Preview
19CV352260
Santa Clara — Civil
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC Electronically Filed
MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) by Superior Court of CA,
JOSHUA D. BOXER (SBN 226712) County of Santa Clara,
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 on 6/25/2020 4:06 PM
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Reviewed By: R. Walker
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Case #19CV352260
Envelope: 4508729
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
ELIZABETH A. MEDRANO (SBN 323742)
1330 Broadway, Suite 428
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 227-3998
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
Attorneys for Plaintiff LAZARO CORREA,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly
10 situated
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
14
LAZARO CORREA, individually, and on CASE NO.: 19CV352260
15 behalf of others similarly situated,
[Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon.
16 Plaintiff, Patricia M. Lucas, Dept. 3]
17 a
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
18 IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION, a! MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) LLC TO
19 inclusive, PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL
20 Defendants. INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND
21 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF
$3,147.50
22
Hearing Date: July 10, 2020
23 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 3
24
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS. PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200 MOTION TO COMPEL
MANHATTAN
BEACH, CA 90266
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I INTRODUCTION
Defendant II] Fornaio (America) LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Il Fornaio”) opposition to
Plaintiff Lazaro Correa’s (“Plaintiff”) (collectively, the “Parties”) motion to compel raises a
number of issues that distract from Plaintiff's primary argument that Defendant has no
justification for refusing to comply with basic class discovery obligations.
As Defendant identifies in its opposition, the main issue between the Parties is the scope
of discovery, particularly in light of subsequent interrogatories that have been propounded on
Defendant on April 24, 2020 and May 27, 2020. Plaintiff will address the subsequent
10 interrogatories in due course, but there can be no doubt that Plaintiff is entitled to discovery
11 pertaining to all non-exempt employees in the State of California during the relevant time period
12 under Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (2017).
13 Defendant’s continued privacy objections are also without merit, as the employees’
14 privacy interests can be adequately protected by the mailing of a Belaire-West notice prior to
15 disclosure of their contact information. As Defendant explained in its opposition, the Parties are
16 working together to finalize the Belaire-West notice in order to facilitate the production of class
17 contact information. However, Defendant argues that coordination with another wage and hour
18 class action, Kim Genovese v. Il Fornaio (America) Corporation, et al., Monterey County
19 Superior Court Case No. 20CV00276 (the “Genovese Action”), should be addressed before
20 distributing the Belaire-West notice.
21 As discussed during the Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on May 28, 2020,
22 Plaintiff disagrees with this delay tactic, particularly because the instant action has a longer class
23 period than the Genovese Action, it covers all claims, and Defendants are now only seeking to
24 coordinate of two of the four pending cases. While Plaintiff does not oppose coordination,
25 mailing a single notice now, covering all-non-exempt class members, will both eliminate further
26 delay and prevent confusion which could otherwise result from sending multiple notices in
27 multiple actions. In sum, these class members deserve to be compensated for these wage and
28 hour violations now, at a time when they could most use these funds, and there is no justification
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
2 MOTION TO COMPEL
BEACH, CA 90266
for further delay. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court compel Defendant to
provide a further response to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 2 following the issuance of the
Belaire-West notice.
Il. PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
A. Plaintiff Is Entitled_to Class Contact Information as Part of Routine Class
Disc:
As an initial matter, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 2 on January 30, 2020.
Plaintiff is seeking, and is entitled to, the contact information of the putative class that he seeks to
represent.
10
On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 12, seeking the contact
11
information of Il Fornaio’s former non-exempt employees. Declaration of Jennifer M. Holly
12
(“Holly Decl.”) 3, Exhibit (“Exh.”) B. In order to eliminate any ambiguity, on May 27, 2020,
13
Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 66, which stated: “IDENTIFY by name, position,
14
last known home and business address, telephone number and email address, all COVERED
15
EMPLOYEES.” Holly Decl. 9.4, Exh. C. “COVERED EMPLOYEES” was defined as all
16
employees who worked in any COVERED POSITION (meaning all non-exempt positions of Il
17
Fornaio in any of its locations and branches in the State of California) during the time period of
18
August 2, 2015 to the present. Id.
19
In its opposition, Defendant argues that three separate interrogatories seeking some
20
variation of contact information has somehow created confusion. Defendant’s Opposition, at 7-8.
21
Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 66 following Defendant’s repeated arguments
22
during the course of meeting and conferring that Plaintiff improperly attempted to expand the
23
scope of Special Interrogatory No. 2, which originally only sought the identification and contact
24
information of Il Fornaio’s current non-exempt employees. See Defendant’s Opposition, at 7, 9-
25
10.
26
As Special Interrogatory No. 66 is more clearly phrased to seek the identification and
27
contact information of the putative class members, Plaintiff proposes that Defendant comply
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN MOTION TO COMPEL
BEACH, CA 90266
completely with Special Interrogatory No. 66 following a Belaire-West notice process. This
would simultaneously address Defendant’s overbreadth issues with Special Interrogatory No. 2
and No. 12 and Plaintiff will not need to seek further compliance with those particular
interrogatories. Special Interrogatory No. 66 more clearly seeks the identification and contact
information of all covered employees, which is defined as all employees who held non-exempt
positions at Il Fornaio in its California locations from August 2, 2015 to the present. Holly Decl.
9/4, Exh. C. Indeed, Defendant has indicated that it is willing to move past its overbreadth
objections, except as to office and out-of-state workers, and “focus its resources on addressing
one coordinated Belaire-West notice for this and the Genovese Action that is aimed at the putative
10 class’ contact information in the interest of efficiency between the two actions.” Defendant’s
11 Opposition, at 11.
12 B. Coordination with the Genovese Action Does Not Need to Be Addressed Before
Distributing the Belaire-West Notice.
13
If Defendant is willing to comply with Special Interrogatory No. 66, there is no
14
justification for delaying the issuance of a Belaire-West notice until after the coordination of this
15
action and the Genovese Action is addressed. The instant action has the longest class period,
16
from August 2, 2015 to present. Thus, the distribution of a Belaire-West notice would capture the
17
same non-exempt employees whose information would be sought in the Genovese Action. Thus,
18
there is no reason to delay the distribution of a Belaire-West notice until after the coordination of
19
this action and the Genovese action is addressed by the Judicial Council of California.
20
C. Defendant’s Privacy Objections Do Not Justify Refusal _to Comply with its
21
Discovery Obligation
22
Plaintiff, of course, acknowledges that employees’ contact information deserves some
23
privacy protection. However, this privacy right is sufficiently protected following a Belaire-West
24
notice, after which Defendant may only withhold contact information of putative class members
25
who explicitly objected to the distribution of such information to Plaintiff. Belaire-West
26
Landscape, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-63 (2007).
27
Further, even though email addresses are the least intrusive, most current, and least likely
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN MOTION TO COMPEL
BEACH, CA 90266
to change method of contacting individuals, Defendant quizzically argues that Plaintiff's request
for email addresses of employees violates their privacy rights, even with a Belaire-West notice.
Defendant’s Opposition, at 11-12. Defendants and their counsel are well aware that, particularly
for low-wage workers who tend to relocate more frequently than their white-collar counterparts,
email addresses prove the most effective and efficient means of contacting employees. It is also
apparent that Defendant has access to this information, as it no doubt communicated with
employees via email as well, or, at the very least, gathered this information during the application
process. While Defendant cites some California trial court orders that excluded the distribution of
employees’ email addresses, Defendant fails to address how other California trial courts have
10 permitted discovery of email addresses. See, e.g., Mason v. Lyon Raisins, Inc., No.
11 15CECG00733, 2016 WL 3653560, at *6 (Cal. Super. Mar. 14, 2016) (Fresno County minute
12 order ordering defendant to provide a further response to an interrogatory seeking the contact
13 information, including email addresses, of current and former employees who do not object to the
14 disclosure of their contact information); Red v. Flyers Energy, LLC, No. CIV531460, 2016 WL
15 837047, at * 2 (Cal. Super. Feb. 23, 2016) (ordering defendant to provide the names, addresses,
16 and telephone number for the putative class, and instructing plaintiff's counsel to request from
17 defendant the e-mail addresses of individuals she is unable to contact).
18 Plaintiff is willing to bear half of the cost of a Belaire-West notice process to facilitate the
19 provision of employee information. Accordingly, following a Belaire-West notice process,
20 Defendant must provide all of the employee information that Plaintiff seeks.
21 IV. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
22 Defendant’s efforts to evade its obligation to provide critical class information are
23 obstructionist and dilatory. Over the past few months, Plaintiff has made it clear to Defendant
24 that he seeks the identification and contact information of putative class members. In an effort to
25 address Defendant’s arguments that Special Interrogatory No. 2 is overbroad as phrased, Plaintiff
26 propounded Special Interrogatory No. 66. To date, Defendant has not communicated an offer to
27 Plaintiff to comply in full with Special Interrogatory No. 66, following a Belaire-West notice,
28 which would make the instant motion to compel unnecessary. Further, though Defendant appears
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN MOTION TO COMPEL
BEACH, CA 90266
willing to participate in a Belaire-West notice, it continues to delay the process further by now
suggesting that the Parties should wait to send the notice until after the coordination of the instant
action and the Genovese Action is addressed. As discussed above, there is no basis for such
delay, as this matter has the longest class period, from August 2, 2015 to present. Thus, the
distribution of a Belaire-West notice would capture the same non-exempt employees whose
information would be sought in the Genovese Action.
Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted in this matter because Plaintiff rushed
to court on Special Interrogatory No. 2 instead of accepting Defendant’s offer to extend Plaintiff's
motion to compel deadline. Defendant’s Opposition, at 13. However, in the course of meeting
10 and conferring on this interrogatory, Defendant demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with
ll basic class discovery, prompting Plaintiff to seek judicial intervention to prevent further
12 unnecessary delay.
13 Thus, this Court should grant Plaintiff's request for sanctions.
14 Vv. CONCLUSION
15 For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff's
16 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff Correa’s Special Interrogatory No. 2 and
17 Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions of $3,147.50 be granted.
18
19 DATED: June 25, 2020 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
20
21 By
Matthew J. Matern
22 Joshua D. Boxer
Elizabeth A. Medrano
23 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAZARO CORREA,
individually, and on behalf of others
24 similarly situated
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN MOTION To COMPEL
BEACH, CA 90266
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years,
and not a party to this action. My business address is 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266. On June 25, 2020, I served the following document or
documents:
1 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) LLC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS OF $3,147.50
& By e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the documents to be sent to the person at
the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
Luanne Sacks Attorneys for Defendant
10 Isacks' srclaw.com IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) LLC, f/k/a IL
Hope Anne Case FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION
ll hcase@srclaw.com
Michelle Ducharme
12 mducharme@srclaw.com
Jenn Holly
13 jholly@srclaw.com
SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE, LLP
14 1900 Embarcadero Road, Suite 111
Palo Alto, CA 94303
15 Tel. 650.494.4950
Fax: 650.847.1520
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
17 true and correct. Executed on June 25, 2020 at Gardena, California.
18
{rind cain
19 Arinda Ocampo
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN MOTION To COMPEL
BEACH, CA 90266
Preview
19CV352260 Santa Clara — Civil MATERN LAW GROUP, PC Electronically Filed MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) by Superior Court of CA, JOSHUA D. BOXER (SBN 226712) County of Santa Clara, 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 on 6/25/2020 4:06 PM Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Reviewed By: R. Walker Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Case #19CV352260 Envelope: 4508729 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC ELIZABETH A. MEDRANO (SBN 323742) 1330 Broadway, Suite 428 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 227-3998 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAZARO CORREA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly 10 situated 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14 LAZARO CORREA, individually, and on CASE NO.: 19CV352260 15 behalf of others similarly situated, [Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. 16 Plaintiff, Patricia M. Lucas, Dept. 3] 17 a PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 18 IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION, a! MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) LLC TO 19 inclusive, PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL 20 Defendants. INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND 21 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $3,147.50 22 Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 23 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 3 24 25 26 27 28 MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS. PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MOTION TO COMPEL MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I INTRODUCTION Defendant II] Fornaio (America) LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Il Fornaio”) opposition to Plaintiff Lazaro Correa’s (“Plaintiff”) (collectively, the “Parties”) motion to compel raises a number of issues that distract from Plaintiff's primary argument that Defendant has no justification for refusing to comply with basic class discovery obligations. As Defendant identifies in its opposition, the main issue between the Parties is the scope of discovery, particularly in light of subsequent interrogatories that have been propounded on Defendant on April 24, 2020 and May 27, 2020. Plaintiff will address the subsequent 10 interrogatories in due course, but there can be no doubt that Plaintiff is entitled to discovery 11 pertaining to all non-exempt employees in the State of California during the relevant time period 12 under Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (2017). 13 Defendant’s continued privacy objections are also without merit, as the employees’ 14 privacy interests can be adequately protected by the mailing of a Belaire-West notice prior to 15 disclosure of their contact information. As Defendant explained in its opposition, the Parties are 16 working together to finalize the Belaire-West notice in order to facilitate the production of class 17 contact information. However, Defendant argues that coordination with another wage and hour 18 class action, Kim Genovese v. Il Fornaio (America) Corporation, et al., Monterey County 19 Superior Court Case No. 20CV00276 (the “Genovese Action”), should be addressed before 20 distributing the Belaire-West notice. 