Preview
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP EMDORSEQ
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 2018 HAR 20 PH 3:51
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) SUPERieS.COUafdF.OALlFQttNiA
3 COUNIY Sr SACRAHcHTO
Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115)
4 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6
Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-QE-GDS
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated CLASS ACTION
15
DISCOVERY
16 Plaintiff,
17 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT
vs.
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a COMPEL SPECIAL
Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
19 50, Inclusive,
Telephone Appearance
20 Defendants.
21 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
Dept.: 54
23 Action Filed: April 5,2017
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
sie
1 Pursuant to Califomia Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345, Plaintiff herein provides the Court with the
2 following Separate Statement which includes a summary of discovery requests, responses given, and the
3 reasons why discovery should be compelled. A true and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to
4 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One, is attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as
5 Exhibit 1 and a true and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Special
6 Interrogatories, Set One, is attached as Exhibit 5.
7
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
9 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS were paid
10 overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during the RELEVANT
11 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the
12 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
15 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
16 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
17 same pay period." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is
18 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
19 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
20 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects
21 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
22 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that
23 have neither been admitted nor established.
24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE
25 COMPELLED:
26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
27 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
28 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
2
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
2 upcoming motion for class certification.
3 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial
4 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the
5 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating
6 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide,
7 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of
8 certification.
9 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
10 are mooted by the goveming protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
11 unsubstantiated and without merit. This information is stored electronically and is available at the press of
12 a button. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to
13 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class
14 certification.
15
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
17 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation during the
18 same pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME
19 PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific
20 bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
23 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
24 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same pay period they received
25 cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks
26 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to
27 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature,
28 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
3
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary
2 business information.
3 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
4 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE
6 COMPELLED
7 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
8 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
9 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
10 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
11 upcoming motion for class certification.
12 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial
13 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the
14 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating
15 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide,
16 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of
17 certification.
18 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
19 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
20 unsubstantiated and without merit. This interragatory seeks only a number that can be generated by
21 Defendant's electronic databases. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are
22 solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions
23 regarding class certification.
24
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
26 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by DEFENDANT on
27 wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents in response to this special
28 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
4
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
3 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
4 "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage statements." Defendant also
5 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
8 and/or proprietary business information.
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
10 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
11 statements.
12 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
14 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet
15 of Plaintiffs payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements.
16 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE
17 COMPELLED
18 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to
19 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue
20 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class
21 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality.
22 As a putative class action, Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and
23 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate.
24 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a
25 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
26 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
27 pursuant to the goveming protective order.
28 //
5
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an explanation
3 regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
4 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its Response to
7 Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague
8 and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation regarding what each pay code means."
9 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
10 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to
11 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
12 confidential and/or proprietary business information.
13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
15 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet
16 of Plaintiff s payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements.
17 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE
18 COMPELLED
19 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to
20 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue
21 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class
22 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality.
23 As a putative class action, Plaintiff requires the same pay code information for all class members
24 in order to ascertain who was paid the same way as Plaintiff and, therefore, subject to the same claim that
25 certain cash payments were excluded from the calculation of the regular rate. Defendant does not have
26 discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action."
27 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
28 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
6
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 pursuant to the goveming protective order.
2
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
4 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS
5 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
6 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
8 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
9 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
10 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory
11 on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to
12 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
13 seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory
14 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage
15 of litigation.
16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
17 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
18 statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by Defendant.
19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Plaintiff
21 was eligible to receive hourly wages and bonuses.
22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE
23 COMPELLED
24 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as well as the
25 various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. To the extent
26 Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates commonality and is,
27 therefore, timely pre-certification discovery.
28 As a putative class action. Plaintiff requires information that relates to all class members and
7
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate.
2 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a
3 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
4 Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify all of the forms of compensation that Class Members are eligible
5 to receive so Plaintiff can understand the various kinds of cash payments paid to Class Members that may
6 not have been included in the regular rate of pay. For the ascertainability and commonality requirements,
7 Plaintiff needs this information for the class members and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally
8 limit its responses to Plaintiff unfairly prohibits Plaintiff from finding the other common class members who
9 share the same claim.
10 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
11 pursuant to the goveming protective order.
12
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
14 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during the
15 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
16 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
19 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
20 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on
21 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
22 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
23 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
24 information.
25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
26 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and
27 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective
28 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
8
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
3 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and
4 procedures applicable that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order
5 governing the exchange of confidential documents.
6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE
7 COMPELLED
8 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are
9 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th
10 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is
11 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class
12 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance.
13 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references
14 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the
15 Code of Civil Procedure, which states:
If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
16 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the
interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be
17 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding
party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the
18 writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be
in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily
19 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
20 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added).
21 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know if
22 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and
23 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's
24 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during
25 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies
26 will show commonality and typicality for class certification.
27 //
28 //
9
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
2 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS during
3 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
4 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
7 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
8 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on
9 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
10 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
11 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
12 information.
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
14 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and
15 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective
16 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
19 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and
20 procedures applicable that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order
21 governing the exchange of confidential documents.
22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE
23 COMPELLED
24 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are
25 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th
26 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is
27 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class
28 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance.
10
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references
2 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the
3 Code of Civil Procedure, which states:
If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the
interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be
5 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding
party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the
6 writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be
in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily
7 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added).
9 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know if
10 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and
11 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's
12 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during
13 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies
14 will show commonality and typicality for class certification.
15
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
17 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME
18 PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific
19 bates numbers for the responsive documents).
20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18;
21 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
22 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
23 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory
24 on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the
25 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
26 Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
27 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized
28 inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
n
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560,
1 proprietary business information.
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
3 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs Customer
4 Service Representative Il-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the parties entering into a
5 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE
7 COMPELLED
8 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations
9 of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This information
10 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This
11 information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide
12 no valid objection for withholding this information.
13 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid
14 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, * 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (defendant is compelled to identify
15 all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job
16 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. Defendant does not have discretion to
17 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams
18 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
19
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
21 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during
22 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
23 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
25 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
26 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
27 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this
28 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
\2
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory
2 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage
3 of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
4 proprietary business information.
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: During
6 Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period premiums and, as a
7 result, did not receive any meal period premiums.
8 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE
9 COMPELLED
10 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class
and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
12 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
13 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories
14 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by
15 which the Court will calculate damages.
16 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection
17 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own
18 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery
19 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
20
21
22 Dated: March 20, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
23 LLP
24
25
26 By:
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
27 Attomeys for Plaintiff
28
13
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
Preview
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP EMDORSEQ Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 2018 HAR 20 PH 3:51 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) SUPERieS.COUafdF.OALlFQttNiA 3 COUNIY Sr SACRAHcHTO Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) 4 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 5 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-QE-GDS 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated CLASS ACTION 15 DISCOVERY 16 Plaintiff, 17 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT vs. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a COMPEL SPECIAL Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 19 50, Inclusive, Telephone Appearance 20 Defendants. 21 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei Dept.: 54 23 Action Filed: April 5,2017 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 sie 1 Pursuant to Califomia Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345, Plaintiff herein provides the Court with the 2 following Separate Statement which includes a summary of discovery requests, responses given, and the 3 reasons why discovery should be compelled. A true and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to 4 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One, is attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as 5 Exhibit 1 and a true and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Special 6 Interrogatories, Set One, is attached as Exhibit 5. 7 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 9 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS were paid 10 overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during the RELEVANT 11 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the 12 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 15 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 16 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 17 same pay period." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is 18 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 19 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 20 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects 21 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 22 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that 23 have neither been admitted nor established. 24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE 25 COMPELLED: 26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 27 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 28 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both 2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 2 upcoming motion for class certification. 3 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial 4 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the 5 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating 6 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide, 7 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of 8 certification. 9 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 10 are mooted by the goveming protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 11 unsubstantiated and without merit. This information is stored electronically and is available at the press of 12 a button. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to 13 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class 14 certification. 15 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 17 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation during the 18 same pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME 19 PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific 20 bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 23 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 24 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same pay period they received 25 cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks 26 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to 27 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, 28 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 3 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary 2 business information. 3 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 4 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE 6 COMPELLED 7 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 8 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 9 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both 10 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 11 upcoming motion for class certification. 12 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial 13 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the 14 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating 15 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide, 16 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of 17 certification. 18 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 19 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 20 unsubstantiated and without merit. This interragatory seeks only a number that can be generated by 21 Defendant's electronic databases. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are 22 solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions 23 regarding class certification. 24 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 26 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by DEFENDANT on 27 wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents in response to this special 28 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 4 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 3 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 4 "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage statements." Defendant also 5 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 8 and/or proprietary business information. 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 10 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 11 statements. 12 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 14 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet 15 of Plaintiffs payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements. 16 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE 17 COMPELLED 18 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to 19 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue 20 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class 21 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality. 22 As a putative class action, Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and 23 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate. 24 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a 25 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 26 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 27 pursuant to the goveming protective order. 28 // 5 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an explanation 3 regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 4 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its Response to 7 Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague 8 and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation regarding what each pay code means." 9 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 10 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to 11 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 12 confidential and/or proprietary business information. 13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 15 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet 16 of Plaintiff s payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements. 17 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE 18 COMPELLED 19 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to 20 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue 21 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class 22 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality. 23 As a putative class action, Plaintiff requires the same pay code information for all class members 24 in order to ascertain who was paid the same way as Plaintiff and, therefore, subject to the same claim that 25 certain cash payments were excluded from the calculation of the regular rate. Defendant does not have 26 discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." 27 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 28 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 6 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 pursuant to the goveming protective order. 2 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 4 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS 5 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 6 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 8 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 9 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 10 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory 11 on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to 12 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 13 seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory 14 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage 15 of litigation. 16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 17 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 18 statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by Defendant. 19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Plaintiff 21 was eligible to receive hourly wages and bonuses. 22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE 23 COMPELLED 24 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as well as the 25 various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. To the extent 26 Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates commonality and is, 27 therefore, timely pre-certification discovery. 28 As a putative class action. Plaintiff requires information that relates to all class members and 7 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate. 2 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a 3 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 4 Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify all of the forms of compensation that Class Members are eligible 5 to receive so Plaintiff can understand the various kinds of cash payments paid to Class Members that may 6 not have been included in the regular rate of pay. For the ascertainability and commonality requirements, 7 Plaintiff needs this information for the class members and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally 8 limit its responses to Plaintiff unfairly prohibits Plaintiff from finding the other common class members who 9 share the same claim. 10 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 11 pursuant to the goveming protective order. 12 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 14 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during the 15 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 16 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 19 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 20 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on 21 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 22 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 23 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 24 information. 25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 26 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and 27 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective 28 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 8 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 3 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and 4 procedures applicable that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order 5 governing the exchange of confidential documents. 6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE 7 COMPELLED 8 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are 9 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 10 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is 11 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class 12 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance. 13 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references 14 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the 15 Code of Civil Procedure, which states: If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a 16 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be 17 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the 18 writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily 19 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. 20 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added). 21 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know if 22 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and 23 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's 24 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during 25 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies 26 will show commonality and typicality for class certification. 27 // 28 // 9 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 2 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS during 3 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 4 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 7 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 8 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on 9 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 10 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 11 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 12 information. 13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 14 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and 15 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective 16 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 19 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and 20 procedures applicable that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order 21 governing the exchange of confidential documents. 22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE 23 COMPELLED 24 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are 25 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 26 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is 27 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class 28 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance. 10 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references 2 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the 3 Code of Civil Procedure, which states: If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a 4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be 5 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the 6 writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily 7 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added). 9 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know if 10 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and 11 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's 12 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during 13 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies 14 will show commonality and typicality for class certification. 15 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 17 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME 18 PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific 19 bates numbers for the responsive documents). 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18; 21 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 22 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 23 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory 24 on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the 25 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 27 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized 28 inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or n PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560, 1 proprietary business information. 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 3 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs Customer 4 Service Representative Il-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the parties entering into a 5 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE 7 COMPELLED 8 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations 9 of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This information 10 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This 11 information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide 12 no valid objection for withholding this information. 13 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid 14 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, * 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (defendant is compelled to identify 15 all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job 16 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. Defendant does not have discretion to 17 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams 18 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 19 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 21 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during 22 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 23 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 25 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 26 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 27 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this 28 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably \2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory 2 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage 3 of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 4 proprietary business information. 5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: During 6 Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period premiums and, as a 7 result, did not receive any meal period premiums. 8 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE 9 COMPELLED 10 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 12 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 13 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories 14 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by 15 which the Court will calculate damages. 16 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection 17 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own 18 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery 19 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 20 21 22 Dated: March 20, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 23 LLP 24 25 26 By: Victoria B. Rivapalacio 27 Attomeys for Plaintiff 28 13 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560