Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
1 Helene Wasserman, Bar No. 130134 County of Santa Barbara
hwasserman@littler.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
2 Shannon R. Boyce, Bar No. 229041 1/26/2022 12:58 PM
sboyce@littler.com By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
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,
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO
14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS AND
15 v. ANSWERS IN DISPUTE RE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
16 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
17
Defendant. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
18 JUDGE THOMAS P. ANDERLE, DEPT. 3
19 Trial Date: February 14, 2023
Complaint Filed: February 14, 2020
20
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Victoria Tice
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joe’s Company
23 SET NUMBER: Three (3)
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
1 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, Defendant Trader Joe's Company
2 (“Defendant”) submits the following Response to Plaintiff's Separate Statement identifying Special
3 Interrogatory No. 10 and response in dispute, as well as the reason why Defendant Trader Joe’s
4 Company (“Defendant”) should not be compelled to provide full and complete answers to this
5 Interrogatory.:
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 10:
7 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state the
8 account number and routing number of the paycard issued to that employee during the PAGA
9 PERIOD.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 10:
11 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
12 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing,
13 and oppressive to the extent any response to this Interrogatory would require a person-by-person
14 review of individual allegedly aggrieved employee authorizations forms. Further, Defendant’s
15 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant objects to
16 this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope
17 of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter
18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that disclosure of the information sought would
20 violate the privacy rights of third parties to this litigation under the Constitution of the United States
21 and the State of California and under common law privacy principles.
22 REASON WHY RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
23 Defendant did not provide a substantive response to this request. Instead, Defendant objected
24 on various grounds, including privacy, that producing the information would be burdensome, and that
25 the information exceeds the scope of discovery.
26 On December 8, 2021, the Parties participated in an IDC with the Court where they explained
27 their respective positions. Prior to and after the IDC, the Parties met and conferred to try to resolve this
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
2
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
1 dispute without Court intervention. However, the Parties were unable to do so. Gavron Decl. ¶¶ 8-11,
2 Ex. D.
3 The account and routing number for the paycards is relevant and discoverable because Plaintiff
4 will use this information to obtain information from COMDATA to demonstrate whether employees
5 incurred fees when using their paycards. Defendant’s objections are without merit. While Defendant
6 contends the Motion to Strike weighs in favor of not producing the information, the opposite is true.
7 Defendant has already produced the card number and routing number for cards in its exemplar
8 communications, and so itsobjections regarding privacy are undermined by the fact that italready
9 produced the information. See, e.g. TJ_000262, TJ_000273, TJ_000287, TJ_000302, TJ_000316.
10 Gavron Decl. ¶ 8.
11 With respect to Defendant’s privacy objection, in addition to the fact that Defendant already
12 produced account and routing numbers through the discovery process, the Parties entered a stipulated
13 protective order, which can be used to alleviate any privacy concerns. While Plaintiff is already in
14 possession of the names and contact information of the aggrieved employees, Plaintiff needs the account
15 and routing numbers of the cards issued to them to be able to send a subpoena to COMDATA to obtain
16 information regarding whether those cards were subjected to fees. Plaintiff’s counsel has issued
17 subpoenas to paycard companies previously in other cases and obtained a ledger detailing which cards
18 were subject to fees. Gavron Decl. ¶ 10.
19 Subpoenaing the information without using the account and routing number presents problems
20 because a person could have received a COMDATA paycard from a different employer, or there could
21 be two individuals with the same name. Id. Accordingly, subpoenaing the information from
22 COMDATA with the account and routing numbers is the most effective and efficient way to obtain
23 information regarding which aggrieved employees incurred fees associated with using their cards. Id.
24 Plaintiff also proposed a way to redact information obtained from the paycard provider to
25 alleviate any privacy concerns. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff proposed that Trans Details, Trans City,
26 Amount, and Running Balance Column from the account ledger could all be redacted with the exception
27 of the first row, which denotes the final wages loaded on the paycard by Defendant. In other words, the
28 records would reflect when the card was loaded, and whether the employee incurred any fees, and if so,
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
3
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
1 the type of fees and date incurred. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. D. Below is an example of the ledger for ease
2 of reference:
3
4
5
6
7 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE -REASON WHY RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
8 Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, “it is not limitless.” Calcor Space Facility,
9 Inc. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 223 (1997). Indeed, the California Supreme Court affirmed
10 in Williams v. Superior Court that employees have a constitutional right to privacy and a party
11 seeking discovery of private information in a PAGA action still needs to establish that it has a
12 legitimate interest in the information that outweighs the legally-protected privacy interests.
13 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552-55 (2017) (“The party seeking information may
14 raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves….”).
15 In so doing, the Williams court expressly engaged in the balancing test for evaluating potential
16 invasions of privacy established in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994).
17 Under Hill’s framework, the party claiming privacy must: (1) identify a specific, legally protected
18 privacy interest, (2) demonstrate an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and (3) show
19 that the threatened intrusion into the privacy interest is serious. Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 35-37.
20 There is no doubt a privacy interest exists here, as even highly relevant, non-privileged
21 information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s “inalienable
22 right of privacy” afforded by article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution. See Cty. of Los
23 Angeles v. Los Angeles Cty. Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal. 4th 905, 927 (2013) (“home contact
24 information is generally considered private”). Here, the information at issue is not merely contact
25 information as frequently arises in class and PAGA litigation, but sensitive financial information.
26 Williams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th at 553 (noting discovery seeking contact information not as serious an
27 invasion of privacy as discovery which seeks financial information); Valley Bank of Nev. v.
28 Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652 (1975) (analyzing heightened privacy interests of financial records).
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
4
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
1 Indeed, the routing and account numbers sought reveal when and where former crew members
2 banked, made purchases, checked their account balances, and made banking transfers, amongst
3 other financial data points. Any of number of these data points pose data security issues and could,
4 in fact, lead to identity theft.
5 Plaintiff here makes no attempt to address the necessary balancing. To the contrary,
6 Plaintiff merely cites to generalized case law regarding the scope of discovery, with no analysis of
7 the privacy rights at stake. Plaintiff summarily asserts that the account and routing numbers are
8 necessary to subpoena Comdata with no further discussion or analysis. (Plaintiff’s MTC, pg. 6.)
9 However, the law is clear that third party employees do not automatically relinquish their privacy
10 rights simply because a former employee files a PAGA action. Defendant’s former crew members
11 who are not part of this litigation have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and Plaintiff
12 makes no showing as to why that reasonable expectation should be disturbed. Further, as
13 previously recognized by the Court in its Order denying class certification, there are multiple
14 avenues by which a Crew Member can use the paycard without incurring any fees. (Court Order,
15 pp. 19-20.) Accordingly, whether allegedly aggrieved former Crew Members actually incurred
16 fees is irrelevant. In addition, Plaintiff’s own arguments in opposing Defendant’s Motion to Strike
17 highlights the irrelevant nature of the interrogatory at issue. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts her
18 PAGA claim premised on Labor Code Section 212 and 213 does not require employees to have
19 incurred fees to find Defendant liable. Solis v. Regis Corp., 612 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1087 (2007);
20 Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73029, *24 (SD. Cal. July
21 2010) (“Defendants are liable for civil penalties under PAGA for violation of Section 212, for any
22 Section 212 violations which do not involve the withholding of wages.). There is thus limited, if
23 any, basis for the interrogatory at issue which falls far short of justifying the extraordinary intrusion
24 into former crew members’ private financial information.
25 Finally, special notice and procedures are required for production of the “personal records”
26 of a “consumer” or employee, to protect that person’s right of privacy. Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. §
27 1985.3. Despite these clear requirements, Plaintiff has not committed to service of such, nor any
28 other form of notice to allegedly aggrieved former crew members regarding her attempt to subpoena
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
5
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
1 their personal financial records. (Boyce Decl., ¶¶ 4-7, Exhs. A-C.) Assuming arguendo that the
2 Court orders production of the account numbers, which Trader Joe’s believes inappropriate, the
3 Court should, at a minimum, require notice to impacted former crew members.
4
5 Dated: January 26, 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
6
7 Helene Wasserman
Shannon R. Boyce
8 Melissa Velez
Attorneys for Defendant
9 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
6
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
3
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 2049
4
Century Park East, Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On January 26, 2022, I served true
5
copies of the following document(s) described as
6
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
7 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
8
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
9
10
Larry W Lee William L. Mardner
11 Max W. Gavron Polaris Law Group LLP
Diversity Law Group 501 San Benito St., Suite 200
12
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Hollister, CA 95023
13 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
14 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com
lwlee@diversitylaw.com
15 mgavron@diversitylaw.com
Olympia@diversitylaw.com
16
Erika@diversitylaw.com
17
18
(VIA E-MAIL) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
19 service by e-mail, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail
addresses listed above.
20
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
23
24 Mary Ann Gerard
25
4896-1909-8635.1 / 071820-1075
26
27
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
7
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California 1 Helene Wasserman, Bar No. 130134 County of Santa Barbara hwasserman@littler.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 2 Shannon R. Boyce, Bar No. 229041 1/26/2022 12:58 PM sboyce@littler.com By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy 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, DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO 14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS AND 15 v. ANSWERS IN DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 16 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 17 Defendant. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 18 JUDGE THOMAS P. ANDERLE, DEPT. 3 19 Trial Date: February 14, 2023 Complaint Filed: February 14, 2020 20 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Victoria Tice 22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joe’s Company 23 SET NUMBER: Three (3) 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 1 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, Defendant Trader Joe's Company 2 (“Defendant”) submits the following Response to Plaintiff's Separate Statement identifying Special 3 Interrogatory No. 10 and response in dispute, as well as the reason why Defendant Trader Joe’s 4 Company (“Defendant”) should not be compelled to provide full and complete answers to this 5 Interrogatory.: 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 10: 7 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state the 8 account number and routing number of the paycard issued to that employee during the PAGA 9 PERIOD. 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 10: 11 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 12 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing, 13 and oppressive to the extent any response to this Interrogatory would require a person-by-person 14 review of individual allegedly aggrieved employee authorizations forms. Further, Defendant’s 15 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant objects to 16 this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope 17 of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that disclosure of the information sought would 20 violate the privacy rights of third parties to this litigation under the Constitution of the United States 21 and the State of California and under common law privacy principles. 22 REASON WHY RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 23 Defendant did not provide a substantive response to this request. Instead, Defendant objected 24 on various grounds, including privacy, that producing the information would be burdensome, and that 25 the information exceeds the scope of discovery. 26 On December 8, 2021, the Parties participated in an IDC with the Court where they explained 27 their respective positions. Prior to and after the IDC, the Parties met and conferred to try to resolve this 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. 2049 C entury Park East 2 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 1 dispute without Court intervention. However, the Parties were unable to do so. Gavron Decl. ¶¶ 8-11, 2 Ex. D. 3 The account and routing number for the paycards is relevant and discoverable because Plaintiff 4 will use this information to obtain information from COMDATA to demonstrate whether employees 5 incurred fees when using their paycards. Defendant’s objections are without merit. While Defendant 6 contends the Motion to Strike weighs in favor of not producing the information, the opposite is true. 7 Defendant has already produced the card number and routing number for cards in its exemplar 8 communications, and so itsobjections regarding privacy are undermined by the fact that italready 9 produced the information. See, e.g. TJ_000262, TJ_000273, TJ_000287, TJ_000302, TJ_000316. 10 Gavron Decl. ¶ 8. 11 With respect to Defendant’s privacy objection, in addition to the fact that Defendant already 12 produced account and routing numbers through the discovery process, the Parties entered a stipulated 13 protective order, which can be used to alleviate any privacy concerns. While Plaintiff is already in 14 possession of the names and contact information of the aggrieved employees, Plaintiff needs the account 15 and routing numbers of the cards issued to them to be able to send a subpoena to COMDATA to obtain 16 information regarding whether those cards were subjected to fees. Plaintiff’s counsel has issued 17 subpoenas to paycard companies previously in other cases and obtained a ledger detailing which cards 18 were subject to fees. Gavron Decl. ¶ 10. 19 Subpoenaing the information without using the account and routing number presents problems 20 because a person could have received a COMDATA paycard from a different employer, or there could 21 be two individuals with the same name. Id. Accordingly, subpoenaing the information from 22 COMDATA with the account and routing numbers is the most effective and efficient way to obtain 23 information regarding which aggrieved employees incurred fees associated with using their cards. Id. 24 Plaintiff also proposed a way to redact information obtained from the paycard provider to 25 alleviate any privacy concerns. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff proposed that Trans Details, Trans City, 26 Amount, and Running Balance Column from the account ledger could all be redacted with the exception 27 of the first row, which denotes the final wages loaded on the paycard by Defendant. In other words, the 28 records would reflect when the card was loaded, and whether the employee incurred any fees, and if so, LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 3 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 1 the type of fees and date incurred. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. D. Below is an example of the ledger for ease 2 of reference: 3 4 5 6 7 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE -REASON WHY RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 8 Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, “it is not limitless.” Calcor Space Facility, 9 Inc. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 223 (1997). Indeed, the California Supreme Court affirmed 10 in Williams v. Superior Court that employees have a constitutional right to privacy and a party 11 seeking discovery of private information in a PAGA action still needs to establish that it has a 12 legitimate interest in the information that outweighs the legally-protected privacy interests. 13 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552-55 (2017) (“The party seeking information may 14 raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves….”). 15 In so doing, the Williams court expressly engaged in the balancing test for evaluating potential 16 invasions of privacy established in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994). 17 Under Hill’s framework, the party claiming privacy must: (1) identify a specific, legally protected 18 privacy interest, (2) demonstrate an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and (3) show 19 that the threatened intrusion into the privacy interest is serious. Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 35-37. 20 There is no doubt a privacy interest exists here, as even highly relevant, non-privileged 21 information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s “inalienable 22 right of privacy” afforded by article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution. See Cty. of Los 23 Angeles v. Los Angeles Cty. Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal. 4th 905, 927 (2013) (“home contact 24 information is generally considered private”). Here, the information at issue is not merely contact 25 information as frequently arises in class and PAGA litigation, but sensitive financial information. 26 Williams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th at 553 (noting discovery seeking contact information not as serious an 27 invasion of privacy as discovery which seeks financial information); Valley Bank of Nev. v. 28 Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652 (1975) (analyzing heightened privacy interests of financial records). LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 4 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 1 Indeed, the routing and account numbers sought reveal when and where former crew members 2 banked, made purchases, checked their account balances, and made banking transfers, amongst 3 other financial data points. Any of number of these data points pose data security issues and could, 4 in fact, lead to identity theft. 5 Plaintiff here makes no attempt to address the necessary balancing. To the contrary, 6 Plaintiff merely cites to generalized case law regarding the scope of discovery, with no analysis of 7 the privacy rights at stake. Plaintiff summarily asserts that the account and routing numbers are 8 necessary to subpoena Comdata with no further discussion or analysis. (Plaintiff’s MTC, pg. 6.) 9 However, the law is clear that third party employees do not automatically relinquish their privacy 10 rights simply because a former employee files a PAGA action. Defendant’s former crew members 11 who are not part of this litigation have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and Plaintiff 12 makes no showing as to why that reasonable expectation should be disturbed. Further, as 13 previously recognized by the Court in its Order denying class certification, there are multiple 14 avenues by which a Crew Member can use the paycard without incurring any fees. (Court Order, 15 pp. 19-20.) Accordingly, whether allegedly aggrieved former Crew Members actually incurred 16 fees is irrelevant. In addition, Plaintiff’s own arguments in opposing Defendant’s Motion to Strike 17 highlights the irrelevant nature of the interrogatory at issue. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts her 18 PAGA claim premised on Labor Code Section 212 and 213 does not require employees to have 19 incurred fees to find Defendant liable. Solis v. Regis Corp., 612 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1087 (2007); 20 Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73029, *24 (SD. Cal. July 21 2010) (“Defendants are liable for civil penalties under PAGA for violation of Section 212, for any 22 Section 212 violations which do not involve the withholding of wages.). There is thus limited, if 23 any, basis for the interrogatory at issue which falls far short of justifying the extraordinary intrusion 24 into former crew members’ private financial information. 25 Finally, special notice and procedures are required for production of the “personal records” 26 of a “consumer” or employee, to protect that person’s right of privacy. Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 27 1985.3. Despite these clear requirements, Plaintiff has not committed to service of such, nor any 28 other form of notice to allegedly aggrieved former crew members regarding her attempt to subpoena LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 5 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 1 their personal financial records. (Boyce Decl., ¶¶ 4-7, Exhs. A-C.) Assuming arguendo that the 2 Court orders production of the account numbers, which Trader Joe’s believes inappropriate, the 3 Court should, at a minimum, require notice to impacted former crew members. 4 5 Dated: January 26, 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 6 7 Helene Wasserman Shannon R. Boyce 8 Melissa Velez Attorneys for Defendant 9 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 6 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 3 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 2049 4 Century Park East, Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On January 26, 2022, I served true 5 copies of the following document(s) described as 6 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 7 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 8 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 9 10 Larry W Lee William L. Mardner 11 Max W. Gavron Polaris Law Group LLP Diversity Law Group 501 San Benito St., Suite 200 12 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Hollister, CA 95023 13 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 14 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com lwlee@diversitylaw.com 15 mgavron@diversitylaw.com Olympia@diversitylaw.com 16 Erika@diversitylaw.com 17 18 (VIA E-MAIL) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept 19 service by e-mail, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26, 2022, at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 Mary Ann Gerard 25 4896-1909-8635.1 / 071820-1075 26 27 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. 2049 C entury Park East 7 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT