Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235)
1 SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C.
1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4
2 Chico, CA 95928
Telephone: (530) 809-1851
3
Facsimile: (530) 592-3865
Email: psavesq{'fr(< gmail .com
FlLED/EMDOeSIED
4
5 SEP 1 0 2020
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
6 JAY ROBINSON and By:. A. Macias
Deputy Clerk
HUGO PINEDA, individually and on
7 Behalf of all others similarly situated
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
JAY ROBINSON and
11 Case No. 34-2019-00262942
HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of
12 all other similarly situated.
13
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN
DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
14
Plaintiffs, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL
15 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM
INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL, SET
16 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL ONE; FORM INTERROGATORIES -
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE
17
California Corporation and PHILLIPS &
18 JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation,
and DOES 1-10. Hearing Date: 9/23/2020
19 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants Dept.: 54
20
21
Action Filed: 08/16/2019
22
23
24 Plaintiff hereby submits its Separate Statement of Items in Dispute pursuant to California
25 Rule of Court Rule 3.1345 in support of its Motion to Compel Further Response to Special
26 Interrogatories, Set One; Form Intenogatories - General, Set One; and Form Interrogatories -
27 Employment, Set One.
28
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1;
2 IDENTIFY each and every COVERED MEMBER that is within the COVERED PERIOD
3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 1:
4 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and
5 scope. Defendant further objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not
6 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on
7 the grounds that the intenogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro §
8 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is burdensome
9 and oppressive. Defendant further objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third
10 party privacy rights.
11 Based on the foregoing objection, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
12 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
13 the intenogatory.
14 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 1:
15 Defendant's objections are without merit.
16 Plaintiffs propounded special intenogatories included a defmition of "COVERED
17 MEMBER" as all employees employed by Defendant during the "COVERED PERIOD".
18 "COVERED PERIOD" was defined as the four-year period prior to Plaintiffs filing the complaint
19 on August 16, 2019 to the present date. The time and scope of the interrogatory is clearly defined.
20 Objections which claim an intenogatory is overbroad require that Defendant can show either
21 intent to create an unreasonable burden or incommensurate result. Absent such a showing, the
22 information should be produced. See, West Pico Furniture Company of Los Angeles v. Superior
23 Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Defendant has made no such showing.
24 Further, the information sought by this interrogatory is directly and materially relevant to
25 the matters alleged in Plaintiffs complaint, and seeks to identify members of the representative
26 class. In the absence of a contrary court order, a civil litigant'srightto discovery is broad. See,
27 Williams v. Superior Court. (2017) 3 CaLS**" 531, 541. This right includes an entitlement to learn
28
2
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 "the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." See, Code
2 Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. To show an interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information "is not
3 the burden of the party propounding interrogatories. As a litigant, it is entitled to demand answers
4 to its intenogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom
5 those intenogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the
6 purview of the code section." See, West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d
7 407, 422. The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with
8 the party resisting an interrogatory. See, Coy v. Superior Court. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.
9 Defendant has made no showing that the intenogatory is not relevant, or is not likely to lead to the
10 discovery of admissible evidence.
11 Plaintiffs special interrogatory is full and complete in and of itself as it is clearly identified
12 by number "Special Intenogatory No. 1", it contains no preface or instmction, and does not
13 reference any other intenogatory. See, Clemente v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4'*' 1277, 1287.
14 Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.60(c)-(d).
15 Plaintiff is entitled to the identification of all putative class members who provided
16 services for Defendant during the class period. "Contact information regarding the identity of
17 potential class members is generally discoverable, so that a lead plaintiff may learn the names of
18 other persons who might assist in prosecuting the case." Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010. Such
19 disclosure involves no revelation of personal or business secrets, intimate activities, or similar
20 private information and threatens no undue intmsion into one's personal life, such as mass-
21 marketing efforts or unsolicited sales pitches. See, Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. v. Superior
22 Court (2007) 40 Cal.4'^ 360, 361. See also, Williams, below, for the principle that "Such potential
23 class members will often qualify as "percipient witnesses," whose contact information the
24 discovery statutes explicitly make a "proper subject of ... discovery." Limiting discovery would
25 grant the Defendant a monopoly on access to its customers or employees and their experiences and
26 artificially tilt the scales in the ensuing litigation. See, Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.S"'
27 531, 544. See also. Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010. Moreover, Defendant has failed to identify what
28
3
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 privacyrightsare being referred to nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's
2 obligation prior to the time that responses are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for
3 good cause, required protection or should only be answered pursuant to specified terms and
4 conditions. See, Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
6 IDENTIFY the total number of COVERED MEMBERS who performed work for YOU
7 within the COVERED PERIOD.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 2;
9 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that the phrases "total number" and
10 "who performed work" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to the intenogatory
11 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant further objects to this
12 interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
13 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
14 is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further
15 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further
16 objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy rights.
17 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
18 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of
19 the interrogatory.
20 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 2:
21 See above.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
23 IDENTIFY the dates of employment (i.e., start/end dates and any interim start/end dates)
24 for each ofthe COVERED MEMBERS within the COVERED PERIOD (for purposes ofthis set
25 of intenogatories, any employee who provided work for YOU for at least one (1) day).
26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 3;
27
28
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that the phrase "dates of
2 employment" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the
3 grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
4 grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
5 evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous.
6 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks information equally available to
7 Plaintiff Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy
8 rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is not "full and complete in
9 and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the grounds that the
10 interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
11 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
12 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
13 the interrogatory.
14 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 3:
15 In addition to above:
16 Defendant objects on the grounds that the information sought is equally available to
17 Plaintiff, which is without merit. Additionally, Defendant has failed to seek a protective order if
18 Defendant truly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other source that is more
19 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Code Civ Proc. § 2019.030(a)(1)
20 The intenogatory is not compound and does not contain sub-parts. The intenogatory
21 covers a single subject and therefore should be allowed. See, Clement v. Alegre. supra. Id- 1291.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
23 IDENTIFY how YOU paid COVERED MEMBERS (i.e., houriy, salary, piece rate,
24 commission, etc.) during the COVERED PERIOD.
25 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 4;
26 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
27 Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
28
5
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
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 intenogatory
3 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
4 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
5 that it violates third party privacy rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
6 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant
7 objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
8 2030.060(f).)
9 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
10 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
11 the intenogatory.
12 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 4;
13 See above.
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5;
15 IDENTIFY how YOU paid PLAINTIFF (i.e., houriy, salary, piece rate, commission, etc.)
16 during the RELATIONSHIP (relationship refers to the duration of employment between YOU and
17 any such Plaintiff or Covered Member, depending on which the intenogatory may reference).
18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 5;
19 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
20 Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
22 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
23 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
24 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
25 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
26
27
28
6
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
2 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
3 the intenogatory.
4 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 5:
5 See above.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
7 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workweek.
8 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 6:
9 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
10 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
12 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
13 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
14 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
15 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
16 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
17 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of
18 the interrogatory.
19 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 6;
20 See above.
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
22 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workday.
23 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 7:
24 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
25 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
27 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
28
7
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
2 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
3 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
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 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 7;
8 See above.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
10 IDENTIFY YOUR defined pay period.
11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 8;
12 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and
13 scope. Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not
14 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the
15 grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the
16 interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the
17 intenogatory seeks information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the
18 grounds that the intenogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro §
19 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains
20 sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
21 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
22 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of
23 the intenogatory.
24 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 8;
25 See above.
26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9;
27
28
8
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by COVERED MEMBERS during the
2 COVERED PERIOD.
3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 9:
4 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
5 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
6 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
7 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
8 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
9 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
10 that it violates third party privacyrights.Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
11 intenogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant
12 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
13 2030.060(f).)
14 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
15 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
16 the intenogatory.
17 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 9;
18 See above.
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
20 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by PLAINTIFF during the
21 RELATIONSHIP.
22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 10;
23 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
24 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
2 6 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
27 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
28
9
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
2 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
3 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
4 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
5 the intenogatory.
6 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 10;
7 See above.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
9 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding overtime wages during the COVERED PERIOD.
10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 11;
11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
12 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant 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 intenogatory
15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks
16 information equally available to PiaintifF.
17 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
18 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope oF
19 the intenogatory.
20 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 11;
21 See above.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
23 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding minimum wages during the COVERED PERIOD.
24 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 12;
25 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and
26 scope. DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the
28
10
Separate Statement of hems of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Fiuther Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 grounds that the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the
2 intenogatory is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the
3 intenogatory seeks information equally available to PiaintifF.
4 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
5 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope oF
6 the intenogatory.
7 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 12;
8 See above.
9 S P E C L \ L INTERROGATORY NO. 13;
10 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding meal periods during the COVERED PERIOD.
11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 13;
12 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
13 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
14 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
15 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
16 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
17 information equally available to PiaintifF.
18 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
19 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
20 the intenogatory.
21 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 13;
22 See above.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
24 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD.
25 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14;
26 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
27 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
28
11
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
2 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
3 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
4 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
5 that it violates third party privacy rights.
6 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
7 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
a the interrogatory.
9 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 14;
10 See above.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
12 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding providing employees with accurate wage statements
13 during the COVERED PERIOD.
14 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 15:
15 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
16 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
18 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
19 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
20 information equally available to PlaintiFf.
21 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
22 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
23 the interrogatory.
24 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 15;
25 See above.
26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
27
28
12
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 ' IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding reimbursement expenses during the COVERED
2 PERIOD.
3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 16;
4 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
5 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
6 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
7 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
8 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
9 information equally available to PiaintifF.
10 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
11 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
12 the interrogatory.
13 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 16;
14 See above.
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17;
16 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding YOUR employees' use oF their personal cell phone
17 For work purposes during the COVERED PERIOD.
18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 17:
19 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
20 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
21 calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
22 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
23 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks
24 information equally available to Plaintiff.
25 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
26 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
27 the i nterrogatory.
28
13
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 17:
2 See above.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
4 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding keeping track oF YOUR employees' hours worked
5 during the COVERED PERIOD.
6 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 18:
7 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
8 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
9 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
10 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
11 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks
12 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF.
13 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
14 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
15 the intenogatory.
16 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 18;
17 See above.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
19 IDENTIFY the names oF any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer
20 duri ng the COVERED PERIOD.
21 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 19:
22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
23 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
24 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
26 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
27
28
14
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds
2 that it violates third party privacy rights.
3 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
4 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
5 the intenogatory.
6 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 19:
7 See above.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20;
9 IDENTIFY the address oF any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer
10 during the COVERED PERIOD.
11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 20;
12 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
13 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
14 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
15 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
16 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
17 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds
18 that it violates third party privacy rights.
19 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
20 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
21 the i nterrogatory.
22 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 20;
23 See above.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
25 IDENTIFY COVERED MEMBERS' supervisor during the COVERED PERIOD.
26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 21:
27
28
15
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
2 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
3 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
4 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
5 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
6 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds
7 that it violates third party privacyrights.DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
8 interrogatory is not "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).)
9 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
10 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
11 the i nterrogatory.
12 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 21;
13 See above.
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
15 IDENTIFY PLAINTIFF'S supervisor during the RELATIONSHIP.
16 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 22;
17 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
18 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
19 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
20 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
21 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds the intenogatory violates third
22 party privacy rights. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks inFormation
23 equally available to PlaintiFf DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is not
24 "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the
25 grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).)
26
27
28
16
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
2 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
3 the interrogatory.
4 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 22:
5 See above.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
7 If YOU contend that PLAINTIFF has not exhausted administrative remedies on the claims
8 alleged in the COMPLAINT, IDENTIFY each and every fact YOU believe supports YOUR
9 contention.
10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 23;
11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
12 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that
14 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks
16 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
17 intenogatory is not "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant
18 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
19 2030.060(F).)
20 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
21 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
22 the intenogatory.
23 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 23:
24 See above.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
26
27
28
17
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 IF YOU contend that PLAINTIFF has not.exhausted administrative remedies on the claims
2 alleged in the COMPLAINT, IDENTIFY each and every DOCUMENT YOU believe supports
3 YOUR contention.
4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 24;
5 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
6 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
7 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
8 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
9 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks
10 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
11 interrogatory is not "Full and complete in and oF itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant
12 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
13 2030.060(F).)
14 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
15 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to nanow the scope oF
16 the i ntenogatory.
17 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 24:
18 See above.
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
20 IF YOU contend that PLAINTIFF has not exhausted administrative remedies on the claim
21 alleged in the COMPLAINT, IDENTIFY each and every PERSON with knowledge oFthe Facts.
22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 25:
23 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
24 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
25 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
2 6 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
27 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks
28
18
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
2 intenogatory is not "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant
' 3 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
4 2030.060(F).)
5 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
6 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF
7 the interrogatory.
8 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 25;
9 See above.
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26;
11 IDENTIFY any and all Facts that support YOUR contention that any penalties awarded
12 under Labor Code section 2699 et al. ("The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act oF2004")
13 (also referred to as "PAGA" hereinafter) would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary and
14 oppressive, or confiscatory.
15 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 26;
16 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
17 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably
18 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
19 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
20 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
21 inFormation equally available to PlaintiFF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
22 interrogatory is not "Full and complete in and oF itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant
23 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
24 2030.060(F).) DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy
25 rights. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks inFormation protected by
2 6 the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines.
27
28
19
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
2 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope oF
3 the intenogatory.
4 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 26;
5 See above.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27;
7 IDENTIFY any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that any penalties
8 awarded under Labor Code section 2699 et seq. (i.e., the PAGA) would result in an award that is
9 unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.
10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 27:
11 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
12 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
14 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
15 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
16 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
17 intenogatory is not "Full and complete in and oF itselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant
18 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
19 2030.060(F).) DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy
20 rights. DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks inFormation protected by
21 the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines.
22 Based on the Foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
23 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of
24 the i nterrogatory.
25 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 27:
26 In addition to above:
27 Defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines, and refuses to
28
20
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 respond to the intenogatory. While a responding party may object to an interrogatory on the
2 grounds that it seeks privileged information, the existence of the document or documents
3 containing the alleged privileged information is not privileged. Smith v. Superior Court. (1961)
4 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 12. "A party has no right to refiise to identify documents in response to
5 interrogatories, even if it may properly refuse to produce them later, based upon a claim of
6 privilege." Hernandez v. Superior Court. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4* 285, 294.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28;
8 IDENTIFY YOUR person most knowledgeable who can support YOUR contention that
9 any penalties awarded under Labor Code section 2699 et seq. (i.e., the PAGA) would result in an
10 award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.
11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 28:
12 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
13 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant 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 intenogatory
16 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
17 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the
18 interrogatory is hot "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant
19 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
20 2030.060(F).) DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy
21 rights. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks inFormation protected by
22 the attomey-client privilege and work-product doctrines.
23 Based on the Foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory.
24 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of
25 the intenogatory.
26 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 28;
27 See above.
28
21
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 S P E C U L INTERROGATORY NO. 29;
2 IDENTIFY any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that you properiy
3 instituted an Alternative Work week for YOUR covered employees during the COVERED period.
4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 29;
5 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
6 Defendant objects to the 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 intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
9 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks
10 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the
11 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant
12 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro §
13 2030.060(f).) Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy
14 rights. Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by
15 the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines.
16 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory.
17 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to nanow the scope oF
18 the intenogatory.
19 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 29;
20 See above.
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
22 IDENTIFY any and all DOCUMENTS regarding complaints made to YOU regarding
23 employee saFety and health during the COVERED PERIOD.
24 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 30:
25 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope.
2 6 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that
28
22
Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
1 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory
2 is burdensome
Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235) 1 SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C. 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 2 Chico, CA 95928 Telephone: (530) 809-1851 3 Facsimile: (530) 592-3865 Email: psavesq{'fr(< gmail .com FlLED/EMDOeSIED 4 5 SEP 1 0 2020 Attorney for Plaintiffs, 6 JAY ROBINSON and By:. A. Macias Deputy Clerk HUGO PINEDA, individually and on 7 Behalf of all others similarly situated 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 JAY ROBINSON and 11 Case No. 34-2019-00262942 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of 12 all other similarly situated. 13 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' 14 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL 15 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL, SET 16 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL ONE; FORM INTERROGATORIES - RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE 17 California Corporation and PHILLIPS & 18 JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, and DOES 1-10. Hearing Date: 9/23/2020 19 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants Dept.: 54 20 21 Action Filed: 08/16/2019 22 23 24 Plaintiff hereby submits its Separate Statement of Items in Dispute pursuant to California 25 Rule of Court Rule 3.1345 in support of its Motion to Compel Further Response to Special 26 Interrogatories, Set One; Form Intenogatories - General, Set One; and Form Interrogatories - 27 Employment, Set One. 28 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1; 2 IDENTIFY each and every COVERED MEMBER that is within the COVERED PERIOD 3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 1: 4 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and 5 scope. Defendant further objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not 6 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on 7 the grounds that the intenogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 8 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is burdensome 9 and oppressive. Defendant further objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it violates third 10 party privacy rights. 11 Based on the foregoing objection, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 12 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 13 the intenogatory. 14 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 1: 15 Defendant's objections are without merit. 16 Plaintiffs propounded special intenogatories included a defmition of "COVERED 17 MEMBER" as all employees employed by Defendant during the "COVERED PERIOD". 18 "COVERED PERIOD" was defined as the four-year period prior to Plaintiffs filing the complaint 19 on August 16, 2019 to the present date. The time and scope of the interrogatory is clearly defined. 20 Objections which claim an intenogatory is overbroad require that Defendant can show either 21 intent to create an unreasonable burden or incommensurate result. Absent such a showing, the 22 information should be produced. See, West Pico Furniture Company of Los Angeles v. Superior 23 Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Defendant has made no such showing. 24 Further, the information sought by this interrogatory is directly and materially relevant to 25 the matters alleged in Plaintiffs complaint, and seeks to identify members of the representative 26 class. In the absence of a contrary court order, a civil litigant'srightto discovery is broad. See, 27 Williams v. Superior Court. (2017) 3 CaLS**" 531, 541. This right includes an entitlement to learn 28 2 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 "the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." See, Code 2 Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. To show an interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information "is not 3 the burden of the party propounding interrogatories. As a litigant, it is entitled to demand answers 4 to its intenogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom 5 those intenogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the 6 purview of the code section." See, West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 7 407, 422. The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with 8 the party resisting an interrogatory. See, Coy v. Superior Court. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220. 9 Defendant has made no showing that the intenogatory is not relevant, or is not likely to lead to the 10 discovery of admissible evidence. 11 Plaintiffs special interrogatory is full and complete in and of itself as it is clearly identified 12 by number "Special Intenogatory No. 1", it contains no preface or instmction, and does not 13 reference any other intenogatory. See, Clemente v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4'*' 1277, 1287. 14 Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.60(c)-(d). 15 Plaintiff is entitled to the identification of all putative class members who provided 16 services for Defendant during the class period. "Contact information regarding the identity of 17 potential class members is generally discoverable, so that a lead plaintiff may learn the names of 18 other persons who might assist in prosecuting the case." Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010. Such 19 disclosure involves no revelation of personal or business secrets, intimate activities, or similar 20 private information and threatens no undue intmsion into one's personal life, such as mass- 21 marketing efforts or unsolicited sales pitches. See, Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. v. Superior 22 Court (2007) 40 Cal.4'^ 360, 361. See also, Williams, below, for the principle that "Such potential 23 class members will often qualify as "percipient witnesses," whose contact information the 24 discovery statutes explicitly make a "proper subject of ... discovery." Limiting discovery would 25 grant the Defendant a monopoly on access to its customers or employees and their experiences and 26 artificially tilt the scales in the ensuing litigation. See, Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.S"' 27 531, 544. See also. Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010. Moreover, Defendant has failed to identify what 28 3 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 privacyrightsare being referred to nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's 2 obligation prior to the time that responses are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for 3 good cause, required protection or should only be answered pursuant to specified terms and 4 conditions. See, Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 6 IDENTIFY the total number of COVERED MEMBERS who performed work for YOU 7 within the COVERED PERIOD. RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 2; 9 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that the phrases "total number" and 10 "who performed work" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to the intenogatory 11 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope. Defendant further objects to this 12 interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 13 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 14 is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant further 15 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant further 16 objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy rights. 17 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 18 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of 19 the interrogatory. 20 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 2: 21 See above. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 23 IDENTIFY the dates of employment (i.e., start/end dates and any interim start/end dates) 24 for each ofthe COVERED MEMBERS within the COVERED PERIOD (for purposes ofthis set 25 of intenogatories, any employee who provided work for YOU for at least one (1) day). 26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 3; 27 28 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that the phrase "dates of 2 employment" is vague and ambiguous as stated. Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the 3 grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 4 grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 5 evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. 6 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks information equally available to 7 Plaintiff Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third party privacy 8 rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is not "full and complete in 9 and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the grounds that the 10 interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 11 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 12 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 13 the interrogatory. 14 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 3: 15 In addition to above: 16 Defendant objects on the grounds that the information sought is equally available to 17 Plaintiff, which is without merit. Additionally, Defendant has failed to seek a protective order if 18 Defendant truly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other source that is more 19 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Code Civ Proc. § 2019.030(a)(1) 20 The intenogatory is not compound and does not contain sub-parts. The intenogatory 21 covers a single subject and therefore should be allowed. See, Clement v. Alegre. supra. Id- 1291. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 23 IDENTIFY how YOU paid COVERED MEMBERS (i.e., houriy, salary, piece rate, 24 commission, etc.) during the COVERED PERIOD. 25 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 4; 26 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 27 Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 28 5 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 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 intenogatory 3 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 4 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 5 that it violates third party privacy rights. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 6 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant 7 objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 8 2030.060(f).) 9 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 10 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 11 the intenogatory. 12 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 4; 13 See above. 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5; 15 IDENTIFY how YOU paid PLAINTIFF (i.e., houriy, salary, piece rate, commission, etc.) 16 during the RELATIONSHIP (relationship refers to the duration of employment between YOU and 17 any such Plaintiff or Covered Member, depending on which the intenogatory may reference). 18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 5; 19 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 20 Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 22 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 23 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 24 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 25 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 26 27 28 6 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 2 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 3 the intenogatory. 4 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 5: 5 See above. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 7 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workweek. 8 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 6: 9 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 10 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 12 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 13 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 14 information equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 15 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 16 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 17 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of 18 the interrogatory. 19 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 6; 20 See above. 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 22 IDENTIFY YOUR defined workday. 23 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 7: 24 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 25 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 27 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 28 7 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 2 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 3 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 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 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 7; 8 See above. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 10 IDENTIFY YOUR defined pay period. 11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 8; 12 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and 13 scope. Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not 14 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the 15 grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the 16 interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the 17 intenogatory seeks information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the 18 grounds that the intenogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 19 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains 20 sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 21 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 22 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of 23 the intenogatory. 24 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 8; 25 See above. 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9; 27 28 8 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by COVERED MEMBERS during the 2 COVERED PERIOD. 3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 9: 4 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 5 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 6 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 7 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 8 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 9 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 10 that it violates third party privacyrights.Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 11 intenogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant 12 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 13 2030.060(f).) 14 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 15 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 16 the intenogatory. 17 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 9; 18 See above. 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 20 IDENTIFY all pay periods, by date range, worked by PLAINTIFF during the 21 RELATIONSHIP. 22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 10; 23 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 24 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 2 6 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 27 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 28 9 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 2 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 3 Based on the foregoing objections, Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 4 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 5 the intenogatory. 6 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 10; 7 See above. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 9 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding overtime wages during the COVERED PERIOD. 10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 11; 11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 12 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant 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 intenogatory 15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks 16 information equally available to PiaintifF. 17 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 18 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope oF 19 the intenogatory. 20 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 11; 21 See above. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 23 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding minimum wages during the COVERED PERIOD. 24 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 12; 25 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and 26 scope. DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not 27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the 28 10 Separate Statement of hems of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Fiuther Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 grounds that the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the 2 intenogatory is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the 3 intenogatory seeks information equally available to PiaintifF. 4 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 5 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope oF 6 the intenogatory. 7 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 12; 8 See above. 9 S P E C L \ L INTERROGATORY NO. 13; 10 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding meal periods during the COVERED PERIOD. 11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 13; 12 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 13 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 15 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 16 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 17 information equally available to PiaintifF. 18 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 19 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 20 the intenogatory. 21 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 13; 22 See above. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 24 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD. 25 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14; 26 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 27 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 28 11 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 2 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 3 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 4 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 5 that it violates third party privacy rights. 6 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 7 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of a the interrogatory. 9 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 14; 10 See above. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 12 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding providing employees with accurate wage statements 13 during the COVERED PERIOD. 14 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 15: 15 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 16 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 18 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 19 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 20 information equally available to PlaintiFf. 21 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 22 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 23 the interrogatory. 24 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 15; 25 See above. 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 27 28 12 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 ' IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding reimbursement expenses during the COVERED 2 PERIOD. 3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 16; 4 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 5 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 6 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 7 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 8 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 9 information equally available to PiaintifF. 10 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 11 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 12 the interrogatory. 13 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 16; 14 See above. 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17; 16 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding YOUR employees' use oF their personal cell phone 17 For work purposes during the COVERED PERIOD. 18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 17: 19 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 20 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 22 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 23 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks 24 information equally available to Plaintiff. 25 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 26 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 27 the i nterrogatory. 28 13 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 17: 2 See above. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 4 IDENTIFY YOUR policy regarding keeping track oF YOUR employees' hours worked 5 during the COVERED PERIOD. 6 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 18: 7 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 8 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 9 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 10 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 11 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks 12 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. 13 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 14 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 15 the intenogatory. 16 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 18; 17 See above. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 19 IDENTIFY the names oF any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer 20 duri ng the COVERED PERIOD. 21 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 19: 22 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 23 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 24 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 25 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 26 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 27 28 14 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds 2 that it violates third party privacy rights. 3 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 4 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 5 the intenogatory. 6 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 19: 7 See above. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20; 9 IDENTIFY the address oF any legal entity that was the COVERED MEMBERS' employer 10 during the COVERED PERIOD. 11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 20; 12 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 13 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 15 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 16 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 17 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds 18 that it violates third party privacy rights. 19 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 20 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 21 the i nterrogatory. 22 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 20; 23 See above. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 25 IDENTIFY COVERED MEMBERS' supervisor during the COVERED PERIOD. 26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 21: 27 28 15 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 2 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 3 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 4 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 5 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 6 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds 7 that it violates third party privacyrights.DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 8 interrogatory is not "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) 9 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 10 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 11 the i nterrogatory. 12 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 21; 13 See above. 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 15 IDENTIFY PLAINTIFF'S supervisor during the RELATIONSHIP. 16 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 22; 17 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 18 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 19 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 20 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 21 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds the intenogatory violates third 22 party privacy rights. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks inFormation 23 equally available to PlaintiFf DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is not 24 "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant objects on the 25 grounds that the interrogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(f).) 26 27 28 16 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 2 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 3 the interrogatory. 4 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 22: 5 See above. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 7 If YOU contend that PLAINTIFF has not exhausted administrative remedies on the claims 8 alleged in the COMPLAINT, IDENTIFY each and every fact YOU believe supports YOUR 9 contention. 10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 23; 11 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 12 Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects on the grounds that 14 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 15 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks 16 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 17 intenogatory is not "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant 18 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 19 2030.060(F).) 20 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 21 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 22 the intenogatory. 23 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 23: 24 See above. 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 26 27 28 17 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 IF YOU contend that PLAINTIFF has not.exhausted administrative remedies on the claims 2 alleged in the COMPLAINT, IDENTIFY each and every DOCUMENT YOU believe supports 3 YOUR contention. 4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 24; 5 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 6 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 7 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 8 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 9 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks 10 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 11 interrogatory is not "Full and complete in and oF itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant 12 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 13 2030.060(F).) 14 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 15 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to nanow the scope oF 16 the i ntenogatory. 17 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 24: 18 See above. 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 20 IF YOU contend that PLAINTIFF has not exhausted administrative remedies on the claim 21 alleged in the COMPLAINT, IDENTIFY each and every PERSON with knowledge oFthe Facts. 22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 25: 23 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 24 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 25 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 2 6 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 27 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory seeks 28 18 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 2 intenogatory is not "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant ' 3 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 4 2030.060(F).) 5 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 6 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to narrow the scope oF 7 the interrogatory. 8 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 25; 9 See above. 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26; 11 IDENTIFY any and all Facts that support YOUR contention that any penalties awarded 12 under Labor Code section 2699 et al. ("The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act oF2004") 13 (also referred to as "PAGA" hereinafter) would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary and 14 oppressive, or confiscatory. 15 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 26; 16 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 17 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 19 the intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 20 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 21 inFormation equally available to PlaintiFF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 22 interrogatory is not "Full and complete in and oF itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant 23 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 24 2030.060(F).) DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy 25 rights. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks inFormation protected by 2 6 the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines. 27 28 19 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 Based on the Foregoing objections, DeFendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 2 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope oF 3 the intenogatory. 4 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 26; 5 See above. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27; 7 IDENTIFY any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that any penalties 8 awarded under Labor Code section 2699 et seq. (i.e., the PAGA) would result in an award that is 9 unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. 10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 27: 11 DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 12 DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery oFadmissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 14 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 15 is burdensome and oppressive. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 16 inFormation equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 17 intenogatory is not "Full and complete in and oF itselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant 18 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 19 2030.060(F).) DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy 20 rights. DeFendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks inFormation protected by 21 the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines. 22 Based on the Foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 23 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to narrow the scope of 24 the i nterrogatory. 25 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 27: 26 In addition to above: 27 Defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines, and refuses to 28 20 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 respond to the intenogatory. While a responding party may object to an interrogatory on the 2 grounds that it seeks privileged information, the existence of the document or documents 3 containing the alleged privileged information is not privileged. Smith v. Superior Court. (1961) 4 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 12. "A party has no right to refiise to identify documents in response to 5 interrogatories, even if it may properly refuse to produce them later, based upon a claim of 6 privilege." Hernandez v. Superior Court. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4* 285, 294. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28; 8 IDENTIFY YOUR person most knowledgeable who can support YOUR contention that 9 any penalties awarded under Labor Code section 2699 et seq. (i.e., the PAGA) would result in an 10 award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. 11 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 28: 12 Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 13 Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant 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 intenogatory 16 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 17 information equally available to PiaintifF. DeFendant Further objects on the grounds that the 18 interrogatory is hot "Full and complete in and oFitselF" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) DeFendant 19 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 20 2030.060(F).) DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy 21 rights. DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks inFormation protected by 22 the attomey-client privilege and work-product doctrines. 23 Based on the Foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this interrogatory. 24 Notwithstanding, Defendant invites Plaintiffs counsel to meet and confer to nanow the scope of 25 the intenogatory. 26 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 28; 27 See above. 28 21 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 S P E C U L INTERROGATORY NO. 29; 2 IDENTIFY any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that you properiy 3 instituted an Alternative Work week for YOUR covered employees during the COVERED period. 4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 29; 5 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 6 Defendant objects to the 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 intenogatory is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 9 is burdensome and oppressive. Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks 10 information equally available to PiaintifF. Defendant further objects on the grounds that the 11 interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself" (Ca Civ Pro § 2030.060(c)-(d).) Defendant 12 objects on the grounds that the intenogatory is compound or contains sub-parts. (Ca Civ Pro § 13 2030.060(f).) Defendant objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it violates third privacy 14 rights. Defendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by 15 the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines. 16 Based on the foregoing objections. Defendant will not respond to this intenogatory. 17 Notwithstanding, DeFendant invites PlaintiFf s counsel to meet and conFer to nanow the scope oF 18 the intenogatory. 19 REASON FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO NO. 29; 20 See above. 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 22 IDENTIFY any and all DOCUMENTS regarding complaints made to YOU regarding 23 employee saFety and health during the COVERED PERIOD. 24 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 30: 25 Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as to time and scope. 2 6 DeFendant objects to the intenogatory on the grounds that it is inelevant and is not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. DeFendant objects on the grounds that 28 22 Separate Statement of Items of Dispute in Support ofMotion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1 the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant objects on the grounds that the intenogatory 2 is burdensome