Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP tHDORShO
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 1.28
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217)
Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115)
4 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6
Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13
14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
of herself and on behalf of all persons
15 similarly situated CLASS ACTION
16 DISCOVERY
Plaintiff,
17
vs. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT
18 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a COMPEL SPECIAL
19 California Corporation; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
50, Inclusive,
20 Telephone Appearance
Defendants.
21 Hearing Date: January 4, 2018
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
Dept.: 54
by fax
23
Action Filed: April 5,2017
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 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. A tme and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to
4 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One, are attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as
5 Exhibit 1.
6
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
8 Please state the job titles of the CLASS MEMBERS who were eligible to be paid cash payments in lieu
9 of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
10 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
12 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
13 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
14 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job titles" and "eligible to be paid cash payments in lieu of health
15 benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject
16 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
17 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
18 information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is compound, overbroad, harassing,
19 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects
20 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that have neither been
21 admitted nor established.
22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 SHOULD BE
23 COMPELLED:
24 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
25 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
26 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
27 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
28 upcoming motion for class certification.
. 2
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
2 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
3 unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine discovery in wage and hour
4 class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. An objection based on burden cannot
5 be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
6 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
8 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS were paid
9 overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during the RELEVANT
10 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the
11 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
13 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
14 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
15 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
16 same pay period." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is
17 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
18 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
19 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects
20 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
21 Defendant further obj ects to this interrogatory on the groimds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that
22 have neither been admitted nor established.
23 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE
24 COMPELLED:
25 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
26 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
27 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
28 lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
3
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 upcoming motion for class certification.
2 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
3 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
4 unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine discovery in wage and hour
5 class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. An objection based on burden cannot
6 be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that vnll
7 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
9 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation during the same
10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you
11 refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the
12 responsive documents).
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
15 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
16 TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same pay period they received cash payments in
17 lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is
18 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
19 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
20 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
21 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
22 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
23 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE
25 COMPELLED
26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
27 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
28 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
_4
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
2 upcoming motion for class certification.
3 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
4 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
5 unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine discovery in wage and hour
6 class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. An objection based on burden cannot
7 be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
8 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
10 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits to the CLASS
11 MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
12 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
15 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
16 TIME PERIOD" and "policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this
17 interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant
18 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
20 information. Defendant fiarther objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
21 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8 SHOULD BE
23 COMPELLED
24 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational
25 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for
26 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this
27 information will evidence the suitability of certification.
28 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
5
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
2 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions
3 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an objection based on burden
4 cannot be supported. Such obj ections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that
5 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9;
7 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during
8 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
9 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
11 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
12 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
13 TIME PERIOD" and "'MedFlxWave' compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
14 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this
15 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this
16 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
17 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9 SHOULD BE
18 COMPELLED
19 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational
20 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for
21 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this
22 information will evidence the suitability of certification.
23 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
24 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
25 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions
26 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an obj ection based on burden
27 cannot be supported. Such obj ections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that
28 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
6
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
2 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "DenFlxElct" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during
3 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
4 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
7 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
8 TIME PERIOD" and "'DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
9 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this
10 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this
11 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10 SHOULD BE
13 COMPELLED
14 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational
15 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for
16 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this
17 information will evidence the suitability of certification.
18 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
19 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
20 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions
21 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an obj ection based on burden
22 cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that
23 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
25 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by DEFENDANT on
26 wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents in response to this special
27 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
28 //
7_
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
3 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
4 "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage statements." Defendant also
5 objects to this interrogatory on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
8 and/or proprietary business information.
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
10 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
11 statements.
12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD B E
13 COMPELLED
14 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to
15 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue
16 here. Such foimdational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class
17 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality.
18 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and
19 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate.
20 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a
21 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
22 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
23 pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
25 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an explanation
26 regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
27 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
28 //
8_
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its Response to
3 Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague
4 and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation regarding what each pay code means."
5 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
6 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter ofthis action nor reasonably calculated to lead to
7 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
8 confidential and/or proprietary business information.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD B E
10 COMPELLED
11 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to
12 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue
13 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class
14 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality.
15 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
16 pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
18 Please state DEFENDANT'S policies regarding including cash payments in lieu of health benefits in the
19 "regular rate of pay" for purposes of calculating overtime rates of pay for the CLASS MEMBERS during the
20 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify
21 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
24 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
25 TIME PERIOD," "regular rate of pay," "purposes of calculating overtime rates of pay" and "cash payments in
26 lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly
27 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the
9
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 extent it seeks information privileged and confidential pursuant to the attomey-client communication privilege
2 and the attomey work-product doctrine or concems information obtained in anticipation of litigation. Defendant
3 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
4 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have
5 neither been admitted nor established.
