Preview
TUCKER ELLIS LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc
MOLLIE F. BENEDICT SBN 187084 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO RNIA
mollie.benedict@tuckerellis.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN 3
AGGIE B. LEE SBN 228332 1/18/2024 11148 AM
aggie.lee@tuckerellis.com
KAITLYN N. PANGBURN SBN 336346
kaitlyn.pangbum@tuckerellis.com
515 South Flower Street, Forty—Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213.430.3400
Facsimile: 213.430.3409
Attorneys for Defendants
\DOONO‘N
ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. and FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
HOLDINGS, INC.
Louis
St. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
O
Francisco
11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12
San
LLP
O ABRAHAM CERDA TRUJILLO, an Case N0. CIV DS 2020893
13
Angeles
individual,
ELLIS Assigned to the Hon. Janet M. Frangie, Dept. R1
14
Los Plaintiff,
O DEFENDANTS ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. AND
15
TUCKER
V. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS,
Columbus
INC.’S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE
16
6 ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR., Driver; STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH
17
Cleveland
INC., Registered Owner; and DOES 1 through DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION
50, Inclusive, OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF WAL-MART, INC.
18
O AND LKQ PICK YOUR PARTS
Chicago
Defendants.
19
[Filed Concurrently with Opposition and Declaration
ofMollie F. Benedict]
2O
Date: January 31, 2023
21
Time: 8:30 am.
Dept. R17
22
Complaint Filed: October 2, 2020
23
Trial Date: September 25, 2024
24
AND ALL RELATED CROSS ACTIONS
25
26 Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1345, Defendants Alex John Benitez, Jr. (“Benitez”) and
27 Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (“Fresenius”) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby submit the
28
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STEATEMENT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS
following responsive statement t0 Plaintiff Abraham Trujillo’s (“Plaintiff”) Separate Statement in
support 0f its opposition t0 Plaintiff s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Production of
Business Records 0f Wal-Mart, Inc. and LKQ Pick Your Parts.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES IN DISPUTE
flONUI-bUJN
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS TO WAL-MART, INC.
Attachment 3:
“Any and all documents that pertain, relate, or refer in any way to the person referenced above.
This includes job applications, performance reviews, disciplinary reports, time sheets, work schedules,
hourly schedules, retirement & pension documents, documents related t0 salary adjustments, W-Z, W-4,
Louis
St. 10 W—9, 1099, contracts related t0 scope 0f work, job descriptions, safety manuals, procedure manuals,
O
11 training manuals, documents pertaining t0 compensation including but not limited to overtime,
Francisco
San
12 documents pertaining t0 the payment of expenses, documents pertaining to absences including but not
LLP
O
13 limited t0 sick leave, leaves 0f absence, and absences due t0 injury, copies of all paychecks 0r an
Angeles
ELLIS
14 itemized ledger of paychecks, medical history, personal history, disability reports, any claims for
Los
O
15 workers’ compensation 0r any other claims, claims of work—related injuries, claims 0f industrial-related
TUCKER
Columbus
16 injuries, incident reports, accident reports, and reports that refer 0r relate in any way to the named
6
17 individual.
Cleveland
O 18 REASONS THE SUBPOENA SHOULD BE OUASHED
making a wage
Chicago
19 Defendant served this subpoena because Plaintiff is loss claim due to the injuries
20 he suffered in the subj ect accident. Wal-Mart was identified by Plaintiff in discovery as one 0f his
21 employers from the last five years. Notably, he was not working for Wal-Mart at the time 0f the
22 accident. Plaintiff does not object t0 Defendant obtaining information from Wal-Mart that would assist
23 Defendant in assessing Plaintiff’ s wage loss claim, but Defendant’s subpoena seeks additional
24 information that has no conceivable relevance to Plaintiff’ s wage loss claim or any other claim by
25 Plaintiff.
26 Plaintiff s wage loss claim does not give Defendant unfettered access t0 Plaintiff s entire
27 employment file Which is what Defendant is trying to do With this subpoena. For example, Defendant’s
28
2
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPEONAS
Preview
TUCKER ELLIS LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc MOLLIE F. BENEDICT SBN 187084 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO RNIA mollie.benedict@tuckerellis.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN 3 AGGIE B. LEE SBN 228332 1/18/2024 11148 AM aggie.lee@tuckerellis.com KAITLYN N. PANGBURN SBN 336346 kaitlyn.pangbum@tuckerellis.com 515 South Flower Street, Forty—Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.430.3400 Facsimile: 213.430.3409 Attorneys for Defendants \DOONO‘N ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. and FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. Louis St. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA O Francisco 11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 12 San LLP O ABRAHAM CERDA TRUJILLO, an Case N0. CIV DS 2020893 13 Angeles individual, ELLIS Assigned to the Hon. Janet M. Frangie, Dept. R1 14 Los Plaintiff, O DEFENDANTS ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. AND 15 TUCKER V. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, Columbus INC.’S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE 16 6 ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR., Driver; STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH 17 Cleveland INC., Registered Owner; and DOES 1 through DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION 50, Inclusive, OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF WAL-MART, INC. 18 O AND LKQ PICK YOUR PARTS Chicago Defendants. 19 [Filed Concurrently with Opposition and Declaration ofMollie F. Benedict] 2O Date: January 31, 2023 21 Time: 8:30 am. Dept. R17 22 Complaint Filed: October 2, 2020 23 Trial Date: September 25, 2024 24 AND ALL RELATED CROSS ACTIONS 25 26 Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1345, Defendants Alex John Benitez, Jr. (“Benitez”) and 27 Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (“Fresenius”) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby submit the 28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STEATEMENT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS following responsive statement t0 Plaintiff Abraham Trujillo’s (“Plaintiff”) Separate Statement in support 0f its opposition t0 Plaintiff s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records 0f Wal-Mart, Inc. and LKQ Pick Your Parts. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES IN DISPUTE flONUI-bUJN DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS TO WAL-MART, INC. Attachment 3: “Any and all documents that pertain, relate, or refer in any way to the person referenced above. This includes job applications, performance reviews, disciplinary reports, time sheets, work schedules, hourly schedules, retirement & pension documents, documents related t0 salary adjustments, W-Z, W-4, Louis St. 10 W—9, 1099, contracts related t0 scope 0f work, job descriptions, safety manuals, procedure manuals, O 11 training manuals, documents pertaining t0 compensation including but not limited to overtime, Francisco San 12 documents pertaining t0 the payment of expenses, documents pertaining to absences including but not LLP O 13 limited t0 sick leave, leaves 0f absence, and absences due t0 injury, copies of all paychecks 0r an Angeles ELLIS 14 itemized ledger of paychecks, medical history, personal history, disability reports, any claims for Los O 15 workers’ compensation 0r any other claims, claims of work—related injuries, claims 0f industrial-related TUCKER Columbus 16 injuries, incident reports, accident reports, and reports that refer 0r relate in any way to the named 6 17 individual. Cleveland O 18 REASONS THE SUBPOENA SHOULD BE OUASHED making a wage Chicago 19 Defendant served this subpoena because Plaintiff is loss claim due to the injuries 20 he suffered in the subj ect accident. Wal-Mart was identified by Plaintiff in discovery as one 0f his 21 employers from the last five years. Notably, he was not working for Wal-Mart at the time 0f the 22 accident. Plaintiff does not object t0 Defendant obtaining information from Wal-Mart that would assist 23 Defendant in assessing Plaintiff’ s wage loss claim, but Defendant’s subpoena seeks additional 24 information that has no conceivable relevance to Plaintiff’ s wage loss claim or any other claim by 25 Plaintiff. 26 Plaintiff s wage loss claim does not give Defendant unfettered access t0 Plaintiff s entire 27 employment file Which is what Defendant is trying to do With this subpoena. For example, Defendant’s 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPEONAS