Preview
iV
XQ) FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Mia Farber (SBN 131467)
Adam Y. Siegel (SBN 238568) JUL 29-2019
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
725 S. Figueroa, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Adam. Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Dylan B. Carp (SBN 196846)
Scott P. Jang (SBN 260191)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor —
San Francisco, CA 94111 hag 01795 —
Dylan.Cai jacksonlewis.com | Menerrdun
we of Points and Authorities in Oppc
Scott.Jan: jacksonlewis.com
i il ll INl | Il
10 Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
11 - —____. —-—____
Attorneys for Defendant
12 ADECCO USA INC.
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
15
16 RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17-CIV-01736
California and aggrieved employees,
17 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN
18 Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PAOLA
CORREA AND BAKER CURTIS &
19 Vv. SCHWARTZ’S.
a>
20 ADECCO USA, INC. and DOES 1-50. 1. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE
inclusive. JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW os
21
SETTLEMETN HEARING PURSUANT
22 Defendants. TO CCP §§ 659(a)(2) AND 663A(A)(2)
AND/OR CCP § 1008(B);
23
24 2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS VOID
25 PURSUANT TO CCP § 437(d) AND
BECAUSE OF FRAUD
26
27 Date August 22, 2019
Time: 10 a.m.
28 Dept. 2 [Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Marie S. Weiner]
1
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
Jd Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
April 18, 2017
Vacated
10
Il
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:
Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. respectfully submits the following objections.
OBJECTIONS TO PAOLA CORREA AND BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ’S: 1.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW
SETTLEMENT HEARING PURSUANT TO CCP §§ 659(a)(2) AND 663A(A)(2) AND/OR
CCP § 1008: 3; 2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS
VOID PURSUANT TO CCP § 437(d) AND BECAUSE OF FRAUD
No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
10
1 Notice in its entirety. Rule 3.1113(d), rules of court.
11 The Notice consists almost
entirely of 13 pages of
12
argument. When combined with
13 the 15-page Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, this
14 results in 28 pages of argument
in violation of the 15-page limit
15
under Rule 3.1113(d)
16
V7 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER
18
19 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
20 2. Declaration in its entirety. A party may not introduce
additional evidence in
21
connection with a motion under
22 Code of Civ. Pro. section 663.
(Plaza Hollister Ltd.
23 Partnership v. County of San
24 Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1,
14 [“A motion to vacate under
25 [Code of Civ. Pro.] section 663
is a remedy to be used when a
26 trial court draws incorrect
conclusions of law or renders an
27
erroneous judgment on the basis
28 of uncontroverted evidence”].)
3
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
3 “On January 3, 2017, I requested Correa's personnel
and payroll records from Adecco in accordance with Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
the California Labor Code. On February 2, 2017, I section 403); Hearsay (Evid.
received the records. Among other things, these Code section 1200)
records included a copy of the Associate NDA. and
Commitment Sheet signed by Correa, as well as the
Employee Handbook applicable to Correa's
employment. I also received Correa's wage
statements, which I reviewed. According to these
wage statements, Correa worked 49 pay periods
between February 1, 2016 and December 18, 2016.”
10 (Baker Dec, { 4, page 2.)
11
12 “T downloaded a copy of this report from Adecco's
website on June 21, 2019. According to its annual Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
13
report, Adecco "is the leader in the world of HR section 403); Hearsay (Evid.
14 Solutions." It is the largest staffing Code section 1200)
firm in the world (with 5% market share) and it
15 employs, at any one time, 700,000 associates who
16 work at more than 100,000 clients. Adecco
describes its competitive strengths as including
17 "knowledge of complex labour regulations" and the
“ability to manage large contingent workforces." In
18 2018, Adecco claimed revenue in excess of twenty-
19 three billion euros and gross profits in excess of
more than four billion euros.”
20
21 (Baker Dec, { 6, page 3:3-9.)
22
23
24 “According to Google and Adecco, Adecco is
Google's largest provider of temporary labor. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
25 Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 3 is the section 403); Hearsay (Evid.
declaration of a Google senior contracts manager Code section 1200)
26 stating this fact. This declaration was filed in
support of Google's and Adecco's motion to seal
27
their Temporary Staffing Services Agreement
28 (TSSA) in the Doe case. The motion to seal was
denied. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 4 is a
4
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
e e
No. | Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
copy of the operative TSSA between Google and
Adecco. I received this document from Adecco
during discovery in the Doe case.”
(Baker Dec, 7, page 3.)
“Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 5 is a
copy of Google's Data Classification Guidelines. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 6 is a copy of | section 403); Hearsay (Evid.
Google's Employee Communication Policy. Code section 1200)
Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 7 is a copy of
10 Google's Communication and Disclosure Policy.
Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 8 is a copy of
il Google's internal and confidential code of conduct.
Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 9 are the
12 relevant excerpts of Google's "You Said What?"
13 Training Program. These policies and training
programs were produced by Google in discovery in
14 the Doe case. According to the deposition
testimony of Google witnesses, these policies and
15 training programs were all in effect throughout
16 Correa's employment at Google.”
17 (Baker Dec, { 8, page 3.)
18
19
“The Google Temp Non-Disclosure Agreement
20 ‘NDA’ contains the adult content release that was Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
also at issue in Doe. According to Adecco's section 403); Hearsay (Evid.
21 discovery responses in the Doe case. 2,256 Adecco Code section 1200)
Associates were required to sign the Google Temp
22
NDA (with the adult content release) between
23 February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017. These
Adecco Associates, all of whom were subject to
24 Google's and Adecco's confidentiality requirements,
worked a total of 87,845 pay periods between
25
February 16, 2017 and March 16, 2017.”
26
(Baker Dec, 4 9, page 3:27-4:4.)
27
28
5
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
8 “The ‘stacked’ value of the PAGA claims as to
Adecco arising from Correa's employment at Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
Google is at least $58,900. I calculate this amount as section 403); Unqualified Expert
follows: Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5 each (Evid. Code section 720);
provides for a $10,000 civil penalty for every Impermissible Lay Opinion
violation. Labor Code §§ 98.6(b)(3), 1102.5(f). I (Evid. Code section 800);
assume for purposes of this calculation that the Hearsay (Evid. Code section
1200)
employer is only liable for one violation per
employee for a violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6 and
1102.5. Thus, $20,000 per employee.”
(Baker Dec, { 10, page 4.)
10
il
“J assume here, based on a ruling by the Doe court,
12 that the penalty under Labor Code § 432.5 is only Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
$100 per employee because the employee only signs section 403); Unqualified Expert
13
the Associate NDA once. Penalties under Labor (Evid. Code section 720);
14 Code §§ 96(k), 232, 232.5 and 1197.5, on the other Impermissible Lay Opinion
hand, are on a per-pay-period/per-employee basis. (Evid. Code section 800);
15 Stacking these penalties results in, at a minimum, an Hearsay (Evid. Code section
16 additional $38,900 in penalties arising from Correa's 1200)
employment alone, for a total of $59,900. Correa's
17 share of these civil penalties is thus at least
$14,725.”
18
19 (Baker Dec,{ 11, page 4:14-19.)
20
21 10. “Performing the same calculation across all of
Adecco's Google-based Associates between Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
22 February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017, the section 403); Unqualified Expert
23 ‘stacked’ value of the PAGA claims against Adecco (Evid. Code section 720);
is, at a minimum, $114,719,200, with each Impermissible Lay Opinion
24 Associate's 25% share being, on average, a (Evid. Code section 800);
minimum of at least $12,712.” Hearsay (Evid. Code section
25 1200)
26 (Baker Dec, 12, page 4.)
27
28
6
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
IL. “Neither party informed the Court that there was
an individual settlement agreement placing Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
restrictions on Moniz's ability to act as a PAGA section 403); Unqualified Expert
representative in this case.” (Evid. Code section 720);
Impermissible Lay Opinion
(Baker Dec, { 13, page 4:25-5:4.) (Evid. Code section 800);
Hearsay (Evid. Code section
1200)
12. “Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 12 is a
March 5, 2018 letter from Adecco's counsel to Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code
Moniz's counsel meeting and conferring on the section 403); Hearsay (Evid.
"scope issue." I received this letter from Adecco Code section 1200)
10 following the April 3, 2018 mediation between
Correa and Adecco as part of the meet and confer
I process. Page 8 of this letter states: "As counsel is
aware, Moniz is barred from amending her
12 Complaint and/or PAGA notice in this action
13 due to the confidential settlement agreement
between Moniz, Adecco, and Google.”
14
15 (Baker Dec, § 14, page 5.)
16
17
18
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF PAOLA CORREA
19
No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
20
Declaration in its entirety. A party may not introduce
21 additional evidence in
connection with a motion under
22
Code of Civ. Pro. section 663.
23 (Plaza Hollister Ltd.
Partnership v. County of San
24 Benito (1999) 72 Cal-App.4th 1,
14 [“A motion to vacate under
25
[Code of Civ. Pro.] section 663
26 is a remedy to be used when a
trial court draws incorrect
27 conclusions of law or renders an
erroneous judgment on the basis
28
of uncontroverted evidence”].)
7
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
1 DATED: July 29, 2019 JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
aS
By: Mia Farber
Adam Y. Siegel
Dylan B. Carp
Scott P. Jang
Attorneys for Defendant
ADECCO USA INC.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ae
24
25
26
27
28
8
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736
Preview
iV XQ) FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY Mia Farber (SBN 131467) Adam Y. Siegel (SBN 238568) JUL 29-2019 JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 725 S. Figueroa, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Adam. Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Dylan B. Carp (SBN 196846) Scott P. Jang (SBN 260191) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor — San Francisco, CA 94111 hag 01795 — Dylan.Cai jacksonlewis.com | Menerrdun we of Points and Authorities in Oppc Scott.Jan: jacksonlewis.com i il ll INl | Il 10 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 11 - —____. —-—____ Attorneys for Defendant 12 ADECCO USA INC. 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 15 16 RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17-CIV-01736 California and aggrieved employees, 17 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN 18 Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PAOLA CORREA AND BAKER CURTIS & 19 Vv. SCHWARTZ’S. a> 20 ADECCO USA, INC. and DOES 1-50. 1. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE inclusive. JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW os 21 SETTLEMETN HEARING PURSUANT 22 Defendants. TO CCP §§ 659(a)(2) AND 663A(A)(2) AND/OR CCP § 1008(B); 23 24 2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS VOID 25 PURSUANT TO CCP § 437(d) AND BECAUSE OF FRAUD 26 27 Date August 22, 2019 Time: 10 a.m. 28 Dept. 2 [Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Marie S. Weiner] 1 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 Jd Complaint Filed: Trial Date: April 18, 2017 Vacated 10 Il 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. respectfully submits the following objections. OBJECTIONS TO PAOLA CORREA AND BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ’S: 1. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW SETTLEMENT HEARING PURSUANT TO CCP §§ 659(a)(2) AND 663A(A)(2) AND/OR CCP § 1008: 3; 2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS VOID PURSUANT TO CCP § 437(d) AND BECAUSE OF FRAUD No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 10 1 Notice in its entirety. Rule 3.1113(d), rules of court. 11 The Notice consists almost entirely of 13 pages of 12 argument. When combined with 13 the 15-page Memorandum of Points and Authorities, this 14 results in 28 pages of argument in violation of the 15-page limit 15 under Rule 3.1113(d) 16 V7 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF CHRIS BAKER 18 19 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 20 2. Declaration in its entirety. A party may not introduce additional evidence in 21 connection with a motion under 22 Code of Civ. Pro. section 663. (Plaza Hollister Ltd. 23 Partnership v. County of San 24 Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 14 [“A motion to vacate under 25 [Code of Civ. Pro.] section 663 is a remedy to be used when a 26 trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an 27 erroneous judgment on the basis 28 of uncontroverted evidence”].) 3 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 3 “On January 3, 2017, I requested Correa's personnel and payroll records from Adecco in accordance with Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code the California Labor Code. On February 2, 2017, I section 403); Hearsay (Evid. received the records. Among other things, these Code section 1200) records included a copy of the Associate NDA. and Commitment Sheet signed by Correa, as well as the Employee Handbook applicable to Correa's employment. I also received Correa's wage statements, which I reviewed. According to these wage statements, Correa worked 49 pay periods between February 1, 2016 and December 18, 2016.” 10 (Baker Dec, { 4, page 2.) 11 12 “T downloaded a copy of this report from Adecco's website on June 21, 2019. According to its annual Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code 13 report, Adecco "is the leader in the world of HR section 403); Hearsay (Evid. 14 Solutions." It is the largest staffing Code section 1200) firm in the world (with 5% market share) and it 15 employs, at any one time, 700,000 associates who 16 work at more than 100,000 clients. Adecco describes its competitive strengths as including 17 "knowledge of complex labour regulations" and the “ability to manage large contingent workforces." In 18 2018, Adecco claimed revenue in excess of twenty- 19 three billion euros and gross profits in excess of more than four billion euros.” 20 21 (Baker Dec, { 6, page 3:3-9.) 22 23 24 “According to Google and Adecco, Adecco is Google's largest provider of temporary labor. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code 25 Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 3 is the section 403); Hearsay (Evid. declaration of a Google senior contracts manager Code section 1200) 26 stating this fact. This declaration was filed in support of Google's and Adecco's motion to seal 27 their Temporary Staffing Services Agreement 28 (TSSA) in the Doe case. The motion to seal was denied. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 4 is a 4 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 e e No. | Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: copy of the operative TSSA between Google and Adecco. I received this document from Adecco during discovery in the Doe case.” (Baker Dec, 7, page 3.) “Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 5 is a copy of Google's Data Classification Guidelines. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 6 is a copy of | section 403); Hearsay (Evid. Google's Employee Communication Policy. Code section 1200) Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 7 is a copy of 10 Google's Communication and Disclosure Policy. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 8 is a copy of il Google's internal and confidential code of conduct. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 9 are the 12 relevant excerpts of Google's "You Said What?" 13 Training Program. These policies and training programs were produced by Google in discovery in 14 the Doe case. According to the deposition testimony of Google witnesses, these policies and 15 training programs were all in effect throughout 16 Correa's employment at Google.” 17 (Baker Dec, { 8, page 3.) 18 19 “The Google Temp Non-Disclosure Agreement 20 ‘NDA’ contains the adult content release that was Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code also at issue in Doe. According to Adecco's section 403); Hearsay (Evid. 21 discovery responses in the Doe case. 2,256 Adecco Code section 1200) Associates were required to sign the Google Temp 22 NDA (with the adult content release) between 23 February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017. These Adecco Associates, all of whom were subject to 24 Google's and Adecco's confidentiality requirements, worked a total of 87,845 pay periods between 25 February 16, 2017 and March 16, 2017.” 26 (Baker Dec, 4 9, page 3:27-4:4.) 27 28 5 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 1 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 8 “The ‘stacked’ value of the PAGA claims as to Adecco arising from Correa's employment at Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code Google is at least $58,900. I calculate this amount as section 403); Unqualified Expert follows: Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5 each (Evid. Code section 720); provides for a $10,000 civil penalty for every Impermissible Lay Opinion violation. Labor Code §§ 98.6(b)(3), 1102.5(f). I (Evid. Code section 800); assume for purposes of this calculation that the Hearsay (Evid. Code section 1200) employer is only liable for one violation per employee for a violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5. Thus, $20,000 per employee.” (Baker Dec, { 10, page 4.) 10 il “J assume here, based on a ruling by the Doe court, 12 that the penalty under Labor Code § 432.5 is only Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code $100 per employee because the employee only signs section 403); Unqualified Expert 13 the Associate NDA once. Penalties under Labor (Evid. Code section 720); 14 Code §§ 96(k), 232, 232.5 and 1197.5, on the other Impermissible Lay Opinion hand, are on a per-pay-period/per-employee basis. (Evid. Code section 800); 15 Stacking these penalties results in, at a minimum, an Hearsay (Evid. Code section 16 additional $38,900 in penalties arising from Correa's 1200) employment alone, for a total of $59,900. Correa's 17 share of these civil penalties is thus at least $14,725.” 18 19 (Baker Dec,{ 11, page 4:14-19.) 20 21 10. “Performing the same calculation across all of Adecco's Google-based Associates between Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code 22 February 16, 2016 and March 16, 2017, the section 403); Unqualified Expert 23 ‘stacked’ value of the PAGA claims against Adecco (Evid. Code section 720); is, at a minimum, $114,719,200, with each Impermissible Lay Opinion 24 Associate's 25% share being, on average, a (Evid. Code section 800); minimum of at least $12,712.” Hearsay (Evid. Code section 25 1200) 26 (Baker Dec, 12, page 4.) 27 28 6 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: IL. “Neither party informed the Court that there was an individual settlement agreement placing Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code restrictions on Moniz's ability to act as a PAGA section 403); Unqualified Expert representative in this case.” (Evid. Code section 720); Impermissible Lay Opinion (Baker Dec, { 13, page 4:25-5:4.) (Evid. Code section 800); Hearsay (Evid. Code section 1200) 12. “Attached to this declaration as Exhibit 12 is a March 5, 2018 letter from Adecco's counsel to Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code Moniz's counsel meeting and conferring on the section 403); Hearsay (Evid. "scope issue." I received this letter from Adecco Code section 1200) 10 following the April 3, 2018 mediation between Correa and Adecco as part of the meet and confer I process. Page 8 of this letter states: "As counsel is aware, Moniz is barred from amending her 12 Complaint and/or PAGA notice in this action 13 due to the confidential settlement agreement between Moniz, Adecco, and Google.” 14 15 (Baker Dec, § 14, page 5.) 16 17 18 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF PAOLA CORREA 19 No. Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 20 Declaration in its entirety. A party may not introduce 21 additional evidence in connection with a motion under 22 Code of Civ. Pro. section 663. 23 (Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San 24 Benito (1999) 72 Cal-App.4th 1, 14 [“A motion to vacate under 25 [Code of Civ. Pro.] section 663 26 is a remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect 27 conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis 28 of uncontroverted evidence”].) 7 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736 1 DATED: July 29, 2019 JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. aS By: Mia Farber Adam Y. Siegel Dylan B. Carp Scott P. Jang Attorneys for Defendant ADECCO USA INC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ae 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION Case No. 17-CIV-01736