributed to the State.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
6 foregoing is true and correct.
7 Executed on this 18th day of August, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
8 _________________________________
9 Max W. Gavron
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO
COMDATA, INC.
EXHIBIT A
Document Filed Date
August 18, 2022
Case Filing Date
February 14, 2020
Category
Unlimited Other Employment (15)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 Larry W. Lee, Bar No. 228175 Max W. Gavron, Bar No. 291697 2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 4 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff VICTORIA TICE 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892 12 behalf of all others similarly situated, DECLARATION OF MAX W. 13 Plaintiff, GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 14 v. MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR 15 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, RECORDS TO COMDATA, INC. 16 Defendant. Date: August 31, 2022 17 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 3 18 19 20 Trial Date: February 14, 2023 Complaint Filed: February 14, 2021 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO COMDATA, INC. 1 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON 2 I, Max W. Gavron, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of 4 California, and am with the law firm Diversity Law Group, P.C., counsel of record for Plaintiff 5 Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and if called to 6 testify I could and would do so competently. 2. Plaintiff previously moved to compel the production of the account and routing 7 numbers of the Comdata paycards issued to Defendant’s employees. The purpose of obtaining 8 that information was to allow Plaintiff to subpoena records from Comdata that would identify 9 whether any of those employees incurred fees while using the paycards issued to them without 10 their consent. On February 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and ordered Defendant 11 to produce the routing and accounting numbers. 12 3. I did anticipate serving Section 1985.3 notices to consumer at the time the Parties 13 briefed the motion to compel and represented as much to the Court. 14 4. I met and conferred with counsel for Comdata, who indicated Comdata would not 15 agree to sign the protective order. When I subpoenaed Comdata, I provided the routing and 16 accounting numbers to Comdata under separate cover and with employee names redacted so that 17 the confidentiality of that information would be maintained. 18 5. The scope of the subpoena is also narrowly tailored because it proposes that the 19 following categories of information would be redacted in the production: Trans Details, Trans 20 City, Amount, and Running Balance except for the first row, which denotes the final wages 21 loaded on the paycard by Defendant. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an exemplar of the type of 22 records requested, with proposed redactions. This exemplar is based on Plaintiff’s records. 23 6. The Parties entered a protective order, and Plaintiff has proposed redactions that 24 limit the information to be disclosed pursuant to the subpoena to quantitative information 25 regarding how much Comdata charged a particular account number in fees. 26 7. To the extent the information obtained from the subpoena is necessary at trial, 27 similar safeguards may be put in place. For example, Plaintiff would present evidence of how 28 2 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO COMDATA, INC. 1 many individuals, without reference to their name, incurred fees as a result of Defendant’s 2 practices. If Plaintiff succeeds in her claims and the Court awards penalties under the PAGA, the 3 Parties would be required to engage a third-party administrator to distribute the aggrieved 4 employees’ share of penalties, and the remainder would be distributed to the State. 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 6 foregoing is true and correct. 7 Executed on this 18th day of August, 2022, at Los Angeles, California. 8 _________________________________ 9 Max W. Gavron 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO COMDATA, INC. EXHIBIT A