Preview
flLEO
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK ENdORSEQ
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 20i8HAR2O PH 3=1*7
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
SUPERIOR CSURT CF C'XLlKORNiA
3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) CGUHTY or SAeRAMEWTO
2255 Calle Clara
4 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6 Attomeys for PlaintifT
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560
of herself and on behalf of all persons
14 similarly situated CLASS ACTION
15 DISCOVERY
Plaintiff,
16
vs. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT
17 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,a COMPEL REQUEST FOR
18 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, PRODUCTION, SET ONE
Inclusive
19
Telephone Appearance
Defendants.
20
Hearing Date: April 16, 2018
21 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
22 Dept.: 54
23 Action Filed: April 5,2017
24
25
26
27
28
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 true and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to
4 Requests for Production is attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as Exhibit # 1 and a true
5 and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Request for Production, Set One, is attached
6 as Exhibit #6.
7 By way of this motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiffs Request for
8 Production, Set 1, seeking (1) Defendant's policies and job descriptions (RFP Nos. 8 and 11); (2) Class
9 Members' electronic time and payroll records (RFP No. 20-21); and (3) Class Members' itemized wage
10 statements (RFP No. 22). Plaintiff also requests that Defendant produce all corresponding responsive
11 documents.
12
13 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
14 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all job descriptions ofthe CLASS MEMBERS.
15 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
16 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
17 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "job descriptions," "CLASS
18 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds
19 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
20 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects
21 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
22 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Upon the
23 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents,
24 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description.
25 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 SHOULD BE
26 COMPELLED;
27 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
28 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
2
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
2 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
3 For example. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide Class Members with legally compliant
4 meal periods. "An off-duty meal period... is one in which the employee is relieved of all duty during [the]
5 30 minute meal period. Absent circumstances permitting an on-duty meal period, an employer's obligation
6 is to provide an off-duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30-minute period during which the employee is
7 relieved of all duty." Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004,1035 (2012) (intemal citations
8 omitted). Thus, the question be asked here: did Defendant relieve Class Members of their job duties? To
9 answer such a question, it is necessary to know the Class Members' job duties and, for certification, it is
10 necessary to determine whether the job duties are common to the class as alleged.
11 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
12 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
13 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
14 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
15 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
16 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
17 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
18 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
19 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
20 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
21 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
22
23 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
24 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing
25 commission compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS.
26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
28 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT
3
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TIME PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "commission compensation." Defendant also objects to this
2 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant
3 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
5 information.
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent
7 search and reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request
8 in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that applied to Plaintiff.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 SHOULD BE
10 COMPELLED:
11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee
12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and
13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies,
14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification.
15 Defendant's response, I imiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive
16 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the
17 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
18 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
19 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine
22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming
23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden
24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will
25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
26
27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
28 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all payroll records for the CLASS
4
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds
4 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "payroll records," "CLASS
5 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds
6 it information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead
7 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing,
8 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre- certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects
9 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant
10 objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the rights
11 of privacy of third- party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section 1.
12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
13 will produce Plaintiffs wage statements.
14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20 SHOULD BE
15 COMPELLED:
16 The time and payroll records of the putative class members are required to discover evidence
17 regarding the actual expectations of Defendant regarding the Class Members' meal breaks and compensation
18 plans and the Class Members' actual experiences with meal breaks and compensation. This information is
19 the most relevant evidence of commonality and typicality.
20 In class actions where the issues are failure to pay wages and provide proper meal periods, time and
21 wage records are discoverable. Chavez v. Petrissans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111596 at *9-10 ("The
22 requested information is relevant and discoverable for purposes of class certification since the
23 documents provide information regarding the numbers of hours worked and the amount employees
24 were paid.")(emphasis added); Culley v. Lincare, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148391, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal.
25 Nov. 2,2015) ("[D]ocuments consisting of time and wage records are relevant for the purposes of showing
26 numerosity and commonality."); Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc.,No. EDCV 17-0225-DOC (KKx), 2017 U.S. Dist.