21 As discussed during the Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on May 28, 2020, 22 Plaintiff disagrees with this delay tactic, particularly because the instant action has a longer class 23 period than the Genovese Action, it covers all claims, and Defendants are now only seeking to 24 coordinate of two of the four pending cases. While Plaintiff does not oppose coordination, 25 mailing a single notice now, covering all-non-exempt class members, will both eliminate further 26 delay and prevent confusion which could otherwise result from sending multiple notices in 27 multiple actions. In sum, these class members deserve to be compensated for these wage and 28 hour violations now, at a time when they could most use these funds, and there is no justification MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MANHATTAN 2 MOTION TO COMPEL BEACH, CA 90266 for further delay. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court compel Defendant to provide a further response to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 2 following the issuance of the Belaire-West notice. Il. PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A. Plaintiff Is Entitled_to Class Contact Information as Part of Routine Class Disc: As an initial matter, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 2 on January 30, 2020. Plaintiff is seeking, and is entitled to, the contact information of the putative class that he seeks to represent. 10 On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 12, seeking the contact 11 information of Il Fornaio’s former non-exempt employees. Declaration of Jennifer M. Holly 12 (“Holly Decl.”) 3, Exhibit (“Exh.”) B. In order to eliminate any ambiguity, on May 27, 2020, 13 Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 66, which stated: “IDENTIFY by name, position, 14 last known home and business address, telephone number and email address, all COVERED 15 EMPLOYEES.” Holly Decl. 9.4, Exh. C. “COVERED EMPLOYEES” was defined as all 16 employees who worked in any COVERED POSITION (meaning all non-exempt positions of Il 17 Fornaio in any of its locations and branches in the State of California) during the time period of 18 August 2, 2015 to the present. Id. 19 In its opposition, Defendant argues that three separate interrogatories seeking some 20 variation of contact information has somehow created confusion. Defendant’s Opposition, at 7-8. 21 Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatory No. 66 following Defendant’s repeated arguments 22 during the course of meeting and conferring that Plaintiff improperly attempted to expand the 23 scope of Special Interrogatory No. 2, which originally only sought the identification and contact 24 information of Il Fornaio’s current non-exempt employees. See Defendant’s Opposition, at 7, 9- 25 10. 26 As Special Interrogatory No. 66 is more clearly phrased to seek the identification and 27 contact information of the putative class members, Plaintiff proposes that Defendant comply 28 MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MANHATTAN MOTION TO COMPEL BEACH, CA 90266 completely with Special Interrogatory No. 66 following a Belaire-West notice process. This would simultaneously address Defendant’s overbreadth issues with Special Interrogatory No. 2 and No. 12 and Plaintiff will not need to seek further compliance with those particular interrogatories. Special Interrogatory No. 66 more clearly seeks the identification and contact information of all covered employees, which is defined as all employees who held non-exempt positions at Il Fornaio in its California locations from August 2, 2015 to the present. Holly Decl. 9/4, Exh. C. Indeed, Defendant has indicated that it is willing to move past its overbreadth objections, except as to office and out-of-state workers, and “focus its resources on addressing one coordinated Belaire-West notice for this and the Genovese Action that is aimed at the putative 10 class’ contact information in the interest of efficiency between the two actions.” Defendant’s 11 Opposition, at 11. 12 B. Coordination with the Genovese Action Does Not Need to Be Addressed Before Distributing the Belaire-West Notice. 13 If Defendant is willing to comply with Special Interrogatory No. 66, there is no 14 justification for delaying the issuance of a Belaire-West notice until after the coordination of this 15 action and the Genovese Action is addressed. The instant action has the longest class period, 16 from August 2, 2015 to present. Thus, the distribution of a Belaire-West notice would capture the 17 same non-exempt employees whose information would be sought in the Genovese Action. Thus, 18 there is no reason to delay the distribution of a Belaire-West notice until after the coordination of 19 this action and the Genovese action is addressed by the Judicial Council of California. 20 C. Defendant’s Privacy Objections Do Not Justify Refusal _to Comply with its 21 Discovery Obligation 22 Plaintiff, of course, acknowledges that employees’ contact information deserves some 23 privacy protection. However, this privacy right is sufficiently protected following a Belaire-West 24 notice, after which Defendant may only withhold contact information of putative class members 25 who explicitly objected to the distribution of such information to Plaintiff. Belaire-West 26 Landscape, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-63 (2007). 27 Further, even though email addresses are the least intrusive, most current, and least likely 28 MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MANHATTAN MOTION TO COMPEL BEACH, CA 90266 to change method of contacting individuals, Defendant quizzically argues that Plaintiff's request for email addresses of employees violates their privacy rights, even with a Belaire-West notice. Defendant’s Opposition, at 11-12. Defendants and their counsel are well aware that, particularly for low-wage workers who tend to relocate more frequently than their white-collar counterparts, email addresses prove the most effective and efficient means of contacting employees. It is also apparent that Defendant has access to this information, as it no doubt communicated with employees via email as well, or, at the very least, gathered this information during the application process. While Defendant cites some California trial court orders that excluded the distribution of employees’ email addresses, Defendant fails to address how other California trial courts have 10 permitted discovery of email addresses. See, e.g., Mason v. Lyon Raisins, Inc., No. 11 15CECG00733, 2016 WL 3653560, at *6 (Cal. Super. Mar. 14, 2016) (Fresno County minute 12 order ordering defendant to provide a further response to an interrogatory seeking the contact 13 information, including email addresses, of current and former employees who do not object to the 14 disclosure of their contact information); Red v. Flyers Energy, LLC, No. CIV531460, 2016 WL 15 837047, at * 2 (Cal. Super. Feb. 23, 2016) (ordering defendant to provide the names, addresses, 16 and telephone number for the putative class, and instructing plaintiff's counsel to request from 17 defendant the e-mail addresses of individuals she is unable to contact). 18 Plaintiff is willing to bear half of the cost of a Belaire-West notice process to facilitate the 19 provision of employee information. Accordingly, following a Belaire-West notice process, 20 Defendant must provide all of the employee information that Plaintiff seeks. 21 IV. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 22 Defendant’s efforts to evade its obligation to provide critical class information are 23 obstructionist and dilatory. Over the past few months, Plaintiff has made it clear to Defendant 24 that he seeks the identification and contact information of putative class members. In an effort to 25 address Defendant’s arguments that Special Interrogatory No. 2 is overbroad as phrased, Plaintiff 26 propounded Special Interrogatory No. 66. To date, Defendant has not communicated an offer to 27 Plaintiff to comply in full with Special Interrogatory No. 66, following a Belaire-West notice, 28 which would make the instant motion to compel unnecessary. Further, though Defendant appears MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MANHATTAN MOTION TO COMPEL BEACH, CA 90266 willing to participate in a Belaire-West notice, it continues to delay the process further by now suggesting that the Parties should wait to send the notice until after the coordination of the instant action and the Genovese Action is addressed. As discussed above, there is no basis for such delay, as this matter has the longest class period, from August 2, 2015 to present. Thus, the distribution of a Belaire-West notice would capture the same non-exempt employees whose information would be sought in the Genovese Action. Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted in this matter because Plaintiff rushed to court on Special Interrogatory No. 2 instead of accepting Defendant’s offer to extend Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline. Defendant’s Opposition, at 13. However, in the course of meeting 10 and conferring on this interrogatory, Defendant demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with ll basic class discovery, prompting Plaintiff to seek judicial intervention to prevent further 12 unnecessary delay. 13 Thus, this Court should grant Plaintiff's request for sanctions. 14 Vv. CONCLUSION 15 For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff Correa’s Special Interrogatory No. 2 and 17 Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions of $3,147.50 be granted. 18 19 DATED: June 25, 2020 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 20 21 By Matthew J. Matern 22 Joshua D. Boxer Elizabeth A. Medrano 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAZARO CORREA, individually, and on behalf of others 24 similarly situated 25 26 27 28 MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MANHATTAN MOTION To COMPEL BEACH, CA 90266 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200, Manhattan Beach, California 90266. On June 25, 2020, I served the following document or documents: 1 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) LLC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $3,147.50 & By e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the documents to be sent to the person at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Luanne Sacks Attorneys for Defendant 10 Isacks' srclaw.com IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) LLC, f/k/a IL Hope Anne Case FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION ll hcase@srclaw.com Michelle Ducharme 12 mducharme@srclaw.com Jenn Holly 13 jholly@srclaw.com SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE, LLP 14 1900 Embarcadero Road, Suite 111 Palo Alto, CA 94303 15 Tel. 650.494.4950 Fax: 650.847.1520 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 17 true and correct. Executed on June 25, 2020 at Gardena, California. 18 {rind cain 19 Arinda Ocampo 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 ROSECRANS PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AVENUE, STE 200 MANHATTAN MOTION To COMPEL BEACH, CA 90266