Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP ' riLEii
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) :EMDCRSI:O
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) -2018 17 PH!2:t.O
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. 34r2017-00210560-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 CALIFORNDV, INC., a COMPEL SPECIAL
19 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
50, Inclusive,
20 Telephone Appearance
Defendants.
21 Hearing Date: Febmary 13, 2018
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
Dept.: 54
23
Action Filed: April 5, 2017
24
25
26
27
28
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, is attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as
5 Exhibit 1 and a tme and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Special
6 Interrogatories, Set One, is attached as Exhibit 5.
7
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
9 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS were paid
10 overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during the RELEVANT
11 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to docimients in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the
12 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
15 groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
16 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
17 same pay period." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is
18 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
19 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
20 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects
21 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
22 Defendant fiu-ther objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that
23 have neither been admitted nor established.
24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE
25 COMPELLED:
26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
27 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
28 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
2
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
2 upcoming motion for class certification.
3 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial
4 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the
5 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating
6 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide,
7 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of
8 certification.
9 Defendant's objections that this information maybe confidential or proprietary business information
10 are mooted by the governing protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
11 unsubstantiated and without merit. This information is stored electronically and is available at the press of
12 a button. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to
13 stonewall Plaintiff fi-om receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class
14 certification.
15
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
17 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation during the same
18 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you
19 refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the
20 responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
23 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
24 TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same pay period they received cash payments in
25 lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is
26 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
27 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
28 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
3
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
2 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
3 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE
5 COMPELLED
6 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
7 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks
8 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both
9 lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in PlaintifPs
10 upcoming motion for class certification.
11 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial
12 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the
13 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating
14 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide,
15 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of
16 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. This interragatory seeks only a number that can be generated by
20 Defendant's electronic databases. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are
21 solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions
22 regarding class certification.
23
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 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. I I :
4
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 interrogatory on the
2 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
3 "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (andundefined term), "pay codes" and "wage statements." Defendant also
4 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
5 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
6 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
7 and/or proprietary business information.
8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
9 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
10 statements.
11 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
13 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet
14 of Plaintiffs payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements.
15 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE
16 COMPELLED
17 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to
18 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue
19 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage ofthe litigation to analyze the Class
20 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality.
21 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and
22 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and inappropriate.
23 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a
24 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
25 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
26 pursuant to the goveming protective order.
27 //
28 //
5
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 SPECLVL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an explanation
3 regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
4 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its Response to
7 Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague
8 and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation regarding what each pay code means."
9 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
10 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to
11 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
12 confidential and/or proprietary business information.
13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
15 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 203 0.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet
16 of Plaintiff s payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements.
17 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE
18 COMPELLED
19 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to
20 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue
21 here. Such foundational information will be utihzed at every stage ofthe litigation to analyze the Class
22 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality.
23 As a putative class action, Plaintiff requires the same pay code information for all class members
24 in order to ascertain who was paid the same way as Plaintiff and, therefore, subject to the same claim that
25 certain cash payments were excluded from the calculation of the regular rate. Defendant does not have
26 discretion to "disregard the allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action."
27 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
28 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
6
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 pursuant to the governing protective order.
2
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
4 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS MEMBERS
5 were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the
6 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
8 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
9 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
10 TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it
11 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
13 and/or proprietary business information. Defendant fiirther objects that this interrogatory is premature,
14 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
15 Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
16 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage
17 statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by Defendant.
18 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Plaintiff
20 was eligible to receive hourly wages and bonuses.
21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE
22 COMPELLED
23 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as well as the
24 various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. To the extent
25 Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates commonality and is,
26 therefore, timely pre-certification discovery.
27 As a putative class action. Plaintiff requires information that relates to all class members and
28 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and inappropriate.
7
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a
2 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
3 Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify all ofthe forms of compensation that Class Members are eligible
4 to receive so Plaintiff can understand the various kinds of cash payments paid to Class Members that may
5 not have been included in the regular rate of pay. For the ascertainability and commonality requirements,
6 Plaintiff needs this information for the class members and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally
7 limit its responses to Plaintiff unfairly prohibits Plaintifffromfindingthe other common class members who
8 share the same claim.
9 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
10 pursuant to the goveming protective order.
11
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
13 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during the
14 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
15 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
18 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
19 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on
20 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
21 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
22 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
23 information.
24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
25 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its pohcies and
26 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective
27 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
28 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
8
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 that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order
4 governing the exchange of confidential documents.
5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE
6 COMPELLED
7 The pohcies 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 concede their relevance.
12 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references
13 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the
14 Code of Civil Procedure, which states:
If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
15 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of orfromthe documents of the party to whom the
interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be
16 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding
party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the
17 writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be
in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily
18 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
19 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added).