27 LEXIS 161766, at * 15 (CD. Cal. Sep. 29,2017) ("The Courtfindsdiscovery of putative class member fime
28 sheets and wage statements is appropriate and likely to assist in establishing commonality ofthe failure to
5
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 pay overtime wages."); Orozco v. III. Tool Works, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-2113-MCE-EFB, 2016 U.S. Dist.
2 LEXIS 128315, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2016) (Court ordered that "defendant shall produce the fime
3 records (i.e., handwritten time sheets) of the class members"). In short, records that show time and wages
4 are relevant documents in such lifigation. Chavez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *9-10.
5
6 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
7 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all time records refiecfing hours
8 worked for the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
9 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
11 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "time records," "reflecting," "hours worked,"
12 "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant further objects to this Request on the
13 grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
14 of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
15 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant further objects to this Request to
16 the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product
17 doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary
18 business infonnation. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected
19 from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I,
20 section 1.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant will
22 produce Plaintiffs timesheets.
23 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21 SHOULD B E
24 COMPELLED:
25 The time and payroll records of the putative class members are required to discover evidence
26 regarding the actual expectations of Defendant regarding the Class Members' meal breaks and compensation
27 plans and the Class Members' actual experiences with meal breaks and compensation. This information is
28 the most relevant evidence of commonality and typicality.
6
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
1 In class actions where the issues are failure to pay wages and provide proper meal periods, time and
2 wage records are discoverable. Chavez v. Petrissans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111596 at *9-10 ("The
3 requested information is relevant and discoverable for purposes of class certification since the
4 documents provide information regarding the numbers of hours worked and the amount employees
5 were paid.")(emphasis added); Culley v. Lincare, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148391, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal.
6 Nov. 2,2015) ("[Djocuments consisting of time and wage records are relevant for the purposes of showing
7 numerosity and commonality."); Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0225-DOC (KKx), 2017 U.S. Dist.
8 LEXIS 161766, at * 15 (CD. Cal. Sep. 29,2017) ("The Courtfindsdiscovery of putative class member fime
9 sheets and wage statements is appropriate and likely to assist in establishing commonality of the failure to
10 pay overtime wages."); Orozco v. III. Tool Works, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-2113-MCE-EFB, 2016 U.S. Dist.
11 LEXIS 128315, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2016) (Court ordered that "defendant shall produce the time
12 records (i.e., handwritten time sheets) of the class members"). In short, records that show time and wages
13 are relevant documents in such lifigation. Chavez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *9-10.
14
15 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
16 All copies of the wage statements that were provided to the CLASS MEMBERS during the time period
17 of April 5, 2014 until the present.
18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
19 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that
20 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "wage statements" and
21 "provided." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of
22 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that
23 this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of
24 litigation. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the
25 attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Request on the
26 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant objects to this Request
27 to the extent that it seeks infonnation that is protected from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party
28 non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I , section 1.
7
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
//
2 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22 SHOULD BE
3 COMPELLED:
4 Defendant responded to Plaintiffs request for the Class Members' itemized wage statements with
5 a litany of boilerplate objections, followed by the statement that it will produce the wage statements of
6 Plaintiff. Such a response is evasive and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not
7 have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative
8 action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
9 The Complaint asserts a cause of action pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226 for Defendant's failure
10 to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Accordingly, the wage statements that were actually provided
11 to the Class Members are relevant. For this reason, they are regularly compelled in such wage and hour
12 cases. Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161766, at *15 (CD. Cal. Sep. 29,
13 2017)("[D]iscovery of putative class member time sheets and wage statements is appropriate and likely
14 to assist in establishing commonality of the failure to pay overtime wages..")(emphasis added); Culley v.
15 Lincare, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148391 (compelling wage statements for all Class Members).
16
17 Respectfully submitted.
18
19 Dated: March 20, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
20
21
22 By:
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
23 Attomeys for Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28
8
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 34-2017-00210560
Preview
flLEO BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK ENdORSEQ Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 20i8HAR2O PH 3=1*7 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) SUPERIOR CSURT CF C'XLlKORNiA 3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) CGUHTY or SAeRAMEWTO 2255 Calle Clara 4 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for PlaintifT 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560 of herself and on behalf of all persons 14 similarly situated CLASS ACTION 15 DISCOVERY Plaintiff, 16 vs. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT 17 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,a COMPEL REQUEST FOR 18 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, PRODUCTION, SET ONE Inclusive 19 Telephone Appearance Defendants. 20 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018 21 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Raymond M. Cadei 22 Dept.: 54 23 Action Filed: April 5,2017 24 25 26 27 28 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 true and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to 4 Requests for Production is attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as Exhibit # 1 and a true 5 and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Request for Production, Set One, is attached 6 as Exhibit #6. 7 By way of this motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiffs Request for 8 Production, Set 1, seeking (1) Defendant's policies and job descriptions (RFP Nos. 8 and 11); (2) Class 9 Members' electronic time and payroll records (RFP No. 20-21); and (3) Class Members' itemized wage 10 statements (RFP No. 22). Plaintiff also requests that Defendant produce all corresponding responsive 11 documents. 12 13 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 14 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all job descriptions ofthe CLASS MEMBERS. 15 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 16 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 17 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "job descriptions," "CLASS 18 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds 19 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of 20 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects 21 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 22 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Upon the 23 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents, 24 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description. 25 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 SHOULD BE 26 COMPELLED; 27 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 28 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 2 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 3 For example. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide Class Members with legally compliant 4 meal periods. "An off-duty meal period... is one in which the employee is relieved of all duty during [the] 5 30 minute meal period. Absent circumstances permitting an on-duty meal period, an employer's obligation 6 is to provide an off-duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30-minute period during which the employee is 7 relieved of all duty." Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004,1035 (2012) (intemal citations 8 omitted). Thus, the question be asked here: did Defendant relieve Class Members of their job duties? To 9 answer such a question, it is necessary to know the Class Members' job duties and, for certification, it is 10 necessary to determine whether the job duties are common to the class as alleged. 11 Defendant's response, limiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 12 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 13 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 14 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 15 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 16 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 17 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 18 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 19 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 20 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 21 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 22 23 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 24 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, produce all of DEFENDANT'S policies for providing 25 commission compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS. 26 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 28 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT 3 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TIME PERIOD," "policies," "providing" and "commission compensation." Defendant also objects to this 2 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant 3 to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 5 information. 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent 7 search and reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request 8 in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that applied to Plaintiff. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 SHOULD BE 10 COMPELLED: 11 Policies and procedures regarding meal periods and compensation, as well as the employee 12 handbooks and job descriptions relevant to the Class Members will all demonstrate commonality and 13 typicality for certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, 14 this information will evidence the suitability of certification. 15 Defendant's response, I imiting its production to only those documents relevant to Plaintiffis evasive 16 and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the 17 allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 18 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 19 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 20 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 21 unsubstantiated and without merit. Policy documents, employee handbooks, and job descriptions are routine 22 discovery in wage and hour class actions, are standard documents that are routinely produced to incoming 23 employees, and are often stored and maintained electronically, which would negate any associated burden 24 of production. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will 25 assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 26 27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 28 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all payroll records for the CLASS 4 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 2 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 3 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 4 that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "payroll records," "CLASS 5 MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds 6 it information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead 7 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing, 8 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre- certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects 9 to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant 10 objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the rights 11 of privacy of third- party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section 1. 12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 13 will produce Plaintiffs wage statements. 14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20 SHOULD BE 15 COMPELLED: 16 The time and payroll records of the putative class members are required to discover evidence 17 regarding the actual expectations of Defendant regarding the Class Members' meal breaks and compensation 18 plans and the Class Members' actual experiences with meal breaks and compensation. This information is 19 the most relevant evidence of commonality and typicality. 20 In class actions where the issues are failure to pay wages and provide proper meal periods, time and 21 wage records are discoverable. Chavez v. Petrissans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111596 at *9-10 ("The 22 requested information is relevant and discoverable for purposes of class certification since the 23 documents provide information regarding the numbers of hours worked and the amount employees 24 were paid.")(emphasis added); Culley v. Lincare, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148391, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. 25 Nov. 2,2015) ("[D]ocuments consisting of time and wage records are relevant for the purposes of showing 26 numerosity and commonality."); Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc.,No. EDCV 17-0225-DOC (KKx), 2017 U.S. Dist. 27 LEXIS 161766, at * 15 (CD. Cal. Sep. 29,2017) ("The Courtfindsdiscovery of putative class member fime 28 sheets and wage statements is appropriate and likely to assist in establishing commonality ofthe failure to 5 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 pay overtime wages."); Orozco v. III. Tool Works, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-2113-MCE-EFB, 2016 U.S. Dist. 2 LEXIS 128315, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2016) (Court ordered that "defendant shall produce the fime 3 records (i.e., handwritten time sheets) of the class members"). In short, records that show time and wages 4 are relevant documents in such lifigation. Chavez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *9-10. 5 6 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 7 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all time records refiecfing hours 8 worked for the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 9 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 11 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "time records," "reflecting," "hours worked," 12 "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant further objects to this Request on the 13 grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 15 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant further objects to this Request to 16 the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product 17 doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary 18 business infonnation. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected 19 from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, 20 section 1. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant will 22 produce Plaintiffs timesheets. 23 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21 SHOULD B E 24 COMPELLED: 25 The time and payroll records of the putative class members are required to discover evidence 26 regarding the actual expectations of Defendant regarding the Class Members' meal breaks and compensation 27 plans and the Class Members' actual experiences with meal breaks and compensation. This information is 28 the most relevant evidence of commonality and typicality. 6 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 1 In class actions where the issues are failure to pay wages and provide proper meal periods, time and 2 wage records are discoverable. Chavez v. Petrissans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111596 at *9-10 ("The 3 requested information is relevant and discoverable for purposes of class certification since the 4 documents provide information regarding the numbers of hours worked and the amount employees 5 were paid.")(emphasis added); Culley v. Lincare, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148391, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. 6 Nov. 2,2015) ("[Djocuments consisting of time and wage records are relevant for the purposes of showing 7 numerosity and commonality."); Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0225-DOC (KKx), 2017 U.S. Dist. 8 LEXIS 161766, at * 15 (CD. Cal. Sep. 29,2017) ("The Courtfindsdiscovery of putative class member fime 9 sheets and wage statements is appropriate and likely to assist in establishing commonality of the failure to 10 pay overtime wages."); Orozco v. III. Tool Works, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-2113-MCE-EFB, 2016 U.S. Dist. 11 LEXIS 128315, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2016) (Court ordered that "defendant shall produce the time 12 records (i.e., handwritten time sheets) of the class members"). In short, records that show time and wages 13 are relevant documents in such lifigation. Chavez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *9-10. 14 15 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 16 All copies of the wage statements that were provided to the CLASS MEMBERS during the time period 17 of April 5, 2014 until the present. 18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 19 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that 20 it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS MEMBERS," "wage statements" and 21 "provided." Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of 22 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that 23 this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of 24 litigation. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the 25 attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Request on the 26 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant objects to this Request 27 to the extent that it seeks infonnation that is protected from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party 28 non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I , section 1. 7 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560 // 2 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22 SHOULD BE 3 COMPELLED: 4 Defendant responded to Plaintiffs request for the Class Members' itemized wage statements with 5 a litany of boilerplate objections, followed by the statement that it will produce the wage statements of 6 Plaintiff. Such a response is evasive and inadequate as this is a putative class action and Defendant does not 7 have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative 8 action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 9 The Complaint asserts a cause of action pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226 for Defendant's failure 10 to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Accordingly, the wage statements that were actually provided 11 to the Class Members are relevant. For this reason, they are regularly compelled in such wage and hour 12 cases. Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161766, at *15 (CD. Cal. Sep. 29, 13 2017)("[D]iscovery of putative class member time sheets and wage statements is appropriate and likely 14 to assist in establishing commonality of the failure to pay overtime wages..")(emphasis added); Culley v. 15 Lincare, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148391 (compelling wage statements for all Class Members). 16 17 Respectfully submitted. 18 19 Dated: March 20, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 20 21 22 By: Victoria B. Rivapalacio 23 Attomeys for Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28 8 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 34-2017-00210560