Preview
FILED/ENDORSED
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 OCT 2 2 2020
2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com
GEORGE J. THEOFANIS, SB# 324037
3 E-Mail: George.Theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com By C. Chapo, Deputy Clerk
NOLAN W. KESSLER, SB# 327178
4 E-Mail: Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
5 Sacramento, Califomia 95833
Telephone: 916.564.5400
6 Facsimile: 916.564.5444
7 Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
8 INDUSTRY, LLC
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
individually and on behalf of all others
14 similarly situated. DECLARATION OF SHANE SINGH IN
SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
15 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO
16 vs. PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FORM
17 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT,
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR
18 Califomia Corporation and PHti^LIPS & SANCTIONS
JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
19 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, Date: November 5, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Defendants. Dept.: 54
21 Action Filed: August 16,2019
Trial Date: None Set
22
23 DECLARATION OF SHANE SINGH
24 I, Shane Singh, declare as follows:
25 1. 1 am an attomey duly admitted to practice in all of the courts of the State of
26 Califomia and 1 am a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attomeys of record for
27 Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC ("Defendant"). The facts set forth
28 herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if swom I could and would competently testify
LEWIS 4821-1391-6623.1 j Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO
AnORNEYSAILAW PLAESfTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
1 thereto.
2 2. On June 18, 2020, Defendant served responses to Plaintiffs' discovery. Fifty (50)
3 days after June 18, is August 7, 2020.
4 3. On August 13, 2020, Defendant served verified amended discovery responses to
5 Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One, via
6 U.S. mail. A true and correct copy of Defendant's response, verification, and proof of service is
7 attached hereto as "Exhibit A."
8 4. On August 13, 2020, my associate, Nolan W. Kessler, Esq., inquired as to
9 Plaintiffs' counsel's availability to discuss the responses in an attempt to try and resolve any
10 outstanding discovery disputes. Plaintiffs' counsel responded that she was unavailable on August
11 20, 2020, but that Robbie Towne ("Mr. Towne") of her office would propose altemative times for
12 a call. Defendant's counsel never heard back from Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Towne, or anyone else
13 from Plaintiffs' counsel's office about scheduling a call. A true and correct copy of the email
14 chain between Defendant's counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel is attached hereto as "Exhibit B."
15 5. On September 3, 2020, my associate, George J. Theofanis, Esq., emailed Plaintiffs'
16 counsel and inquired as to her availability for a call to discuss any outstanding discovery issues,
17 and provided her with a courtesy copy ofthe responses previously served on August 13, 2020.
18 Plaintiffs' counsel never responded to the email. A tme and correct copy of Defendant's counsel's
19 email to Plaintiffs' counsel is attached hereto as "Exhibit C."
20 6. On October 7, 2020, at 1:44 p.m., Plaintiffs' counsel's office sent Defendant's
21 counsel's office Notice of their Motion to Compel. A tme and correct copy of the October 7, 2020
22 email from Plaintiffs' counsel's office containing the Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit D."
23 7. Other than serving Plaintiffs' multiple defective and baseless Motions to Compel,
24 Plaintiffs' counsel has not been in contact with Defendant's counsel since Plaintiffs' counsel's
25 August 14, 2020 email. In fact, not only did Plaintiffs' counsel make absolutely no attempt to
26 meet and confer with Defendant's counsel about Defendant's amended verified discovery
27 responses served on August 13, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel brazenly ignored Defendant's counsel's
28 multiple good faith attempts to schedule a call to discuss this case.
LEWIS 4821-1391-6623.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO
&SM1HUP PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
AnOBNEYSATlAW
1 8. A review of the Court's docket reveals that on August 19, and August 26, 2020,
2 Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel that was rejected by the Court. (See generally Jay Robinson vs.
3 Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation, Case No. 34-2019-
4 00262942-CU-OE-GDS, Register of Actions ("ROA"), ROA Nos. 45, 46.) A true and correct
5 copy of the Court's Docket is attached thereto as "Exhibit E."
6 9. On September 10, 2020, Plaintiffsfiledan additional motion to compel. (Robinson,
7 supra, Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS, ROA No. 57.) On September 23, 2020, the
8 Court dropped the matter from the calendar for being untimely. (Robinson, supra, Case No. 34-
9 2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS, ROA Nos. 76-78.) A true and correct copy ofthe Court's Order is
10 attached here to as "Exhibit F."
11 10. The request of Defendant for an award of reasonable expenses should be granted
12 because Plaintiffhas forced Defendant to file an Opposition to their Motion to Compel when there
13 is no justification for doing so and for failures to comply with the Califomia Code of Civil
14 Procedure. Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel has failed to reasonably engage in the meet and
15 confer process in good faith.
16 11. Defendant bases its request for an award of reasonable expenses, including
17 attomeys' fees, in the amount of $2,560 based on a billing rate of $250 per hour, and the
18 approximately eight (8) hours spent reviewing the Motion and drafting this Opposition and
19 supporting papers, and additional two (2) hours preparing for and attending the upcoming hearing.
20 Our Firm also incurred a $60.00 filing fee. Accordingly, Defendant will have incurred at least
21 $2,560 for having to bring the subject Opposition.
22 I declare under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct and
23 that this declaration was executed on October 22, 2020, at Sacramento, Califomia.
24
25
26
Shane Singh
27
28
LEWIS 4821-1391-6623.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO
ftSMIHUP PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
AHORNEYS AT LAW
OQ
EXHIBIT A
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733
2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com
GEORGE J. THEOFANIS, SB# 324037
3 E-Mail: George.Theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com
NOLAN W. KESSLER, SB# 327178
4 E-Mail:Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
5 Sacramento, Califomia 95833
Tdephone: 916.564.5400
6 Facsimile: 916.564.5444
7 Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
8 INDUSTRY, LLC
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA.
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
individually and on behalf of all others
14 similarly situated, DEFENDANT ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
15 Plaintiffs, INDUSTRY, L L C ' S RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S
16 vs. AMENDED SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
17 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a
18 Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS &
JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
19 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10,
20 Defendants. Action Filed: August 16, 2019
Trial Date: None Set
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON
23 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL
24 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC
25 SET NO.: SET ONE
26 NUMBERS: 1-96
27 / / /
28 / / /
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1
BRISBOIS 1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
aSMilHUP PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYSATLAW
1 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq.. Defendant ASOMEO
2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC ("Defendant") hereby responds to
3 Plaintiff JAY ROBINSON ("Plaintiff) Supplemental Special Interrogatories, Set One, as follows:
4 GENERAL STATEMENT
5 Discovery in this action is continuing, and Defendant has not yet had a reasonable
6 opportunity to complete its investigation. The following responses and objections state
7 Defendant's knowledge, information and belief as of the date of such responses and defendant
8 expressly reserves its right to rely upon and/or introduce into evidence at trial such additional
9 information or facts as it may discover hereafter.
10 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
11 The following general objections are incorporated into each response below as if set forth
12 therein in full.
13 1. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information
14 which contains or relates to confidential communications between attomey and client on the
15 ground of attomey-client privilege. Such information will not be provided. To the extent the
16 interrogatories are so vague and ambiguous that they can be interpreted to call for privileged or
17 protected information, defendant interprets these requests so as not to call for any privileged or
18 protected information. In the event any privileged information is inadvertently provided, that shall
19 not be constmed as a waiver ofthe applicable privilege(s).
20 2. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek information which
21 contains or relates to research, investigation, or analysis under the supervision and direction of its
22 attomeys or in anticipation of or preparation for trial of this action, on the ground that such
23 information is protected by the work product doctrine.
24 3. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information
25 which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
26 4. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent they are premature, unduly
27 burdensome, oppressive and harassing at this stage of the litigation. Discovery may supply
28 additional facts which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 2
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
aSMIIHllP PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT LAW
1 responses set forth herein.
2 5. Defendant does not concede the relevance or materiality of any information
3 requested or provided or of the subject matter to which such infonnation refers. Defendant's
4 answers are provided subject to aind without waiving any objections as to the competence,
5 relevance, materiality or admissibility as evidence or for any other purpose, of any of the
6 information referred to in these responses, or of the subject matter covered by these responses, in
7 any subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this action or of any other action.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
9 IDENTIFY each and every COVERED MEMBER that is within the COVERED PERIOD.
10 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1;
11 Defendant objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and
12 scope. Defendant further objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not
13 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects
14 on the grounds that the interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro §
15 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is burdensome
16 and oppressive. Defendant further objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third
17 party privacy rights as the Interrogatory seeks the respective employees contact information this
18 interrogatory invades their privacy rights as a third party. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic
19 Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-40.)
20 Based on the foregoing, Defendant will not respond to the Interrogatory. Notwithstanding,
21 Defendant is willing to meet and confer regarding undergoing Belair-West opt out procedure. (See
22 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554.)
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
24 IDENTIFY the total number of COVERED MEMBERS who performed work for YOU
25 within the COVERED PERIOD.
26 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
27 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that the phrases "total number" and
28 "who performed work" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to the interrogatory
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 3
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
asMmiip PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant further objects to this
2 interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
3 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
4 is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further
5 objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further
6 objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy rights.
7 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
8 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
9 the interrogatory.
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
11 IDENTIFY the dates of employment (i.e., start/end dates and any interim start/end dates)
12 for each ofthe COVERED MEMBERS within the COVERED PERIOD (for purposes of this set
13 of interrogatories, any employee who provided work for YOU for at least one (1) day).
14 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
15 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that the phrase "dates of
16 employment" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the
17 grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
18 grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
19 evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous.
20 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant
21 objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks information equally available to Plaintiff.
22 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy rights.
23 Defendant further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of
24 itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is
25 compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
26 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
27 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
28 the interrogatory.
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1
BRISBOIS 4
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
&SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
2 IDENTIFY how YOU paid COVERED MEMBERS (i.e., houriy, salary, piece rate,
3 commission, etc.) during the COVERED PERIOD.
4 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
5 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
6 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
7 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
8 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
9 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
10 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
11 that it violates third party privacy rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
12 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
13 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca
14 Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
15 Based on the foregoing, Defendant will not respond to the Interrogatory. Notwithstanding,
16 Defendant invites Plaintiff to further meet and confer regarding the scope of the Interrogatory.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5;
18 IDENTIFY how YOU paid PLAINTIFF (i.e., hourly, salary, piece rate, commission, etc.)
19 during the RELATIONSHIP (Relationship refers to the duration of employment between YOU
20 and any such Plaintiff or Covered Member, depending on which the interrogatory may reference).
21 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
26 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
27 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
28 interrogatory is not "fijll and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 5
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
&SM1IH1JP PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT LAW
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
2 Defendant paid Plaintiff on an houriy basis. Discovery is continuing and ongoing, and Defendant
3 has not completed its investigation into Plaintiffs Claims. Defendant reserves the right to
4 supplement or amend its response at a later time.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
6 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workweek.
7 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
8 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
9 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
11 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
12 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
13 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
14 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
15 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
16 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
17 the interrogatory.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
19 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workday.
20 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
21 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
22 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
24 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
25 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
26 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
27 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
28 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 g
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
aSMinHllP PLAE^JTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
2 the interrogatory.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
4 IDENTIFY YOUR defined pay period.
5 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8;
6 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
7 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
9 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
10 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
11 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
12 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
13 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca
14 Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
15 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
16 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
17 the interrogatory.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
19 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by COVERED MEMBERS during the
20 COVERED PERIOD.
21 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
25
the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
26
is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
27
information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
28
that it violates third party privacy rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 7
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
&SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT LAW
1 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
2 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca
3 Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
4 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
5 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
6 the interrogatory.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
8 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by PLAINTIFF during the
9 RELATIONSHIP.
10 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10;
11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
12 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
14 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
16 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
17 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
19 Plaintiff was hired on January 9, 2019 and his employment ended on January 31, 2019. He
20 therefore worked within the following pay periods: (1) week of January 6; (2) week of January 13;
21 (3) week of January 20; (4) week of January 27.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
23 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding overtime wages during the COVERED PERIOD.
24 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
25 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
26 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
28 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 g
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
&SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEVS AT LAW
1 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
2 information equally available to Plaintiff.
3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
4 Employees are to be paid their eamed overtime on time in accordance with federal and state law,
5 and where applicable, pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with the with a
6 union, the Intemational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW").
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
8 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding minimum wages during the COVERED PERIOD.
9 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
10 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
11 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
13 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
14 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
15 information equally available to Plaintiff.
16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
17 Employees are to be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked in compliance with
18 federal and state law.
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
20 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding meal periods during the COVERED PERIOD
21 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
26 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
27 information equally available to Plaintiff.
28 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 9
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
&SMIIHL1P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 All employees are required to take their meal breaks in accordance with the requirements set forth
2 under Califomia law. Absent an emergency (for which there would be compensation), all
3 employees are to take their meal break on time and within the requirements set forth under
4 Califomia law. If operational constraints preclude this (for example, stopping to take a meal break
5 would pose a hazard or significant inconvenience), then the meal break is to occur as soon as
6 practicable after the operational necessity is resolved. This is in keeping with a CBA with the
7 union, the IBEW.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
9 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD.
10 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
12 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
14 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
16 information equally available to Plaintiff Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
17 that it violates third party privacy rights.
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
19 All employees are required to take their scheduled rest periods in accordance with the
20 requirements set forth under Califomia law. Additionally, particularly in hot weather to avoid heat
21 illness, employees are to take additional breaks to ensure that they are well rested and able to
22 perform without suffering the adverse impact of heat illness.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
24 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding providing employees with accurate wage statements
25 during the COVERED PERIOD.
26 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
27 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
28 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 |Q
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
aSMIIHliP PLAEVITIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT lAW
1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
2 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
3 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
4 information equally available to Plaintiff.
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
6 Defendant provides employees with accurate wage statements in compliance with federal and/or
7 state law.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
9 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding reimbursement expenses during the COVERED
10 PERIOD.
11 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
12 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
13 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
15 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
16 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
17 information equally available to Plaintiff
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
19 Defendant reimburses employee expenses as required under Califomia law. Employees who incur
20 an expense on behalf of the company are required to make a timely submission, utilizing the
21 expense reimbursement form, and to supply receipts or other adequate record of the expenditure in
22 order to be reimbursed. Expenses above (or which are reasonably anticipated to be above) $500
23 (five hundred United States Dollars) are to be pre-approved in advance whenever practicable.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17;
25 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding YOUR employees' use of their personal cell phone
26 for work purposes during the COVERED PERIOD.
27 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17;
28 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 j j
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
&SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT LAW
1 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory it is irrelevant and is
2 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on
3 the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that
4 the interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the
5 interrogatory seeks information equally available to Plaintiff
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
7 Employees may be obligated to utilize their personal cell phones to call 911 in the event of an
8 emergency. Employees may also be contacted on their personal cell phones in order to be
9 informed of any ofthe following: emergencies, health & safety matters directly impacting their
10 work; scheduling notifications (such as work cancellation due to weather). In or about January or
11 February 2019, in an effort to provide better tracking of employee hours and for other personnel-
12 related purposes, Defendant asked employees to download and install a free app called "t-sheets"
13 onto their phones. Within a few days, however, it became clear that t-sheets was consuming a lot
14 of phone memory and cell phone data and the t-sheets experiment was then quickly abandoned
15 and employees were told that they were free to uninstall t-sheets and the company stopped
16 utilizing t-sheets.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
18 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding keeping track of YOUR employees' hours worked
19 during the COVERED PERIOD.
20 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18;
21 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
22 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
24 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
25 is burdensome and oppressive.
26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follow:
27 During the period January-April 2019, employees hours were tracked by Defendant Phillips and
28 Jordan ("P&J") through a sign-in and sign-out method organized and mn by P&J. P&J then
LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 J2
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
aSMnHLl? PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
AnORNEYS AT LAW
1 informed Defendant how many hours were worked by which employees. Defendant also kept
2 track of employee hours through its own separate sign-in / sign-out system and discrepancies
3 between the P&J hours and the Defendant hours needed to be adjusted on a weekly basis. By June
4 2019, AERI had created an electronic sign-in / sign-out system that is still in use today and is
5 based on the employee using a bar-coded badge to record sign-in start time and sign-out end time.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
7 IDENTIFY the names of any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer
8 during the COVERED PERIOD.
9 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
10 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
11 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
13 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory
14 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
15 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds
16 that it violates third party privacy rights.
17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
18 (1) South East Personnel Leasing, Inc. ("SPLl"); (2) Asomeo Environmental Restoration
19 Industry LLC ("AERI"). Discovery is continuing and ongoing, and Defendant has not completed
20 its investigation into Plaintiffs claims. Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at a
21
later time
22
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20;
23
IDENTIFY the address of any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer
24
during the COVER
Preview
FILED/ENDORSED 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 OCT 2 2 2020 2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com GEORGE J. THEOFANIS, SB# 324037 3 E-Mail: George.Theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com By C. Chapo, Deputy Clerk NOLAN W. KESSLER, SB# 327178 4 E-Mail: Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 5 Sacramento, Califomia 95833 Telephone: 916.564.5400 6 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 7 Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 8 INDUSTRY, LLC 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS individually and on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated. DECLARATION OF SHANE SINGH IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 15 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 16 vs. PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FORM 17 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR 18 Califomia Corporation and PHti^LIPS & SANCTIONS JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 19 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, Date: November 5, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Defendants. Dept.: 54 21 Action Filed: August 16,2019 Trial Date: None Set 22 23 DECLARATION OF SHANE SINGH 24 I, Shane Singh, declare as follows: 25 1. 1 am an attomey duly admitted to practice in all of the courts of the State of 26 Califomia and 1 am a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attomeys of record for 27 Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC ("Defendant"). The facts set forth 28 herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if swom I could and would competently testify LEWIS 4821-1391-6623.1 j Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO AnORNEYSAILAW PLAESfTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES 1 thereto. 2 2. On June 18, 2020, Defendant served responses to Plaintiffs' discovery. Fifty (50) 3 days after June 18, is August 7, 2020. 4 3. On August 13, 2020, Defendant served verified amended discovery responses to 5 Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One, via 6 U.S. mail. A true and correct copy of Defendant's response, verification, and proof of service is 7 attached hereto as "Exhibit A." 8 4. On August 13, 2020, my associate, Nolan W. Kessler, Esq., inquired as to 9 Plaintiffs' counsel's availability to discuss the responses in an attempt to try and resolve any 10 outstanding discovery disputes. Plaintiffs' counsel responded that she was unavailable on August 11 20, 2020, but that Robbie Towne ("Mr. Towne") of her office would propose altemative times for 12 a call. Defendant's counsel never heard back from Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Towne, or anyone else 13 from Plaintiffs' counsel's office about scheduling a call. A true and correct copy of the email 14 chain between Defendant's counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." 15 5. On September 3, 2020, my associate, George J. Theofanis, Esq., emailed Plaintiffs' 16 counsel and inquired as to her availability for a call to discuss any outstanding discovery issues, 17 and provided her with a courtesy copy ofthe responses previously served on August 13, 2020. 18 Plaintiffs' counsel never responded to the email. A tme and correct copy of Defendant's counsel's 19 email to Plaintiffs' counsel is attached hereto as "Exhibit C." 20 6. On October 7, 2020, at 1:44 p.m., Plaintiffs' counsel's office sent Defendant's 21 counsel's office Notice of their Motion to Compel. A tme and correct copy of the October 7, 2020 22 email from Plaintiffs' counsel's office containing the Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit D." 23 7. Other than serving Plaintiffs' multiple defective and baseless Motions to Compel, 24 Plaintiffs' counsel has not been in contact with Defendant's counsel since Plaintiffs' counsel's 25 August 14, 2020 email. In fact, not only did Plaintiffs' counsel make absolutely no attempt to 26 meet and confer with Defendant's counsel about Defendant's amended verified discovery 27 responses served on August 13, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel brazenly ignored Defendant's counsel's 28 multiple good faith attempts to schedule a call to discuss this case. LEWIS 4821-1391-6623.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO &SM1HUP PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AnOBNEYSATlAW 1 8. A review of the Court's docket reveals that on August 19, and August 26, 2020, 2 Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel that was rejected by the Court. (See generally Jay Robinson vs. 3 Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation, Case No. 34-2019- 4 00262942-CU-OE-GDS, Register of Actions ("ROA"), ROA Nos. 45, 46.) A true and correct 5 copy of the Court's Docket is attached thereto as "Exhibit E." 6 9. On September 10, 2020, Plaintiffsfiledan additional motion to compel. (Robinson, 7 supra, Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS, ROA No. 57.) On September 23, 2020, the 8 Court dropped the matter from the calendar for being untimely. (Robinson, supra, Case No. 34- 9 2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS, ROA Nos. 76-78.) A true and correct copy ofthe Court's Order is 10 attached here to as "Exhibit F." 11 10. The request of Defendant for an award of reasonable expenses should be granted 12 because Plaintiffhas forced Defendant to file an Opposition to their Motion to Compel when there 13 is no justification for doing so and for failures to comply with the Califomia Code of Civil 14 Procedure. Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel has failed to reasonably engage in the meet and 15 confer process in good faith. 16 11. Defendant bases its request for an award of reasonable expenses, including 17 attomeys' fees, in the amount of $2,560 based on a billing rate of $250 per hour, and the 18 approximately eight (8) hours spent reviewing the Motion and drafting this Opposition and 19 supporting papers, and additional two (2) hours preparing for and attending the upcoming hearing. 20 Our Firm also incurred a $60.00 filing fee. Accordingly, Defendant will have incurred at least 21 $2,560 for having to bring the subject Opposition. 22 I declare under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct and 23 that this declaration was executed on October 22, 2020, at Sacramento, Califomia. 24 25 26 Shane Singh 27 28 LEWIS 4821-1391-6623.1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO ftSMIHUP PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AHORNEYS AT LAW OQ EXHIBIT A 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com GEORGE J. THEOFANIS, SB# 324037 3 E-Mail: George.Theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com NOLAN W. KESSLER, SB# 327178 4 E-Mail:Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 5 Sacramento, Califomia 95833 Tdephone: 916.564.5400 6 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 7 Attomeys for Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 8 INDUSTRY, LLC 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA. 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS individually and on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated, DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 15 Plaintiffs, INDUSTRY, L L C ' S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S 16 vs. AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 17 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a 18 Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 19 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, 20 Defendants. Action Filed: August 16, 2019 Trial Date: None Set 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON 23 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL 24 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC 25 SET NO.: SET ONE 26 NUMBERS: 1-96 27 / / / 28 / / / LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 BRISBOIS 1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO aSMilHUP PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYSATLAW 1 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq.. Defendant ASOMEO 2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC ("Defendant") hereby responds to 3 Plaintiff JAY ROBINSON ("Plaintiff) Supplemental Special Interrogatories, Set One, as follows: 4 GENERAL STATEMENT 5 Discovery in this action is continuing, and Defendant has not yet had a reasonable 6 opportunity to complete its investigation. The following responses and objections state 7 Defendant's knowledge, information and belief as of the date of such responses and defendant 8 expressly reserves its right to rely upon and/or introduce into evidence at trial such additional 9 information or facts as it may discover hereafter. 10 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 11 The following general objections are incorporated into each response below as if set forth 12 therein in full. 13 1. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information 14 which contains or relates to confidential communications between attomey and client on the 15 ground of attomey-client privilege. Such information will not be provided. To the extent the 16 interrogatories are so vague and ambiguous that they can be interpreted to call for privileged or 17 protected information, defendant interprets these requests so as not to call for any privileged or 18 protected information. In the event any privileged information is inadvertently provided, that shall 19 not be constmed as a waiver ofthe applicable privilege(s). 20 2. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek information which 21 contains or relates to research, investigation, or analysis under the supervision and direction of its 22 attomeys or in anticipation of or preparation for trial of this action, on the ground that such 23 information is protected by the work product doctrine. 24 3. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information 25 which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 4. Defendant objects to these interrogatories to the extent they are premature, unduly 27 burdensome, oppressive and harassing at this stage of the litigation. Discovery may supply 28 additional facts which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 2 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO aSMIIHllP PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT LAW 1 responses set forth herein. 2 5. Defendant does not concede the relevance or materiality of any information 3 requested or provided or of the subject matter to which such infonnation refers. Defendant's 4 answers are provided subject to aind without waiving any objections as to the competence, 5 relevance, materiality or admissibility as evidence or for any other purpose, of any of the 6 information referred to in these responses, or of the subject matter covered by these responses, in 7 any subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this action or of any other action. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 9 IDENTIFY each and every COVERED MEMBER that is within the COVERED PERIOD. 10 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1; 11 Defendant objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and 12 scope. Defendant further objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not 13 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects 14 on the grounds that the interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 15 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is burdensome 16 and oppressive. Defendant further objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third 17 party privacy rights as the Interrogatory seeks the respective employees contact information this 18 interrogatory invades their privacy rights as a third party. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic 19 Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-40.) 20 Based on the foregoing, Defendant will not respond to the Interrogatory. Notwithstanding, 21 Defendant is willing to meet and confer regarding undergoing Belair-West opt out procedure. (See 22 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554.) 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 24 IDENTIFY the total number of COVERED MEMBERS who performed work for YOU 25 within the COVERED PERIOD. 26 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 27 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that the phrases "total number" and 28 "who performed work" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to the interrogatory LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 3 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO asMmiip PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant further objects to this 2 interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 3 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 4 is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further 5 objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further 6 objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy rights. 7 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 8 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 9 the interrogatory. 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 11 IDENTIFY the dates of employment (i.e., start/end dates and any interim start/end dates) 12 for each ofthe COVERED MEMBERS within the COVERED PERIOD (for purposes of this set 13 of interrogatories, any employee who provided work for YOU for at least one (1) day). 14 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 15 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that the phrase "dates of 16 employment" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the 17 grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 18 grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 19 evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. 20 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant 21 objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks information equally available to Plaintiff. 22 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy rights. 23 Defendant further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of 24 itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is 25 compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 26 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 27 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 28 the interrogatory. LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 BRISBOIS 4 BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO &SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 2 IDENTIFY how YOU paid COVERED MEMBERS (i.e., houriy, salary, piece rate, 3 commission, etc.) during the COVERED PERIOD. 4 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 5 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 6 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 7 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 8 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 9 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 10 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 11 that it violates third party privacy rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 12 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 13 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca 14 Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 15 Based on the foregoing, Defendant will not respond to the Interrogatory. Notwithstanding, 16 Defendant invites Plaintiff to further meet and confer regarding the scope of the Interrogatory. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5; 18 IDENTIFY how YOU paid PLAINTIFF (i.e., hourly, salary, piece rate, commission, etc.) 19 during the RELATIONSHIP (Relationship refers to the duration of employment between YOU 20 and any such Plaintiff or Covered Member, depending on which the interrogatory may reference). 21 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 26 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 27 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 28 interrogatory is not "fijll and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 5 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO &SM1IH1JP PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT LAW 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 2 Defendant paid Plaintiff on an houriy basis. Discovery is continuing and ongoing, and Defendant 3 has not completed its investigation into Plaintiffs Claims. Defendant reserves the right to 4 supplement or amend its response at a later time. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 6 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workweek. 7 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 8 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 9 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 11 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 12 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 13 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 14 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 15 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 16 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 17 the interrogatory. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 19 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workday. 20 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 21 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 22 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 24 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 25 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 26 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 27 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 28 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 g BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO aSMinHllP PLAE^JTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 2 the interrogatory. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 4 IDENTIFY YOUR defined pay period. 5 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8; 6 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 7 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 9 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 10 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 11 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 12 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself." (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 13 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca 14 Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 15 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 16 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 17 the interrogatory. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 19 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by COVERED MEMBERS during the 20 COVERED PERIOD. 21 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 26 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 27 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 28 that it violates third party privacy rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 7 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO &SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT LAW 1 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 2 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca 3 Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 4 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 5 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 6 the interrogatory. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 8 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by PLAINTIFF during the 9 RELATIONSHIP. 10 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10; 11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 12 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 14 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 16 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 17 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 19 Plaintiff was hired on January 9, 2019 and his employment ended on January 31, 2019. He 20 therefore worked within the following pay periods: (1) week of January 6; (2) week of January 13; 21 (3) week of January 20; (4) week of January 27. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 23 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding overtime wages during the COVERED PERIOD. 24 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 25 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 26 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 28 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 g BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO &SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEVS AT LAW 1 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 2 information equally available to Plaintiff. 3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 4 Employees are to be paid their eamed overtime on time in accordance with federal and state law, 5 and where applicable, pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with the with a 6 union, the Intemational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW"). 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 8 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding minimum wages during the COVERED PERIOD. 9 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 10 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 11 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 13 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 14 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 15 information equally available to Plaintiff. 16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 17 Employees are to be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked in compliance with 18 federal and state law. 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 20 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding meal periods during the COVERED PERIOD 21 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 26 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 27 information equally available to Plaintiff. 28 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 9 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO &SMIIHL1P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 All employees are required to take their meal breaks in accordance with the requirements set forth 2 under Califomia law. Absent an emergency (for which there would be compensation), all 3 employees are to take their meal break on time and within the requirements set forth under 4 Califomia law. If operational constraints preclude this (for example, stopping to take a meal break 5 would pose a hazard or significant inconvenience), then the meal break is to occur as soon as 6 practicable after the operational necessity is resolved. This is in keeping with a CBA with the 7 union, the IBEW. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 9 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD. 10 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 12 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 14 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 16 information equally available to Plaintiff Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 17 that it violates third party privacy rights. 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 19 All employees are required to take their scheduled rest periods in accordance with the 20 requirements set forth under Califomia law. Additionally, particularly in hot weather to avoid heat 21 illness, employees are to take additional breaks to ensure that they are well rested and able to 22 perform without suffering the adverse impact of heat illness. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 24 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding providing employees with accurate wage statements 25 during the COVERED PERIOD. 26 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 27 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 28 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 |Q BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO aSMIIHliP PLAEVITIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT lAW 1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 2 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 3 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 4 information equally available to Plaintiff. 5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 6 Defendant provides employees with accurate wage statements in compliance with federal and/or 7 state law. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 9 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding reimbursement expenses during the COVERED 10 PERIOD. 11 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 12 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 13 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 15 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 16 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 17 information equally available to Plaintiff 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 19 Defendant reimburses employee expenses as required under Califomia law. Employees who incur 20 an expense on behalf of the company are required to make a timely submission, utilizing the 21 expense reimbursement form, and to supply receipts or other adequate record of the expenditure in 22 order to be reimbursed. Expenses above (or which are reasonably anticipated to be above) $500 23 (five hundred United States Dollars) are to be pre-approved in advance whenever practicable. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17; 25 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding YOUR employees' use of their personal cell phone 26 for work purposes during the COVERED PERIOD. 27 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17; 28 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 j j BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO &SMIIH11P PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT LAW 1 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the interrogatory it is irrelevant and is 2 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on 3 the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that 4 the interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the 5 interrogatory seeks information equally available to Plaintiff 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 7 Employees may be obligated to utilize their personal cell phones to call 911 in the event of an 8 emergency. Employees may also be contacted on their personal cell phones in order to be 9 informed of any ofthe following: emergencies, health & safety matters directly impacting their 10 work; scheduling notifications (such as work cancellation due to weather). In or about January or 11 February 2019, in an effort to provide better tracking of employee hours and for other personnel- 12 related purposes, Defendant asked employees to download and install a free app called "t-sheets" 13 onto their phones. Within a few days, however, it became clear that t-sheets was consuming a lot 14 of phone memory and cell phone data and the t-sheets experiment was then quickly abandoned 15 and employees were told that they were free to uninstall t-sheets and the company stopped 16 utilizing t-sheets. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 18 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding keeping track of YOUR employees' hours worked 19 during the COVERED PERIOD. 20 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18; 21 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 22 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 24 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 25 is burdensome and oppressive. 26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follow: 27 During the period January-April 2019, employees hours were tracked by Defendant Phillips and 28 Jordan ("P&J") through a sign-in and sign-out method organized and mn by P&J. P&J then LEWIS 4824-6512-5063.1 J2 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO aSMnHLl? PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AnORNEYS AT LAW 1 informed Defendant how many hours were worked by which employees. Defendant also kept 2 track of employee hours through its own separate sign-in / sign-out system and discrepancies 3 between the P&J hours and the Defendant hours needed to be adjusted on a weekly basis. By June 4 2019, AERI had created an electronic sign-in / sign-out system that is still in use today and is 5 based on the employee using a bar-coded badge to record sign-in start time and sign-out end time. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 7 IDENTIFY the names of any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer 8 during the COVERED PERIOD. 9 AMENDED RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 10 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 11 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 13 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory 14 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 15 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds 16 that it violates third party privacy rights. 17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 18 (1) South East Personnel Leasing, Inc. ("SPLl"); (2) Asomeo Environmental Restoration 19 Industry LLC ("AERI"). Discovery is continuing and ongoing, and Defendant has not completed 20 its investigation into Plaintiffs claims. Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response at a 21 later time 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20; 23 IDENTIFY the address of any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer 24 during the COVER