20 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know i f
21 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and
22 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's
23 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees ofDefendant in Califomia during
24 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies
25 will show commonality and typicality for class certification.
26
27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
28 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS during the
9
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify
2 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
4 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
5 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
6 TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is
7 overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action
8 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this
9 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
10 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant to
11 Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and procedures
12 applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming
13 the exchange of confidential documents. -
14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
16 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and
17 procedures applicable that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order
18 goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
19 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD B E
20 COMPELLED
21 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are
22 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th
23 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is
24 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class
25 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance.
26 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references
27 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the
28 Code of Civil Procedure, which states:
10
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 I f the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the
2 inten-ogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be
substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding
3 party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the
writingsfromwhich the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be
4 in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily
as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
5
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added).
6
Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know if
7
the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and
8
who suffered violations ofthe Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's
9
failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees ofDefendant in Califomia during
10
the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies
11
will show commonality and typicality for class certification.
12
13
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18;
14
Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME
15
PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific
16
bates numbers for the responsive documents).
17
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
18
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
19
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
20
"RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory
21
on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the
22
subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
23
Defendant fiirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
24
oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized
25
inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
26
proprietary business information.
27
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant
28
n
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs Customer
2 Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the parties entering into a
3 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE
5 COMPELLED
6 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations
7 ofDefendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This information
8 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This
9 information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide
10 no valid objection for withholding this information.
11 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid
12 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (defendant is compelled to identify
13 all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job
14 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. Defendant does not have discretion to
15 "disregard the allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams
16 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017).
17
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
19 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during
20 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please
21 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the
24 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS,"
25 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this
26 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendantfiirtherobjects that this interrogatory
28 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage
12
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
2 proprietary business information.
3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: During
4 Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period premiums and, as a
5 result, did not receive any meal period premiums.
6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE
7 COMPELLED
8 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class
9 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
10 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
11 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories
12 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by
13 which the Court will calculate damages.
14 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection
15 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own
16 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery
17 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
18
19
20 Dated: January 16, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
21 LLP
22
23
24 By:
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
25 Attomeys for Plaintiff
26
27
28
13
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP ' riLEii Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) :EMDCRSI:O 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) -2018 17 PH!2:t.O 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. 34r2017-00210560-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 CALIFORNDV, INC., a COMPEL SPECIAL 19 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 50, Inclusive, 20 Telephone Appearance Defendants. 21 Hearing Date: Febmary 13, 2018 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei Dept.: 54 23 Action Filed: April 5, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 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, is attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as 5 Exhibit 1 and a tme and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Special 6 Interrogatories, Set One, is attached as Exhibit 5. 7 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 9 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS were paid 10 overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during the RELEVANT 11 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to docimients in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the 12 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 15 groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 16 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 17 same pay period." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is 18 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 19 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 20 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects 21 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 22 Defendant fiu-ther objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that 23 have neither been admitted nor established. 24 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE 25 COMPELLED: 26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 27 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 28 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both 2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 2 upcoming motion for class certification. 3 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial 4 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the 5 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating 6 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide, 7 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of 8 certification. 9 Defendant's objections that this information maybe confidential or proprietary business information 10 are mooted by the governing protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 11 unsubstantiated and without merit. This information is stored electronically and is available at the press of 12 a button. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to 13 stonewall Plaintiff fi-om receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class 14 certification. 15 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 17 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation during the same 18 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you 19 refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the 20 responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 23 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 24 TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same pay period they received cash payments in 25 lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is 26 neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 27 admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 28 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 3 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 2 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 3 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE 5 COMPELLED 6 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 7 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This interrogatory seeks 8 basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. This information will both 9 lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in PlaintifPs 10 upcoming motion for class certification. 11 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial 12 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the 13 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating 14 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide, 15 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of 16 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. This interragatory seeks only a number that can be generated by 20 Defendant's electronic databases. An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are 21 solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions 22 regarding class certification. 23 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 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. I I : 4 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 interrogatory on the 2 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 3 "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (andundefined term), "pay codes" and "wage statements." Defendant also 4 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 5 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 6 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 7 and/or proprietary business information. 8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 9 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 10 statements. 11 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 13 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet 14 of Plaintiffs payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements. 15 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE 16 COMPELLED 17 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to 18 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue 19 here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage ofthe litigation to analyze the Class 20 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality. 21 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members and 22 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and inappropriate. 23 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a 24 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 25 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 26 pursuant to the goveming protective order. 27 // 28 // 5 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 SPECLVL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an explanation 3 regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 4 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its Response to 7 Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague 8 and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation regarding what each pay code means." 9 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 10 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to 11 the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 12 confidential and/or proprietary business information. 13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 15 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 203 0.210(a)(2), Defendant will produce an excel spreadsheet 16 of Plaintiff s payroll data which describes the various pay codes that appear on her wage statements. 17 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE 18 COMPELLED 19 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity as to 20 Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which are at issue 21 here. Such foundational information will be utihzed at every stage ofthe litigation to analyze the Class 22 Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality and typicality. 23 As a putative class action, Plaintiff requires the same pay code information for all class members 24 in order to ascertain who was paid the same way as Plaintiff and, therefore, subject to the same claim that 25 certain cash payments were excluded from the calculation of the regular rate. Defendant does not have 26 discretion to "disregard the allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." 27 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 28 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 6 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 pursuant to the governing protective order. 2 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 4 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS MEMBERS 5 were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the 6 specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 8 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 9 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 10 TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it 11 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 12 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 13 and/or proprietary business information. Defendant fiirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, 14 overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 15 Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 16 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs wage 17 statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by Defendant. 18 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Plaintiff 20 was eligible to receive hourly wages and bonuses. 21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE 22 COMPELLED 23 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as well as the 24 various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. To the extent 25 Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates commonality and is, 26 therefore, timely pre-certification discovery. 27 As a putative class action. Plaintiff requires information that relates to all class members and 28 Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and inappropriate. 7 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a 2 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 3 Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify all ofthe forms of compensation that Class Members are eligible 4 to receive so Plaintiff can understand the various kinds of cash payments paid to Class Members that may 5 not have been included in the regular rate of pay. For the ascertainability and commonality requirements, 6 Plaintiff needs this information for the class members and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally 7 limit its responses to Plaintiff unfairly prohibits Plaintifffromfindingthe other common class members who 8 share the same claim. 9 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 10 pursuant to the goveming protective order. 11 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 13 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during the 14 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 15 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 18 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 19 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on 20 the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 21 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 22 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 23 information. 24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 25 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its pohcies and 26 procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective 27 order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 28 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 8 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 that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order 4 governing the exchange of confidential documents. 5 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE 6 COMPELLED 7 The pohcies 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 concede their relevance. 12 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references 13 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the 14 Code of Civil Procedure, which states: If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a 15 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of orfromthe documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be 16 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the 17 writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily 18 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. 19 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added). 20 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know i f 21 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and 22 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's 23 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees ofDefendant in Califomia during 24 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies 25 will show commonality and typicality for class certification. 26 27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 28 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS during the 9 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify 2 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 4 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 5 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 6 TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is 7 overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action 8 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this 9 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 10 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant to 11 Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and procedures 12 applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming 13 the exchange of confidential documents. - 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 16 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its policies and 17 procedures applicable that it will produce upon the parties entering into a stipulated protective order 18 goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 19 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD B E 20 COMPELLED 21 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational and are 22 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 23 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is 24 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class 25 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance. 26 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references 27 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the 28 Code of Civil Procedure, which states: 10 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 I f the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the 2 inten-ogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding 3 party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writingsfromwhich the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be 4 in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. 5 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added). 6 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know if 7 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and 8 who suffered violations ofthe Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's 9 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees ofDefendant in Califomia during 10 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies 11 will show commonality and typicality for class certification. 12 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18; 14 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME 15 PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific 16 bates numbers for the responsive documents). 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 19 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 20 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory 21 on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the 22 subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23 Defendant fiirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 24 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized 25 inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 26 proprietary business information. 27 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Pursuant 28 n PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to Plaintiffs Customer 2 Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the parties entering into a 3 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE 5 COMPELLED 6 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations 7 ofDefendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This information 8 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This 9 information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide 10 no valid objection for withholding this information. 11 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid 12 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (defendant is compelled to identify 13 all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job 14 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. Defendant does not have discretion to 15 "disregard the allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams 16 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017). 17 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 19 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS during 20 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please 21 identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 23 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the 24 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," 25 "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." Defendant also objects to this 26 interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendantfiirtherobjects that this interrogatory 28 is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage 12 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 2 proprietary business information. 3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: During 4 Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period premiums and, as a 5 result, did not receive any meal period premiums. 6 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE 7 COMPELLED 8 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the class 9 and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 10 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 11 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the information sought through these interrogatories 12 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by 13 which the Court will calculate damages. 14 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any objection 15 as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their own 16 purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a formal discovery 17 context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 18 19 20 Dated: January 16, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 21 LLP 22 23 24 By: Victoria B. Rivapalacio 25 Attomeys for Plaintiff 26 27 28 13 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560