Preview
•FILED-.
BiDORSEO-
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & B H O V m i K ^OnOEC-i AH 10: 53
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
tOiiNT YOr SACRAiiENTo'
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217)
2255 Calle Clara
4 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6 Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated CLASS ACTION
15
DISCOVERY
16 Plaintiff,
vs. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT
17
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,a COMPEL REQUEST FOR
18
Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, PRODUCTION, SET ONE
19 Inclusive
Telephone Appearance
20 Defendants.
Hearing Date: January 4, 2017
21 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
22 Dept.: 54
23 Action Filed: April 5,2017
24
25
26
27
28
I
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560
1 Pursuant to Califomia Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345, Plaintiff herein provides the Court with the
2 following Separate Statement which includes a summary of discovery requests, responses given, and the
3 reasons why discovery should be compelled. Tme and correct copies of Defendant's Responses to
4 Requests for Production are attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as Exhibit # 1.
5 By way of this motion. Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiffs Request for
6 Production, Set 1, seeking (1) PlaintifTs electronic time and payroll records (RFP Nos. 3 & 4); (2) Class
7 Members' contact information (RFP No. 6); (3) Defendant's policies and procedures (RFP Nos. 7-17);
8 (4) shareholder meeting corporate minutes (RFP Nos. 18-19); (5) Class Members' electronic time and
9 payroll records (RFP No. 20-21); and (6) Class Members' itemized wage statements (RFP No. 22).
10 Plaintiff also requests that Defendant produce all corresponding responsive documents.
11
12 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
13 Please produce, in electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, the daily time records for
14 PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
15 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
16 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds
17 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "daily time records" and "RELEVANT
18 TIME PERIOD." Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
19 burdensome. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to
20 the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
22 will produce Plaintiffs timesheets.
23 REASONS V^HY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3 SHOULD BE
24 COMPELLED:
25 Defendant's production of Plaintiff s time and wage records in PDF, the electronic equivalent ofa
26 paper copy, violates the letter and spirit of Califomia's Electronic Discovery Act. The purpose of the
27 legislation was to provide litigants with data in a usable format, which means that it is searchable and
28 sortable. This infonnation is useful when a party has the ability to sort and analyze the data, activities which
2
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 would be readily available to Plaintiff had Defendant produced the information in Microsoft Excel, the
2 standard format for production of documents containing data, especially numerical data. For Plaintiff to
3 manually translate the data into Microsoft Excel places a substantial burden on Plaintiff, dwarfing by tens
4 of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours the burden on Defendant to translate the data from its own
5 intemal computer system.
6 Importantly, when responding to inspection requests, the responding party is to produce
7 electronically stored information in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is
8 reasonably usable. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(d)(1). Defendant does not ordinarily maintain this
9 information in PDF, nor is PDF a reasonably usable format for the production of this information. Thus, this
10 production is not compliant.
11 Because of the lack of Califomia case law regarding the discovery of electronically stored
12 information, courts tum to federal case law addressing the very similar Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
13 goveming the discovery of electronically stored information. Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts,
14 Inc., 230 Cal. App. 4th 35, 43 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2014). Regarding the federal mle, courts agree that the
15 most important aspect ofthe production of electronically stored information is that it retains it usefulness:
16 The mle does not require a party to produce electronically stored information in the form it
[sic] which it is ordinarily maintained, as long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form.
17 But the option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding
party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is
18 ordinarily maintained to a differentform that makes it more difficult or burdensomefor the
requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation. Ifthe responding party
19 ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by
electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or
20 significantly degrades this feature.
21 E.g., L.H. V. Schwarzenegger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86829, * 12-13 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008) (citing the
22 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, addressing
23 electronic discovery)(emphasis added). A defendant is in violation of discovery mles when it translates its
24 own searchable and sortable data into a PDF, stripping the information of its usefulness and its ability to
25 be used efficiently in litigation. Id. at *13.
26 The relevant inquiry here is what can be done to "help all of us get to the merits of this case."
27 Quinstreet. Inc. v. Ferguson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130831, 11-12 (W.D. Wash. June 22,
28 2009)(compelling production of documents in a "reasonably usable form")(emphasis added). There is no
3
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 dispute that the production of Plaintiff s payroll and time records in a searchable and sortable electronic
2 fonnat will be more efficient to process than by a manual review of PDFfiles.Such production will benefit
3 both parties and the Court.
4
5 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
6 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all payroll records for
7 PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
8 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
9 In addition to the foregoing Generitl Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds
10 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "payroll records" and "RELEVANT
11 TIME PERIOD." Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
12 burdensome. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to
13 the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
15 will produce Plaintiffs wage statements.
16 REASONS V^HY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4 SHOULD BE
17 COMPELLED;
18 Defendant's production of Plaintiff s time and wage records in PDF, the electronic equivalent ofa
19 paper copy, violates the letter and spirit of Califomia's Electronic Discovery Act. The purpose of the
20 legislation was to provide litigants with data in a usable format, which means that it is searchable and
21 sortable. This information is useful when a party has the ability to sort and analyze the data, activities which
22 would be readily available to Plaintiff had Defendant produced the information in Microsoft Excel, the
23 standard format for production of documents containing data, especially numerical data. For Plaintiff to
24 manually translate the data into Microsoft Excel places a substantial burden on Plaintiff, dwarfing by tens
25 of thousands of dollars and himdreds of hours the burden on Defendant to translate the data from its own
26 intemal computer system.
27 Importantly, when responding to inspection requests, the responding party is to produce
28 electronically stored information in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is
4
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 reasonably usable. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(d)(1). Defendant does not ordinarily maintain this
2 information in PDF, nor is PDF a reasonably usable format for the production of this information. Thus, this
3 production is not compliant.
4 Because, of the lack of Califomia case law regarding the discovery of electronically stored
5 information, courts tum to federal case law addressing the very similar Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
6 goveming the discovery of electronically stored information. Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts,
7 Inc., 230 Cal. App. 4th 35,43 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2014). Regarding the federal mle, courts agree that the
8 most important aspect of the production of electronically stored information is that it retains it usefulness:
9 The mle does not require a party to produce electronically stored information in the form it
[sic] which it is ordinarily maintained, as long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form.
10 But the option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding
party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is
11 ordinarily maintained to a differentform that makes it more difficult or burdensomefor the
requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation. Ifthe responding party
12 ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by
electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or
13 significantly degrades this feature.
14 E.g.,L.H. V. Schwarzenegger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86829, *12-13 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008) (citing the
15 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, addressing
16 electronic discovery)(emphasis added). A defendant is in violation of discovery mles when it translates its
17 own searchable and sortable data into a PDF, stripping the information of its usefulness and its ability to
18 be used efficiently in litigation. M at * 13.
19 The relevant inquiry here is what can be done to "help all of us get to the merits of this case."
20 Quinstreet, Inc. v. Ferguson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130831, 11-12 (W.D. Wash. June 22,
21 2009)(compelling production of documents in a "reasonably usable form")(emphasis added). There is no
22 dispute that the production of Plaintiff s payroll and time records in a searchable and sortable electronic
23 format will be more efficient to process than by a manual review of PDF files. Such production will benefit
24 both parties and the Court.
25
26 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
27 Please produce in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, DOCUMENTS sufficient to
28 evidence the names and dates of employment, last-known telephone numbers, last-known addresses, last-
5
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 known email addresses, job titles, dates of employment and rates of pay of every CLASS MEMBER who
2 worked for DEFENDANT during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
4 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
5 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBER" and
6 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad,
7 compound, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this
8 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to
9 this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant
10 further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protectedfromdisclosure by the
11 rights of privacy of third- party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section I . The
12 parties have not yet agreed upon a Belaire-West notice procedure or entered into a stipulated protective
13 order to govem the exchange of contact information o f CLASS MEMBERS."
14 REASONS yy^HY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 SHOULD BE
15 COMPELLED:
16 Defendant's objections to producing the names, date of employment, telephone numbers, addresses,
17 email address, job titles, and rates of pay for ever Class Member are without merit. On July 13,2017, the
18 Supreme Court of Califomia held that requests for all statewide putative class member contact information
19 and employment history falls squarely within the scope of discovery permitted under CCP 2017.010 and,
20 by default, caimot be limited geographically or by other arbitrary designations imposed on the complaint.
21 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 542 (2017).
22 In Williams, the Supreme Court stated that the "potential class members will often qualify as
23 'percipient witnesses,' whose contact information the discovery statutes explicitly make a 'proper subject[]
24 of discovery.'... Limiting discovery would grant the defendant a monopoly on access to its ... employees
25 and their experiences and artificially tilt the scales in the ensuing litigation. Id. at 544 (citations omitted).
26 "In a class action, fellow class members are potential percipient witnesses to alleged illegalities, and it is
27 on that basis their contact information becomes relevant." Id. at 547.
28 Here, Defendant has full access to the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the putative class
6
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 members. The Williams Court stated that access to contact information, including telephone numbers, is an
2 "essential first step to prosecution of any representative action." Id. at 544; see also id. at 552 (".. .undue
3 burden do not support the trial court's refusal to permit Williams discovery of statewide employee contact
4 information." (emphasis added)); see also id. at 559 ("Marshalls's privacy objection does not support the
5 denial of statewide discovery." (emphasis added)).
6 Further, as explained in Williams, any and all privacy concems regarding the putative class members
7 can be alleviated with the issuance of a Belaire- West opt-out notice. Plaintiff has proposed such an opt-out
8 notice and the Parties have reached an impasse. Accordingly, Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order for
9 the opt-out privacy notice to be sent to the Class Members. (Dkt. 34.)
10
11 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
12 Please produce all applicable meal period policies for the CLASS MEMBERS during the
13 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
14 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
15 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the groimds
16 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "meal period policies," "CLASS
17 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds
18 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
19 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects
20 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the
22 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents,
23 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff
24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7 SHOULD BE
25 COMPELLED:
26 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
27 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
28 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
7
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 this infonnation will evidence the suitability of certification.
2 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
3 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
4 allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
5 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
6 Defendant's obj ections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
7 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
8 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
9 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
10 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
11 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will
12 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
13
14 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
15 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all job descriptions ofthe CLASS MEMBERS.
16 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
18 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "job descriptions," "CLASS
19 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds
20 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
21 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects
22 to this Request on the groimds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Upon the
24 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents,
25 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description.
26 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 SHOULD BE
27 COMPELLED:
28 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
8
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
2 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
3 this infonnation will evidence the suitability of certification.
4 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
5 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
6 allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
7 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017).
8 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
9 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
10 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
11 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
12 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
13 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will
14 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
15
16 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
17 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all employee handbooks applicable to the CLASS
18 MEMBERS.
19 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
20 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
21 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS" and
22 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad,
23 unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this Request
25 on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the
27 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents,
28 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff.
9
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 SHOULD BE
2 COMPELLED:
3 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
4 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
5 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
6 this infonnation will evidence the suitability of certification.
7 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
8 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
9 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
10 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017).
11 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
12 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
13 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
14 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
15 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
16 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will
17 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
18
19 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
20 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing hourly
21 compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS.
22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
24 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "policies," "providing," "hourly
25 compensation" "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this
26 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant
27 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
28 .. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
10
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 information.
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Upon the
3 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents,
4 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff.
5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10 SHOULD BE
6 COMPELLED:
7 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
8 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
9 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
10 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
11 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
12 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
13 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
14 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
15 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
16 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
17 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
18 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
19 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
20 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will
21 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
22
23 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
24 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing
25 commission compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS.
26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
28 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
11
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TIME PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "commission compensation." Defendant also objects to this
2 Request on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant
3 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
5 information.
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent
7 search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request
8 in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that applied to Plaintiff.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 SHOULD B E
10 COMPELLED:
11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
15 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiff,is evasive
16 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
17 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
18 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017).
19 Defendant's obj ections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
26
27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
28 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing bonus
12
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560
1 compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS.
2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
4 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the tenns "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME
5 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "bonus compensation." Defendant also objects to this Request on the
6 grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter
7 of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects
8 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent
10 search and reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request
11 in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that applied to Plaintiff.
12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12 SHOULD B E
13 COMPELLED:
14 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
15 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
16 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
17 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
18 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
19 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
20 allegations of the complaint rnaking this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
21 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
22 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
23 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
24 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
25 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
26 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
27 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
28 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
13
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
2 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing
3 "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS.
4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
5 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
6 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME
7 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "'MedFlxWave' compensation." Defendant also objects to this Request
8 on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
9 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also
10 objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
11 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have
12 neither been admitted nor established.
13 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13 SHOULD B E
14 COMPELLED:
15 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
16 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
17 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
18 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
19 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
26
27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
28 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing
14
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 "DenFlxElct" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS.
2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
4 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME
5 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and '"DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also objects to this Request on
6 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
7 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also
8 objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
9 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that have
10 neither been admitted nor established.
11 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 SHOULD B E
12 COMPELLED:
13 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
14 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
15 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
16 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
17 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
18 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
19 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
20 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
21 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
22 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
23 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
24
25 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
26 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all bf DEFENDANT'S policies for providing cash
27 payments in lieu of health benefits to the CLASS MEMBERS.
28 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
15
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
2 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the tenns "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME
3 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this
4 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the
5 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
6 also objects to this Request on the grounds thadt seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
7 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither
8 been admitted nor established.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 SHOULD B E
10 COMPELLED;
11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
15 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
16 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
17 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
18 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
19 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
20 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
21 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
22
23 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
24 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce DEFENDANT'S written policy, i f any, for providing
25 meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS.
26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
28 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD,"
16
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 "CLASS MEMBERS," "policy," "providing" and "meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this
2 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant
3 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
5 information.
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the
7 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents,
8 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16 SHOULD BE
10 COMPELLED;
11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
15 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
16 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
17 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
18 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017).
19 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
26
27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
28 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing and
17
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 calculating overtime compensation for the CLASS MEMBERS.
2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
4 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "policy," "providing," "calculating" "CLASS
5 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "overtime compensation." Defendant also objects to this
6 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the
7 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
8 also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the parties
10 entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. Defendant will
11 produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff.
12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 SHOULD B E
13 COMPELLED;
14 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
15 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
16 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
17 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
18 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
19 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
20 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
21 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017).
22 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
23 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
24 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
25 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
26 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
27 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
28 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
18
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
2 For the RELEV
Preview
•FILED-. BiDORSEO- 1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & B H O V m i K ^OnOEC-i AH 10: 53 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) tOiiNT YOr SACRAiiENTo' Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) 2255 Calle Clara 4 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated CLASS ACTION 15 DISCOVERY 16 Plaintiff, vs. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT 17 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,a COMPEL REQUEST FOR 18 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, PRODUCTION, SET ONE 19 Inclusive Telephone Appearance 20 Defendants. Hearing Date: January 4, 2017 21 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Raymond M. Cadei 22 Dept.: 54 23 Action Filed: April 5,2017 24 25 26 27 28 I PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 1 Pursuant to Califomia Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345, Plaintiff herein provides the Court with the 2 following Separate Statement which includes a summary of discovery requests, responses given, and the 3 reasons why discovery should be compelled. Tme and correct copies of Defendant's Responses to 4 Requests for Production are attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as Exhibit # 1. 5 By way of this motion. Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiffs Request for 6 Production, Set 1, seeking (1) PlaintifTs electronic time and payroll records (RFP Nos. 3 & 4); (2) Class 7 Members' contact information (RFP No. 6); (3) Defendant's policies and procedures (RFP Nos. 7-17); 8 (4) shareholder meeting corporate minutes (RFP Nos. 18-19); (5) Class Members' electronic time and 9 payroll records (RFP No. 20-21); and (6) Class Members' itemized wage statements (RFP No. 22). 10 Plaintiff also requests that Defendant produce all corresponding responsive documents. 11 12 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 13 Please produce, in electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, the daily time records for 14 PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 15 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 16 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds 17 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "daily time records" and "RELEVANT 18 TIME PERIOD." Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly 19 burdensome. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to 20 the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 22 will produce Plaintiffs timesheets. 23 REASONS V^HY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3 SHOULD BE 24 COMPELLED: 25 Defendant's production of Plaintiff s time and wage records in PDF, the electronic equivalent ofa 26 paper copy, violates the letter and spirit of Califomia's Electronic Discovery Act. The purpose of the 27 legislation was to provide litigants with data in a usable format, which means that it is searchable and 28 sortable. This infonnation is useful when a party has the ability to sort and analyze the data, activities which 2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 would be readily available to Plaintiff had Defendant produced the information in Microsoft Excel, the 2 standard format for production of documents containing data, especially numerical data. For Plaintiff to 3 manually translate the data into Microsoft Excel places a substantial burden on Plaintiff, dwarfing by tens 4 of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours the burden on Defendant to translate the data from its own 5 intemal computer system. 6 Importantly, when responding to inspection requests, the responding party is to produce 7 electronically stored information in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is 8 reasonably usable. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(d)(1). Defendant does not ordinarily maintain this 9 information in PDF, nor is PDF a reasonably usable format for the production of this information. Thus, this 10 production is not compliant. 11 Because of the lack of Califomia case law regarding the discovery of electronically stored 12 information, courts tum to federal case law addressing the very similar Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 goveming the discovery of electronically stored information. Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, 14 Inc., 230 Cal. App. 4th 35, 43 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2014). Regarding the federal mle, courts agree that the 15 most important aspect ofthe production of electronically stored information is that it retains it usefulness: 16 The mle does not require a party to produce electronically stored information in the form it [sic] which it is ordinarily maintained, as long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form. 17 But the option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is 18 ordinarily maintained to a differentform that makes it more difficult or burdensomefor the requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation. Ifthe responding party 19 ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or 20 significantly degrades this feature. 21 E.g., L.H. V. Schwarzenegger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86829, * 12-13 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008) (citing the 22 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, addressing 23 electronic discovery)(emphasis added). A defendant is in violation of discovery mles when it translates its 24 own searchable and sortable data into a PDF, stripping the information of its usefulness and its ability to 25 be used efficiently in litigation. Id. at *13. 26 The relevant inquiry here is what can be done to "help all of us get to the merits of this case." 27 Quinstreet. Inc. v. Ferguson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130831, 11-12 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 28 2009)(compelling production of documents in a "reasonably usable form")(emphasis added). There is no 3 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 dispute that the production of Plaintiff s payroll and time records in a searchable and sortable electronic 2 fonnat will be more efficient to process than by a manual review of PDFfiles.Such production will benefit 3 both parties and the Court. 4 5 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 6 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all payroll records for 7 PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 8 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 9 In addition to the foregoing Generitl Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds 10 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "payroll records" and "RELEVANT 11 TIME PERIOD." Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly 12 burdensome. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to 13 the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 15 will produce Plaintiffs wage statements. 16 REASONS V^HY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4 SHOULD BE 17 COMPELLED; 18 Defendant's production of Plaintiff s time and wage records in PDF, the electronic equivalent ofa 19 paper copy, violates the letter and spirit of Califomia's Electronic Discovery Act. The purpose of the 20 legislation was to provide litigants with data in a usable format, which means that it is searchable and 21 sortable. This information is useful when a party has the ability to sort and analyze the data, activities which 22 would be readily available to Plaintiff had Defendant produced the information in Microsoft Excel, the 23 standard format for production of documents containing data, especially numerical data. For Plaintiff to 24 manually translate the data into Microsoft Excel places a substantial burden on Plaintiff, dwarfing by tens 25 of thousands of dollars and himdreds of hours the burden on Defendant to translate the data from its own 26 intemal computer system. 27 Importantly, when responding to inspection requests, the responding party is to produce 28 electronically stored information in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is 4 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 reasonably usable. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(d)(1). Defendant does not ordinarily maintain this 2 information in PDF, nor is PDF a reasonably usable format for the production of this information. Thus, this 3 production is not compliant. 4 Because, of the lack of Califomia case law regarding the discovery of electronically stored 5 information, courts tum to federal case law addressing the very similar Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 goveming the discovery of electronically stored information. Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, 7 Inc., 230 Cal. App. 4th 35,43 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2014). Regarding the federal mle, courts agree that the 8 most important aspect of the production of electronically stored information is that it retains it usefulness: 9 The mle does not require a party to produce electronically stored information in the form it [sic] which it is ordinarily maintained, as long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form. 10 But the option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is 11 ordinarily maintained to a differentform that makes it more difficult or burdensomefor the requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation. Ifthe responding party 12 ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or 13 significantly degrades this feature. 14 E.g.,L.H. V. Schwarzenegger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86829, *12-13 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008) (citing the 15 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, addressing 16 electronic discovery)(emphasis added). A defendant is in violation of discovery mles when it translates its 17 own searchable and sortable data into a PDF, stripping the information of its usefulness and its ability to 18 be used efficiently in litigation. M at * 13. 19 The relevant inquiry here is what can be done to "help all of us get to the merits of this case." 20 Quinstreet, Inc. v. Ferguson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130831, 11-12 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 21 2009)(compelling production of documents in a "reasonably usable form")(emphasis added). There is no 22 dispute that the production of Plaintiff s payroll and time records in a searchable and sortable electronic 23 format will be more efficient to process than by a manual review of PDF files. Such production will benefit 24 both parties and the Court. 25 26 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 27 Please produce in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, DOCUMENTS sufficient to 28 evidence the names and dates of employment, last-known telephone numbers, last-known addresses, last- 5 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 known email addresses, job titles, dates of employment and rates of pay of every CLASS MEMBER who 2 worked for DEFENDANT during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 3 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 4 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 5 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBER" and 6 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad, 7 compound, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this 8 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to 9 this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant 10 further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protectedfromdisclosure by the 11 rights of privacy of third- party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section I . The 12 parties have not yet agreed upon a Belaire-West notice procedure or entered into a stipulated protective 13 order to govem the exchange of contact information o f CLASS MEMBERS." 14 REASONS yy^HY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 SHOULD BE 15 COMPELLED: 16 Defendant's objections to producing the names, date of employment, telephone numbers, addresses, 17 email address, job titles, and rates of pay for ever Class Member are without merit. On July 13,2017, the 18 Supreme Court of Califomia held that requests for all statewide putative class member contact information 19 and employment history falls squarely within the scope of discovery permitted under CCP 2017.010 and, 20 by default, caimot be limited geographically or by other arbitrary designations imposed on the complaint. 21 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 542 (2017). 22 In Williams, the Supreme Court stated that the "potential class members will often qualify as 23 'percipient witnesses,' whose contact information the discovery statutes explicitly make a 'proper subject[] 24 of discovery.'... Limiting discovery would grant the defendant a monopoly on access to its ... employees 25 and their experiences and artificially tilt the scales in the ensuing litigation. Id. at 544 (citations omitted). 26 "In a class action, fellow class members are potential percipient witnesses to alleged illegalities, and it is 27 on that basis their contact information becomes relevant." Id. at 547. 28 Here, Defendant has full access to the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the putative class 6 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 members. The Williams Court stated that access to contact information, including telephone numbers, is an 2 "essential first step to prosecution of any representative action." Id. at 544; see also id. at 552 (".. .undue 3 burden do not support the trial court's refusal to permit Williams discovery of statewide employee contact 4 information." (emphasis added)); see also id. at 559 ("Marshalls's privacy objection does not support the 5 denial of statewide discovery." (emphasis added)). 6 Further, as explained in Williams, any and all privacy concems regarding the putative class members 7 can be alleviated with the issuance of a Belaire- West opt-out notice. Plaintiff has proposed such an opt-out 8 notice and the Parties have reached an impasse. Accordingly, Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order for 9 the opt-out privacy notice to be sent to the Class Members. (Dkt. 34.) 10 11 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 12 Please produce all applicable meal period policies for the CLASS MEMBERS during the 13 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 14 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 15 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the groimds 16 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "meal period policies," "CLASS 17 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds 18 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of 19 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects 20 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the 22 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents, 23 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff 24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7 SHOULD BE 25 COMPELLED: 26 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 27 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 28 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 7 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 this infonnation will evidence the suitability of certification. 2 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 3 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 4 allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 5 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 6 Defendant's obj ections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 7 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 8 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 9 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 10 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 11 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will 12 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 13 14 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 15 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all job descriptions ofthe CLASS MEMBERS. 16 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 18 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "job descriptions," "CLASS 19 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds 20 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of 21 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects 22 to this Request on the groimds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Upon the 24 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents, 25 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description. 26 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 SHOULD BE 27 COMPELLED: 28 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 8 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 2 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 3 this infonnation will evidence the suitability of certification. 4 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 5 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 6 allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 7 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017). 8 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 9 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 10 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 11 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 12 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 13 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will 14 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 15 16 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 17 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all employee handbooks applicable to the CLASS 18 MEMBERS. 19 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 20 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 21 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS" and 22 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad, 23 unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this Request 25 on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the 27 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents, 28 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff. 9 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 SHOULD BE 2 COMPELLED: 3 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 4 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 5 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 6 this infonnation will evidence the suitability of certification. 7 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 8 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 9 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 10 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017). 11 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 12 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 13 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 14 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 15 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 16 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will 17 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 18 19 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 20 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing hourly 21 compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS. 22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 24 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "policies," "providing," "hourly 25 compensation" "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this 26 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant 27 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 28 .. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 10 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 information. 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Upon the 3 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents, 4 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff. 5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10 SHOULD BE 6 COMPELLED: 7 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 8 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 9 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 10 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 11 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 12 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 13 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 14 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 15 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 16 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 17 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 18 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 19 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 20 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffromreceiving discovery that will 21 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 22 23 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 24 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing 25 commission compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS. 26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 28 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 11 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TIME PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "commission compensation." Defendant also objects to this 2 Request on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant 3 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 5 information. 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent 7 search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request 8 in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that applied to Plaintiff. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 SHOULD B E 10 COMPELLED: 11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 15 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiff,is evasive 16 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 17 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 18 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017). 19 Defendant's obj ections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 26 27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 28 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing bonus 12 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 1 compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS. 2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 4 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the tenns "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME 5 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "bonus compensation." Defendant also objects to this Request on the 6 grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter 7 of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects 8 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent 10 search and reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request 11 in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that applied to Plaintiff. 12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12 SHOULD B E 13 COMPELLED: 14 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 15 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 16 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 17 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 18 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 19 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 20 allegations of the complaint rnaking this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 21 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 22 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 23 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 24 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 25 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 26 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 27 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 28 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 13 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 2 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing 3 "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS. 4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 5 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 6 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME 7 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "'MedFlxWave' compensation." Defendant also objects to this Request 8 on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 9 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also 10 objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 11 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have 12 neither been admitted nor established. 13 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13 SHOULD B E 14 COMPELLED: 15 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 16 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 17 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 18 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 19 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 26 27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 28 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing 14 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 "DenFlxElct" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS. 2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 4 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME 5 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and '"DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also objects to this Request on 6 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 7 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also 8 objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 9 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that have 10 neither been admitted nor established. 11 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 SHOULD B E 12 COMPELLED: 13 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 14 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 15 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 16 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 17 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 18 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 19 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 20 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 21 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 22 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 23 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 24 25 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 26 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all bf DEFENDANT'S policies for providing cash 27 payments in lieu of health benefits to the CLASS MEMBERS. 28 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 15 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 2 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the tenns "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME 3 PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this 4 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the 5 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 6 also objects to this Request on the grounds thadt seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 7 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither 8 been admitted nor established. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 SHOULD B E 10 COMPELLED; 11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 15 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 16 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 17 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 18 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 19 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 20 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 21 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 22 23 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 24 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce DEFENDANT'S written policy, i f any, for providing 25 meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS. 26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 28 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," 16 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 "CLASS MEMBERS," "policy," "providing" and "meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this 2 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant 3 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 5 information. 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the 7 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents, 8 Defendant will produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16 SHOULD BE 10 COMPELLED; 11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 15 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 16 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 17 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 18 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017). 19 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 26 27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 28 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing and 17 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 calculating overtime compensation for the CLASS MEMBERS. 2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 4 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "policy," "providing," "calculating" "CLASS 5 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "overtime compensation." Defendant also objects to this 6 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the 7 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 8 also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Upon the parties 10 entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. Defendant will 11 produce relevant policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff. 12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 SHOULD B E 13 COMPELLED; 14 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 15 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 16 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 17 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 18 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 19 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 20 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 21 3 CaL 5th 531, 549 (2017). 22 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 23 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 24 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 25 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 26 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 27 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 28 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 18 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 2 For the RELEV