Preview
ATTORNEYOR PARTYWITHOUTATTORNEY(Name, statebar number, and address): FOR COURT USEONLY
Brooke B. Nevels SBN: 302994
E-FILED
466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Fresno, CA 93711
e-mail: BNevels@WebbLawGroup.com 05/04/2020
TELEPHONENO: (559) 431-4888 FAX NO: (559) 821-4500 Superior Court of California
ATTORNEYFOR (Name): Plaintiffs, Jennifer Chi fka Jennifer Reedal, et al. County of Fresno
SUPERIORCOURT OF CALIFORNIA• COUNTY OF FRESNO By: R Smith, Deputy
Civil Division
1130 0 Street
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Jennifer Chi fka Jennifer Reedal, et al.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc., et al
.
CASE NUMBER:
REQUESTFOR PRETRIALDISCOVERY CONFERENCE
20CECG00029
DX Plaintiff(s) D Defendant(s) D Cross-complainant(s) D Cross-defendant(s) D Other(s) Request a
Pretrial Discovery Conference.
A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons:
DX A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set one propounded on February 14,
2020
DX A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set one propounded on February 14, 2020
D A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at fordeposition
scheduled for
D A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition
questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on
D A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to
comply with
D Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies
with Local Rule 2. l.l 7(B).
The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request:
( Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via
these efforts.)
On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff served individual and class/PAGA discovery. On March 11, 2020, Opposing Counsel requested an extension. On March
11, 2020, I granted a conditional extension, providing that we would agree to an extension so long as they would agree to send a Belaire-West notice to
a third party administer by the time the discovery responses were due. Defendant refused to agree to send a Belaire-West Notice and served inadequate
discovery responses on March 17, 2020. On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel telephonically met and conferred with Opposing Counsel Jeffcoach and
Thompson regarding the Belaire-West Notice, among other things. Opposing Counsel advised they were not amenable in sending out a Belaire notice,
despite the class discovery and impending PAGA lawsuit. Opposing Counsel also advised they were not going to agree to any form of notice because
allegedly there is no misclassification, individuals are nor entitled to overtime, and the Complaint has not been amended to include the PAGA cause of
action (a pending stipulation to amend the complaint to include the PAGA cause of action is pending filing of this Court.) On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff's
counsel served Defendants with a six (6) page meet and confer correspondence. The meet and confer correspondence also addressed the class discovery
in sending out a Belaire-West Notice. On April 11, 2020, Opposing Counsel responded to the meet and confer letter and provided that they would be
supplementing some of their responses and would address the Belaire-West notice on separate cover. On April 13, 2020, I emailed Opposing Counsel
requesting: 1) a conference call to further meet and confer, 2) a date on when we would expect the response regarding the Belaire-West notice, and 3)
whether they would provide a response as to why they are not supplementing special interrogatory #7 and rfa #30. On April 15, 2020, I sent a follow up
email. On April 16, 2020, Ms. Jeffcoach responded that she would be providing a response the next week (week of April 20th).
On April 17, 2020, I
sent another email asking if they would provide a response as to why Defendant would not supplement Special Rog #7 and RFA # 30, and also
requested availability for a conference call. On April 22, 2020, I sent a follow up email because I had not received the supplemental response, a response
regarding the Belaire Notice, nor a response to my multiple emails. On April 24, 2020, I send an additional follow up email. On April 29, 2020, I
received correspondence from Opposing Counsel stating that it is Defendant’s position that Special Rog. #7 is confidential. Opposing Counsel also
advised they made revisions to our proposed Belaire Notice but at the same time, contend that CRNAs do not want their contact information shared and
thus will not provide their information. To date, I have not received supplemental responses nor proposed edits to the Belaire Notice.
PCV-70 R05-l 9 Fresno County Superior Court
Mandatory REQUESTFOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERYCONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1. l 7
A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows:
(Excepting a privilege log if checked above , no pleadings , exhibits , declarations , or attachments shall be
attached.)
This is a class action and soon to be PAGA case against Defendants for misclassifying their Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist
(“CRNA’s”) as independent contractors. Plaintiff Chi filed her PAGA claim with the LWDA on January 17, 2020. Plaintiff Reedal filed her PAGA
claim with LWDA on March 2, 2020. The tolling period to add PAGA as a cause of action is set to expire on May 6, 2020. The parties have
stipulated that Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint to include the PAGA cause of action after the tolling period has expired.
Special Interrogatories: 4, 8, 19
Opposing Counsel agreed to supplement the foregoing interrogatories, but to-date, supplemental responses have not been served.
Special Interrogatories: 7, 14
Special interrogatory 7 seeks the number of individuals employed by Defendant in California as CLASS MEMBERS. Defendant objected
among other things that it did not “employ” CRNAs and that interrogatory assumes facts, calls for a legal conclusion and seeks information protected
by attorney-client privilege, is irrelevant and “relevant time period” is overly broad as "Plaintiff was not event employed until October of 2018."
Plaintiff argues in the meet and confer correspondence that a request to state the total number of individuals employed by Defendant does not call for
a legal conclusion nor seek information protected by privilege. Additionally, the relevant time period is proper because the time period precedes four
years prior to the date was Complaint was filed for purposes of statute of limitations. The response that Defendant did not “employ” any CRNAs is
made in bad faith. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines employ as to use or engage the services of. It does not differentiate between an employee
or independent contractor. Indeed, Defendant contends in its objection that Plaintiff was not “employed” until October of 2018. Special Rog. 7
should be supplemented.
Special interrogatory 14 asks for Defendant to identify the Class Members during the relevant time period. Among other objections,
Defendant objected that the interrogatory seeks private information of third parties. Plaintiff is willing and even prepare a Belaire Notice for
Defendant to alleviate third-party privacy issue. The case law here is clear that the Belaire-West privacy notice is proper for PAGA representative
actions and Class Actions. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 559. To date, Defendant has not agreed to the form or sent revisions to
the Belaire-West Notice.
Request for Admission No. 30
This request asks for Defendant to admit that Class Members are compensated on an hourly basis. Defendant objected on the ground that
this request is vague as to time and then responded that they are unable to admit or deny because individuals are not identified. However, the request
is not vague as to time because Class Members, as defined includes a time period of January 2, 2016 to the present. Moreover, the response that
individuals are not defined is improper as Class Members are defined. This response should be supplemented. For purposes of misclassification, it is
necessary to help Plaintiffs' claims to know whether Defendant paid their Class Members on an hourly basis,.
Requests for Production of Documents 16 & 19
These requests seek class discovery: documents that evidence the number of Class Members and class member contact information.
Among other objections, Defendant objected on third party privacy grounds. Plaintiff met and confer regarding the issuance of a Belaire-West notice
to alleviate such concern but Defendant has not affirmatively agreed or sent edits to the proposed notice.
It is understood that the filingof this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filinga motion
to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filingof the request and
issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute.
Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FORPRETRIAL DISCOVERYCONFERENCEon : May 1, 2020
______ _
Date
Pursuant to Local Rule 2. l . l 7(A) ( 1), any
opposition to a request fora Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be
filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of service of the request for a Pretrial
Discovery Conference , extended five (5) days for service by mail , and must be served on opposing counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct .
May 1, 2020 Brooke B. Nevels
Date Type or Print Name
PCV-70 ROS-19 Fresno Coun ty Superior Court
Mandatory REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERYCONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1. l 7
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
3 I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 466 West Fallbrook Avenue,
4 Suite 102, Fresno, California 93711. My email address is Office@WebbLawGroup.com.
5 On May 1, 2020, I served the document(s) described as:
6 I. REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
7 on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope at: Fresno, California, addressed as follows:
8
Mandy Jeffcoach
9
Tim Thompson
10 WHITNEY THOMPSON &
JEFFCOACH
11 8050 N. Palm, Suite 110
Fresno, CA 93711
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
WEBB LAW GROUP, APC
12
Telephone: (559)753-2550
Fresno, California 93711
13 Fax: (559)753-2560
E-mail: MJeffcoach@WTJLaw.com
14 E-Mail:TThompson@WTJLaw.com
15 E-Mail: NLee@WTJLaw.com
E-Mail: ChristinaL@WTJLaw.com
16 Attorney for Defendant Community
Regional Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc
17
18 (BY MAIL) I am readil familiar ih his b siness prac ice for collec ion and
processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereon
19
fully prepaid, will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the date hereinabove in
20 the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California.
21 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
offices of the addressee(s).
22
(BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be
23 delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the addressee(s).
24 (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be faxed to the offices
of the addressee(s) pursuant to a valid stipulation, applicable statute or as a courtesy.
25
XX (BY E-MAIL) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be electronically mailed to
26 the offices of the addressee(s) as a courtesy, pursuant to an applicable code or a valid
stipulation. (Email stipulation for electronic service pursuant to CCP §§1013(g) and
27 1010.6. Email stipulated entered on April 8, 2020.) I did not receive, within a reasonable
28 time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
1 Executed on May 1, 2020, at Fresno, California
2 XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
3 the foregoing is true and correct.
4 ___________________________________________
Elizabeth M. Abina
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
WEBB LAW GROUP, APC
12
Fresno, California 93711
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
ATTORNEYOR PARTYWITHOUTATTORNEY(Name, statebar number, and address): FOR COURT USEONLY Brooke B. Nevels SBN: 302994 E-FILED 466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Fresno, CA 93711 e-mail: BNevels@WebbLawGroup.com 05/04/2020 TELEPHONENO: (559) 431-4888 FAX NO: (559) 821-4500 Superior Court of California ATTORNEYFOR (Name): Plaintiffs, Jennifer Chi fka Jennifer Reedal, et al. County of Fresno SUPERIORCOURT OF CALIFORNIA• COUNTY OF FRESNO By: R Smith, Deputy Civil Division 1130 0 Street Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Jennifer Chi fka Jennifer Reedal, et al. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc., et al . CASE NUMBER: REQUESTFOR PRETRIALDISCOVERY CONFERENCE 20CECG00029 DX Plaintiff(s) D Defendant(s) D Cross-complainant(s) D Cross-defendant(s) D Other(s) Request a Pretrial Discovery Conference. A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons: DX A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set one propounded on February 14, 2020 DX A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set one propounded on February 14, 2020 D A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at fordeposition scheduled for D A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on D A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to comply with D Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies with Local Rule 2. l.l 7(B). The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request: ( Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via these efforts.) On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff served individual and class/PAGA discovery. On March 11, 2020, Opposing Counsel requested an extension. On March 11, 2020, I granted a conditional extension, providing that we would agree to an extension so long as they would agree to send a Belaire-West notice to a third party administer by the time the discovery responses were due. Defendant refused to agree to send a Belaire-West Notice and served inadequate discovery responses on March 17, 2020. On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel telephonically met and conferred with Opposing Counsel Jeffcoach and Thompson regarding the Belaire-West Notice, among other things. Opposing Counsel advised they were not amenable in sending out a Belaire notice, despite the class discovery and impending PAGA lawsuit. Opposing Counsel also advised they were not going to agree to any form of notice because allegedly there is no misclassification, individuals are nor entitled to overtime, and the Complaint has not been amended to include the PAGA cause of action (a pending stipulation to amend the complaint to include the PAGA cause of action is pending filing of this Court.) On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel served Defendants with a six (6) page meet and confer correspondence. The meet and confer correspondence also addressed the class discovery in sending out a Belaire-West Notice. On April 11, 2020, Opposing Counsel responded to the meet and confer letter and provided that they would be supplementing some of their responses and would address the Belaire-West notice on separate cover. On April 13, 2020, I emailed Opposing Counsel requesting: 1) a conference call to further meet and confer, 2) a date on when we would expect the response regarding the Belaire-West notice, and 3) whether they would provide a response as to why they are not supplementing special interrogatory #7 and rfa #30. On April 15, 2020, I sent a follow up email. On April 16, 2020, Ms. Jeffcoach responded that she would be providing a response the next week (week of April 20th). On April 17, 2020, I sent another email asking if they would provide a response as to why Defendant would not supplement Special Rog #7 and RFA # 30, and also requested availability for a conference call. On April 22, 2020, I sent a follow up email because I had not received the supplemental response, a response regarding the Belaire Notice, nor a response to my multiple emails. On April 24, 2020, I send an additional follow up email. On April 29, 2020, I received correspondence from Opposing Counsel stating that it is Defendant’s position that Special Rog. #7 is confidential. Opposing Counsel also advised they made revisions to our proposed Belaire Notice but at the same time, contend that CRNAs do not want their contact information shared and thus will not provide their information. To date, I have not received supplemental responses nor proposed edits to the Belaire Notice. PCV-70 R05-l 9 Fresno County Superior Court Mandatory REQUESTFOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERYCONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1. l 7 A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows: (Excepting a privilege log if checked above , no pleadings , exhibits , declarations , or attachments shall be attached.) This is a class action and soon to be PAGA case against Defendants for misclassifying their Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (“CRNA’s”) as independent contractors. Plaintiff Chi filed her PAGA claim with the LWDA on January 17, 2020. Plaintiff Reedal filed her PAGA claim with LWDA on March 2, 2020. The tolling period to add PAGA as a cause of action is set to expire on May 6, 2020. The parties have stipulated that Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint to include the PAGA cause of action after the tolling period has expired. Special Interrogatories: 4, 8, 19 Opposing Counsel agreed to supplement the foregoing interrogatories, but to-date, supplemental responses have not been served. Special Interrogatories: 7, 14 Special interrogatory 7 seeks the number of individuals employed by Defendant in California as CLASS MEMBERS. Defendant objected among other things that it did not “employ” CRNAs and that interrogatory assumes facts, calls for a legal conclusion and seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, is irrelevant and “relevant time period” is overly broad as "Plaintiff was not event employed until October of 2018." Plaintiff argues in the meet and confer correspondence that a request to state the total number of individuals employed by Defendant does not call for a legal conclusion nor seek information protected by privilege. Additionally, the relevant time period is proper because the time period precedes four years prior to the date was Complaint was filed for purposes of statute of limitations. The response that Defendant did not “employ” any CRNAs is made in bad faith. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines employ as to use or engage the services of. It does not differentiate between an employee or independent contractor. Indeed, Defendant contends in its objection that Plaintiff was not “employed” until October of 2018. Special Rog. 7 should be supplemented. Special interrogatory 14 asks for Defendant to identify the Class Members during the relevant time period. Among other objections, Defendant objected that the interrogatory seeks private information of third parties. Plaintiff is willing and even prepare a Belaire Notice for Defendant to alleviate third-party privacy issue. The case law here is clear that the Belaire-West privacy notice is proper for PAGA representative actions and Class Actions. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 559. To date, Defendant has not agreed to the form or sent revisions to the Belaire-West Notice. Request for Admission No. 30 This request asks for Defendant to admit that Class Members are compensated on an hourly basis. Defendant objected on the ground that this request is vague as to time and then responded that they are unable to admit or deny because individuals are not identified. However, the request is not vague as to time because Class Members, as defined includes a time period of January 2, 2016 to the present. Moreover, the response that individuals are not defined is improper as Class Members are defined. This response should be supplemented. For purposes of misclassification, it is necessary to help Plaintiffs' claims to know whether Defendant paid their Class Members on an hourly basis,. Requests for Production of Documents 16 & 19 These requests seek class discovery: documents that evidence the number of Class Members and class member contact information. Among other objections, Defendant objected on third party privacy grounds. Plaintiff met and confer regarding the issuance of a Belaire-West notice to alleviate such concern but Defendant has not affirmatively agreed or sent edits to the proposed notice. It is understood that the filingof this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filinga motion to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filingof the request and issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute. Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FORPRETRIAL DISCOVERYCONFERENCEon : May 1, 2020 ______ _ Date Pursuant to Local Rule 2. l . l 7(A) ( 1), any opposition to a request fora Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of service of the request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference , extended five (5) days for service by mail , and must be served on opposing counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct . May 1, 2020 Brooke B. Nevels Date Type or Print Name PCV-70 ROS-19 Fresno Coun ty Superior Court Mandatory REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERYCONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1. l 7 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 3 I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 466 West Fallbrook Avenue, 4 Suite 102, Fresno, California 93711. My email address is Office@WebbLawGroup.com. 5 On May 1, 2020, I served the document(s) described as: 6 I. REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 7 on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope at: Fresno, California, addressed as follows: 8 Mandy Jeffcoach 9 Tim Thompson 10 WHITNEY THOMPSON & JEFFCOACH 11 8050 N. Palm, Suite 110 Fresno, CA 93711 466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102 WEBB LAW GROUP, APC 12 Telephone: (559)753-2550 Fresno, California 93711 13 Fax: (559)753-2560 E-mail: MJeffcoach@WTJLaw.com 14 E-Mail:TThompson@WTJLaw.com 15 E-Mail: NLee@WTJLaw.com E-Mail: ChristinaL@WTJLaw.com 16 Attorney for Defendant Community Regional Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc 17 18 (BY MAIL) I am readil familiar ih his b siness prac ice for collec ion and processing of correspondence for mailing, and that correspondence, with postage thereon 19 fully prepaid, will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the date hereinabove in 20 the ordinary course of business, at Fresno, California. 21 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s). 22 (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused the above-referenced envelope(s) to be 23 delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the addressee(s). 24 (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be faxed to the offices of the addressee(s) pursuant to a valid stipulation, applicable statute or as a courtesy. 25 XX (BY E-MAIL) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be electronically mailed to 26 the offices of the addressee(s) as a courtesy, pursuant to an applicable code or a valid stipulation. (Email stipulation for electronic service pursuant to CCP §§1013(g) and 27 1010.6. Email stipulated entered on April 8, 2020.) I did not receive, within a reasonable 28 time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 1 Executed on May 1, 2020, at Fresno, California 2 XX (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 3 the foregoing is true and correct. 4 ___________________________________________ Elizabeth M. Abina 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102 WEBB LAW GROUP, APC 12 Fresno, California 93711 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28