Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Lenden F. Webb, 236377
WEBB LAW GROUP, APC E-FILED
466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 102, Fresno, CA 93711
8/8/2019 5:48 PM
TELEPHONE NO: 559-431-4888 FAX NO: 559-821-4500 Superior Court of California
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Felix Guevara, individually and on behalf of the class County of Fresno
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF FRESNO By: C. York, Deputy
Civil Division
1130 O Street
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Felix Guevara, individually and on behalf of the class
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Royal Security, Inc.
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19CECG00216
Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) Cross-complainant(s) Cross-defendant(s) Other(s) Request a
Pretrial Discovery Conference.
A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons:
A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set 1 propounded on
2/27/19 .
A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set 1 propounded on 02/27/2019 .
A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition
scheduled for .
A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition
questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on .
A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to
comply with .
Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies
with Local Rule 2.1.17(B).
The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request:
(Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via
these efforts.)
On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One (1), Request for Production of
Documents, Set One (1), Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One (1), and Requests for Admissions, Set One
(1) on Defendant. Responses were due April 1, 2019. Defense Counsel, instead of responding, requested an
extension in time to serve the discovery until April 15, 2019. On April 15, 2019, Defendant served responses
that contained only objections. Furthermore, Defendant did not provide the contact information or identities
of putative class members and took evasive measures to avoid providing such facts. Plaintiff has filed a class-
action lawsuit and identified himself as the class representative. He alleged in the operative complaint that he
intends to act in the best interest of the absent class members. Plaintiff owes a fiduciary obligation to
investigate all facts related to his claims, and Defendant is hindering his ability to do so. On May 15, 2019,
Plaintiff's Counsel sent a forty-seven (47) page meet and confer letter in good faith that Defense Counsel
stated they did not have time to review before the last day to object to the Pretrial Discovery Conference
Request. The parties agreed to give Defense Counsel more time to respond. Defendant amended its
discovery responses on July 3, 2019. Plaintiff's counsel called Opposing Counsel on 8/7/19 to further meet and
confer, but never received a return call. Plaintiff has not received the names or addresses for the Belaire
members, or the documentation for the same.
PCV-70 R05-19 Fresno County Superior Court
Mandatory REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1.17
A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows:
(Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be
attached.)
Interrogatories:
Defendant still uses the relevant time period as a means to avoid particular answers as they did in their original
responses when they submitted only objections even after clarification. Most of Defendant's objections to
Form and Special Interrogatories were based in the denial that Plaintiff was ever an "employee" of Defendant
even after Defendant produced W-4s and pays stubs. In addition to Defendant's refusal to produce all pay
stubs for Plaintiff bleeds into Defendant's refusal to produce any document related to its Class Members.
Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories included himself and his class members, but Defendant selectively did not
answer any questions about the Class even after admitting there are at least 10 members. For Defendant to
operate as though before a protective order is signed, none of these questions can be answered is false.
Defendant is able to identify "persons" it employs, compile itemized lists, hours and dates worked but uses the
California Constitution wrongfully in order not to. WE ARE STILL MISSING FROM THEIR AMENDED RESPONSES THE
FOLLOWING: Plaintiff's Form Interrogatory Nos. 217.1, and 207.2 and Special Interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13, 14, and 34, plus the production related therein. These are all responses that Defendant shall answer
once it is proved that Plaintiff was an "employee." Plaintiff, having worked for Defendant, has experiences
similar to his former colleagues, and also had discussions about the wage discrepancies, which makes Plaintiff
a logical representative of the Class Members. It is his duty, and counsel's duty to make sure their interests are
properly protected and represented. In order to properly represent the Plaintiff and the Class, Defendant must
set forth all the facts. The discovery of Class Member information that is vital to the progress and outcome of
this litigation. Without these documents Plaintiff cannot perform a rigorous analysis of the facts for the Motion
for Class Certification. Special Interrogatories 7, 12, 13 all pertain to Class Members as much as it does the
Plaintiff.
Production:
Defendant's production of documents did not include anything other than what might have been copies
made for Plaintiff at his initial intake with the employer. Plaintiff is entitled to what is in Defendant's possession,
custody and control. This means that if Defendant stores personnel records off site with a third party vendor,
they must produce those documents even if they are not in Defendant's possession. The same applies to
production identifying Class Members. Any documents that could have been provided for the Members of
the Class have not been provided.
Admissions:
Plaintiff's initial Requests for Admissions were all objected to. Within these responses specific objections about
the Class were not made, and Plaintiff's counsel believes said responses should have been amended and
served with the remaining discovery after the admission that a Class does exist.
It is understood that the filing of this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion
to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filing of the request and
issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute.
Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 8/8/19
Date
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A)(1), any opposition to a request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be
filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of service of the request for a Pretrial
Discovery Conference, extended five (5) days for service by mail, and must be served on opposing counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
8/8/19 Lenden F. Webb
Date Type or Print Name Signature of Party or Attorney for Party
PCV-70 R05-19 Fresno County Superior Court
Mandatory REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1.17
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
3 I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 466 West Fallbrook Avenue,
4 Suite 102, Fresno, California 93711. My email address is Office@WebbLawGroup.com.
5 On August 8, 2019, I served the document(s) described as:
6 1. REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
7 envelope at: Fresno, California, addressed as follows:
8 Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton
TIPTON LEGAL
9 5703 N. West Avenue, Suite 103
10 Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: (559) 421-9137
11 Facsimile: (559) 921-4333
Email:ATipton@TiptonLegal.com
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
WEBB LAW GROUP, APC
12
Attorney For Defendant, Royal Security, Inc.
Fresno, California 93711
13 XX (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collection and
14 processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereon
fully prepaid, will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the date hereinabove in
15 the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California.
16
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
17 offices of the addressee(s).
18 (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be
delivered to an overnight courier service, postage prepaid, to an overnight courier service
19 for delivery to the addressee(s).
20 (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be faxed to the offices
21 of the addressee(s) pursuant to a valid stipulation, applicable statute or as a courtesy.
22 XX (BY E-MAIL) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be electronically mailed to
the offices of the addressee(s) as a courtesy, pursuant to an applicable code or a valid
23 stipulation. (No stipulation for email service, send as courtesy only) I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
24 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
25 Executed on August 8, 2019, at Fresno, California
26 XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
27 the foregoing is true and correct.
28 ___________________________________________
Nicole K. Isom
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Lenden F. Webb, 236377 WEBB LAW GROUP, APC E-FILED 466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 102, Fresno, CA 93711 8/8/2019 5:48 PM TELEPHONE NO: 559-431-4888 FAX NO: 559-821-4500 Superior Court of California ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Felix Guevara, individually and on behalf of the class County of Fresno SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF FRESNO By: C. York, Deputy Civil Division 1130 O Street Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Felix Guevara, individually and on behalf of the class DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Royal Security, Inc. CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19CECG00216 Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) Cross-complainant(s) Cross-defendant(s) Other(s) Request a Pretrial Discovery Conference. A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons: A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set 1 propounded on 2/27/19 . A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set 1 propounded on 02/27/2019 . A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled for . A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on . A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to comply with . Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies with Local Rule 2.1.17(B). The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request: (Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via these efforts.) On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One (1), Request for Production of Documents, Set One (1), Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One (1), and Requests for Admissions, Set One (1) on Defendant. Responses were due April 1, 2019. Defense Counsel, instead of responding, requested an extension in time to serve the discovery until April 15, 2019. On April 15, 2019, Defendant served responses that contained only objections. Furthermore, Defendant did not provide the contact information or identities of putative class members and took evasive measures to avoid providing such facts. Plaintiff has filed a class- action lawsuit and identified himself as the class representative. He alleged in the operative complaint that he intends to act in the best interest of the absent class members. Plaintiff owes a fiduciary obligation to investigate all facts related to his claims, and Defendant is hindering his ability to do so. On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff's Counsel sent a forty-seven (47) page meet and confer letter in good faith that Defense Counsel stated they did not have time to review before the last day to object to the Pretrial Discovery Conference Request. The parties agreed to give Defense Counsel more time to respond. Defendant amended its discovery responses on July 3, 2019. Plaintiff's counsel called Opposing Counsel on 8/7/19 to further meet and confer, but never received a return call. Plaintiff has not received the names or addresses for the Belaire members, or the documentation for the same. PCV-70 R05-19 Fresno County Superior Court Mandatory REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1.17 A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows: (Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be attached.) Interrogatories: Defendant still uses the relevant time period as a means to avoid particular answers as they did in their original responses when they submitted only objections even after clarification. Most of Defendant's objections to Form and Special Interrogatories were based in the denial that Plaintiff was ever an "employee" of Defendant even after Defendant produced W-4s and pays stubs. In addition to Defendant's refusal to produce all pay stubs for Plaintiff bleeds into Defendant's refusal to produce any document related to its Class Members. Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories included himself and his class members, but Defendant selectively did not answer any questions about the Class even after admitting there are at least 10 members. For Defendant to operate as though before a protective order is signed, none of these questions can be answered is false. Defendant is able to identify "persons" it employs, compile itemized lists, hours and dates worked but uses the California Constitution wrongfully in order not to. WE ARE STILL MISSING FROM THEIR AMENDED RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING: Plaintiff's Form Interrogatory Nos. 217.1, and 207.2 and Special Interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 34, plus the production related therein. These are all responses that Defendant shall answer once it is proved that Plaintiff was an "employee." Plaintiff, having worked for Defendant, has experiences similar to his former colleagues, and also had discussions about the wage discrepancies, which makes Plaintiff a logical representative of the Class Members. It is his duty, and counsel's duty to make sure their interests are properly protected and represented. In order to properly represent the Plaintiff and the Class, Defendant must set forth all the facts. The discovery of Class Member information that is vital to the progress and outcome of this litigation. Without these documents Plaintiff cannot perform a rigorous analysis of the facts for the Motion for Class Certification. Special Interrogatories 7, 12, 13 all pertain to Class Members as much as it does the Plaintiff. Production: Defendant's production of documents did not include anything other than what might have been copies made for Plaintiff at his initial intake with the employer. Plaintiff is entitled to what is in Defendant's possession, custody and control. This means that if Defendant stores personnel records off site with a third party vendor, they must produce those documents even if they are not in Defendant's possession. The same applies to production identifying Class Members. Any documents that could have been provided for the Members of the Class have not been provided. Admissions: Plaintiff's initial Requests for Admissions were all objected to. Within these responses specific objections about the Class were not made, and Plaintiff's counsel believes said responses should have been amended and served with the remaining discovery after the admission that a Class does exist. It is understood that the filing of this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filing of the request and issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute. Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 8/8/19 Date Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A)(1), any opposition to a request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of service of the request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference, extended five (5) days for service by mail, and must be served on opposing counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 8/8/19 Lenden F. Webb Date Type or Print Name Signature of Party or Attorney for Party PCV-70 R05-19 Fresno County Superior Court Mandatory REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1.17 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 3 I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 466 West Fallbrook Avenue, 4 Suite 102, Fresno, California 93711. My email address is Office@WebbLawGroup.com. 5 On August 8, 2019, I served the document(s) described as: 6 1. REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 7 envelope at: Fresno, California, addressed as follows: 8 Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton TIPTON LEGAL 9 5703 N. West Avenue, Suite 103 10 Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: (559) 421-9137 11 Facsimile: (559) 921-4333 Email:ATipton@TiptonLegal.com 466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102 WEBB LAW GROUP, APC 12 Attorney For Defendant, Royal Security, Inc. Fresno, California 93711 13 XX (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collection and 14 processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereon fully prepaid, will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the date hereinabove in 15 the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California. 16 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the 17 offices of the addressee(s). 18 (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service, postage prepaid, to an overnight courier service 19 for delivery to the addressee(s). 20 (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be faxed to the offices 21 of the addressee(s) pursuant to a valid stipulation, applicable statute or as a courtesy. 22 XX (BY E-MAIL) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be electronically mailed to the offices of the addressee(s) as a courtesy, pursuant to an applicable code or a valid 23 stipulation. (No stipulation for email service, send as courtesy only) I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other 24 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 25 Executed on August 8, 2019, at Fresno, California 26 XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 27 the foregoing is true and correct. 28 ___________________________________________ Nicole K. Isom