6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13 SHOULD BE
7 COMPELLED
8 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational
9 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for
10 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this
11 information will evidence the suitability of certification.
12 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
13 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
14 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions
15 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an objection based on burden
16 cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that
17 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
19 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS MEMBERS
20 were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the
21 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
24 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
25 TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the groimds it
26 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
27 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
28 and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature,
10
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
3 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
4 statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by Defendant.
5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE
6 COMPELLED
7 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as well as the
8 various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. To the extent
9 Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates commonality and is,
10 therefore, timely pre-certification discovery.
11 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and
12 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate.
13 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a
14 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
15 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
16 pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
18 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during the
19 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
20 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
23 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
24 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on
25 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subj ect
26 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
27 also objects to this interrogatory on the; grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
28 information.
11
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
2 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and
3 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective
4 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD B E
6 COMPELLED
7 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are
8 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct.,53 Cal. 4th
9 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is
10 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class
11 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents, albeit in a limited capacity,
12 concede their relevance.
13 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will absolutely need
14 to know if the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, Defendant's responses are
15 inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class as pled in the complaint and who
16 suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure
17 to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the
18 relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies wdll
19 show commonality and typicality for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to
20 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams
21 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
22 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
23 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will seek to enter into a
24 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
26 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS during the
27 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify
28 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
12
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
3 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
4 TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is
5 overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action
6 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this
7 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant to
9 Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and procedures
10 applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming
11 the exchange of confidential documents.
12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE
13 COMPELLED
14 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are
15 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th
16 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is
17 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class
18 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents, albeit in a limited capacity,
19 concede their relevance.
20 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will absolutely need
21 to know ifthe policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, Defendant's responses are
22 inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class as pled in the complaint and who
23 suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure
24 to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the
25 relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will
26 show commonality and typicality for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to
27 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams
28 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
13
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
2 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will seek to enter into a
3 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
5 Please state the total number of CLASS MEMBERS employed by YOU during the RELEVANT TIME
6 PERIOD.
7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
8 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
9 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," and "RELEVANT
10 TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome
11 and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead
12 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
13 confidential and/or proprietary business information.
14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17 SHOULD B E
15 COMPELLED
16 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class
17 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
18 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
19 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories
20 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by
21 which the Court will calculate damages.
22 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any obj ection
23 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own
24 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery
25 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
27 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME
28 PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific
14
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 bates numbers for the responsive documents).
2 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
4 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
5 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory
6 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.
8 Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
9 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized
10 inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
11 proprietary business information.
12 Subject to and wdthout waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
13 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs Customer
14 Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the parties entering into a
15 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
16 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE
17 COMPELLED
18 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations
19 of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This information
20 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This
21 information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide
22 no valid objection for withholding this information.
23 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid
24 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, * 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (defendant is compelled to identify
25 all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job
26 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. Defendant does not have discretion to
27 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams
28 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
15
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
2 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's response states it will seek to enter into a
3 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
5 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during
6 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
7 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
10 groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
11 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this
12 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory
14 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage
15 of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
16 proprietary business information.
17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: During
18 Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period premiums and, as a
19 result, did not receive any meal period premiums.
20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE
21 COMPELLED
22 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class
23 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
24 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
25 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories
26 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by
27 which the Court will calculate damages.
28 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection
16
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560
1 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own
2 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery
3 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
5 Please state the total number of workweeks worked by the CLASS MEMBERS during the
6 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
7 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents)
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
10 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
11 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of workweeks worked." Defendant also objects to this
12 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on
14 the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that
15 this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-
16 certification stage of litigation.
17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
18 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plauitiffs wage
19 statements.
20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20 SHOULD B E
21 COMPELLED
22 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class
23 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
24 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
25 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories
26 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by
27 which the Court will calculate damages.
28 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection
17
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own
2 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery
3 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
5 Please state the total number of workweeks worked by the CLASS MEMBERS during the time
6 period of April 5, 2014 to the present (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
7 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
1
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
10 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," and
11 "total number of workweeks worked." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is
12 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
13 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the groimds that it seeks confidential
14 .and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature,
15 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
17 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
18 statements.
19 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21 SHOULD BE
20 COMPELLED
21 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class
22 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
23 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
24 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories
25 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by
26 which the Court will calculate damages.
27 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection
28 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own
18
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF M
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP tHDORShO Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 1.28 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) 4 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 5 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS of herself and on behalf of all persons 15 similarly situated CLASS ACTION 16 DISCOVERY Plaintiff, 17 vs. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT 18 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a COMPEL SPECIAL 19 California Corporation; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 50, Inclusive, 20 Telephone Appearance Defendants. 21 Hearing Date: January 4, 2018 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei Dept.: 54 by fax 23 Action Filed: April 5,2017 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 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. A tme and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to 4 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One, are attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as 5 Exhibit 1. 6 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 8 Please state the job titles of the CLASS MEMBERS who were eligible to be paid cash payments in lieu 9 of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 10 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 12 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 13 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 14 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job titles" and "eligible to be paid cash payments in lieu of health 15 benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject 16 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 17 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 18 information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is compound, overbroad, harassing, 19 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects 20 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that have neither been 21 admitted nor established. 22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 SHOULD BE 23 COMPELLED: 24 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 25 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 26 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both 27 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 28 upcoming motion for class certification. . 2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 2 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 3 unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine discovery in wage and hour 4 class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. An objection based on burden cannot 5 be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 6 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 8 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS were paid 9 overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during the RELEVANT 10 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the 11 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 13 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 14 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 15 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 16 same pay period." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is 17 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 18 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 19 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects 20 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 21 Defendant further obj ects to this interrogatory on the groimds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that 22 have neither been admitted nor established. 23 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE 24 COMPELLED: 25 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 26 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 27 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both 28 lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 3 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 upcoming motion for class certification. 2 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 3 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 4 unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine discovery in wage and hour 5 class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. An objection based on burden cannot 6 be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that vnll 7 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 9 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation during the same 10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you 11 refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the 12 responsive documents). 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 15 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 16 TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same pay period they received cash payments in 17 lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is 18 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 19 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 20 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 21 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 22 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 23 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE 25 COMPELLED 26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 27 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 28 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both _4 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 2 upcoming motion for class certification. 3 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 4 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 5 unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine discovery in wage and hour 6 class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. An objection based on burden cannot 7 be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 8 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 10 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits to the CLASS 11 MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 12 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 15 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 16 TIME PERIOD" and "policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this 17 interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant 18 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 20 information. Defendant fiarther objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 21 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 22 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8 SHOULD BE 23 COMPELLED 24 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational 25 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for 26 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this 27 information will evidence the suitability of certification. 28 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 5 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 2 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions 3 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an objection based on burden 4 cannot be supported. Such obj ections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that 5 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9; 7 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during 8 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 9 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 11 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 12 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 13 TIME PERIOD" and "'MedFlxWave' compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 14 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this 15 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this 16 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 17 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9 SHOULD BE 18 COMPELLED 19 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational 20 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for 21 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this 22 information will evidence the suitability of certification. 23 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 24 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 25 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions 26 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an obj ection based on burden 27 cannot be supported. Such obj ections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that 28 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 6 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 2 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "DenFlxElct" compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during 3 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 4 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 7 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 8 TIME PERIOD" and "'DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 9 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this 10 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this 11 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10 SHOULD BE 13 COMPELLED 14 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational 15 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for 16 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this 17 information will evidence the suitability of certification. 18 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 19 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 20 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions 21 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an obj ection based on burden 22 cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that 23 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 25 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by DEFENDANT on 26 wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents in response to this special 27 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 28 // 7_ PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 3 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 4 "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage statements." Defendant also 5 objects to this interrogatory on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 8 and/or proprietary business information. 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 10 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 11 statements. 12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD B E 13 COMPELLED 14 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to 15 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue 16 here. Such foimdational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class 17 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality. 18 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and 19 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate. 20 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a 21 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 22 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 23 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 25 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an explanation 26 regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 27 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 28 // 8_ PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its Response to 3 Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague 4 and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation regarding what each pay code means." 5 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 6 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter ofthis action nor reasonably calculated to lead to 7 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 8 confidential and/or proprietary business information. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD B E 10 COMPELLED 11 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to 12 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue 13 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to analyze the Class 14 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality. 15 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 16 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 18 Please state DEFENDANT'S policies regarding including cash payments in lieu of health benefits in the 19 "regular rate of pay" for purposes of calculating overtime rates of pay for the CLASS MEMBERS during the 20 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify 21 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 24 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 25 TIME PERIOD," "regular rate of pay," "purposes of calculating overtime rates of pay" and "cash payments in 26 lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly 27 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the 9 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 extent it seeks information privileged and confidential pursuant to the attomey-client communication privilege 2 and the attomey work-product doctrine or concems information obtained in anticipation of litigation. Defendant 3 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 4 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have 5 neither been admitted nor established. 6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13 SHOULD BE 7 COMPELLED 8 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational 9 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for 10 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this 11 information will evidence the suitability of certification. 12 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 13 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 14 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions 15 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an objection based on burden 16 cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that 17 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 19 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS MEMBERS 20 were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the 21 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 24 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 25 TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the groimds it 26 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 27 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 28 and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, 10 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 3 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 4 statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by Defendant. 5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE 6 COMPELLED 7 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as well as the 8 various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. To the extent 9 Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates commonality and is, 10 therefore, timely pre-certification discovery. 11 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and 12 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unfounded and inappropriate. 13 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a 14 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 15 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 16 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 18 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during the 19 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 20 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 23 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 24 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on 25 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subj ect 26 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 27 also objects to this interrogatory on the; grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 28 information. 11 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 2 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and 3 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective 4 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD B E 6 COMPELLED 7 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are 8 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct.,53 Cal. 4th 9 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is 10 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class 11 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, 12 concede their relevance. 13 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will absolutely need 14 to know if the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, Defendant's responses are 15 inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class as pled in the complaint and who 16 suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure 17 to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the 18 relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies wdll 19 show commonality and typicality for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to 20 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams 21 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 22 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 23 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will seek to enter into a 24 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 26 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS during the 27 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify 28 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 12 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 4 TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is 5 overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action 6 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this 7 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant to 9 Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and procedures 10 applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming 11 the exchange of confidential documents. 12 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE 13 COMPELLED 14 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are 15 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 16 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is 17 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class 18 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, 19 concede their relevance. 20 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will absolutely need 21 to know ifthe policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, Defendant's responses are 22 inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class as pled in the complaint and who 23 suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure 24 to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the 25 relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will 26 show commonality and typicality for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to 27 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams 28 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 13 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 2 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will seek to enter into a 3 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 5 Please state the total number of CLASS MEMBERS employed by YOU during the RELEVANT TIME 6 PERIOD. 7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 8 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 9 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," and "RELEVANT 10 TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome 11 and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead 12 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 13 confidential and/or proprietary business information. 14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17 SHOULD B E 15 COMPELLED 16 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class 17 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 18 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 19 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories 20 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by 21 which the Court will calculate damages. 22 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any obj ection 23 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own 24 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery 25 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 27 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME 28 PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific 14 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 bates numbers for the responsive documents). 2 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 4 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 5 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory 6 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. 8 Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 9 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized 10 inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 11 proprietary business information. 12 Subject to and wdthout waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 13 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs Customer 14 Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the parties entering into a 15 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 16 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE 17 COMPELLED 18 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations 19 of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This information 20 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This 21 information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide 22 no valid objection for withholding this information. 23 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid 24 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, * 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (defendant is compelled to identify 25 all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job 26 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. Defendant does not have discretion to 27 "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams 28 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 15 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 2 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's response states it will seek to enter into a 3 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 5 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during 6 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 7 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 10 groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 11 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this 12 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory 14 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage 15 of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 16 proprietary business information. 17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: During 18 Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period premiums and, as a 19 result, did not receive any meal period premiums. 20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE 21 COMPELLED 22 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class 23 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 24 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 25 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories 26 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by 27 which the Court will calculate damages. 28 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection 16 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 1 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own 2 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery 3 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 5 Please state the total number of workweeks worked by the CLASS MEMBERS during the 6 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 7 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents) 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 10 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 11 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of workweeks worked." Defendant also objects to this 12 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on 14 the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that 15 this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre- 16 certification stage of litigation. 17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 18 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plauitiffs wage 19 statements. 20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20 SHOULD B E 21 COMPELLED 22 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class 23 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 24 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 25 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories 26 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by 27 which the Court will calculate damages. 28 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection 17 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own 2 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery 3 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 5 Please state the total number of workweeks worked by the CLASS MEMBERS during the time 6 period of April 5, 2014 to the present (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 7 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 1 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 10 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," and 11 "total number of workweeks worked." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is 12 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 13 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the groimds that it seeks confidential 14 .and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, 15 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 17 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 18 statements. 19 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21 SHOULD BE 20 COMPELLED 21 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class 22 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 23 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 24 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories 25 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by 26 which the Court will calculate damages. 27 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection 28 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own 18 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF M