Preview
YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP F Superior Court of California
PAUL C. MINNEY, SBN 166989 County of Butte
WILLIAMJ. TRINKLE, SBN 102280 |
WENDY A. WALKER, SBN 295877
BRYAN K. JAMES, SBN 260753 L 1/28/2021
655 Universi Ave. Suite 150 E
Sacramento, “A 95825 D
‘Telephone: (916) 646-1400 By
bY Flerier lerk
Deputy
Facsimile: (916) 646-1300 Electronically FILED
E-mail: wjtrinkle@mychartedaw.com
wwelker@mycharterlaw.com
bjames@mycharteraw.com
Atto1 for Def
CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.
10
11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF BUITE
13
14 THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO.: 20CV01514
himself and
on behalf of all persons similarly
15 situated, DECLARATION OF WENDY A.
WALKER IN SUPPORT OF
16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
17 Vv. DEFENDANT’S FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
18 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a Califomia INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
19 SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
Defendants. AND ITS COUNSEL YOUNG,
20 MINNEY & CORR, LLP
21
Date: February 10, 2021
22 Time: 9:00am
Dept. 6
23
Complaint filed: August 3, 2020
24
25
26
27
28
YOUNG, MINNEY
& CORR, LLP
SSSUNIVERSTY AVENE,
SuTE 15 DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL
‘SACRAMENTO, CA 95605
DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
I, WENDY A. WALKER, declare as follows:
1 Tama Senior Counsel at Young, Minney & Corr, LLP, and represent Defendant
Califomia Vocations, Inc. (“CVI”) in the above captioned matter. I am personally familiar with the
facts set forth herein, and, if called
upon to do so, I could competently
testify thereto. I make this
Declaration in the support of its Defendant’ s Opposition to Plaintiff’ s Motion to Compel Defendant’ s
Further Responses to Special Interrogatories [Set One] and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against
Defendant and Its Counsel Young, Minney & Corr, LLP (“Opposition”). The following statements are
based
on my personal knowledge, except where stated on information
and belief, and if called
as a
witness
in any proceeding, I could and would testify competently thereto.
10 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Special
11 Interogatories [Set One], which were served on or about October 2, 2020.
12 3, Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of CVI’s objections to Plaintiff’s
13 Special Interrogatories [Set One].
14 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and comect copy of a letter from Plaintiff’s
15 counsel sent to counsel for CVI by email on or about November4, 2020.
16 5, Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and comect copy of a letter that I sent to counsel
17 for Plaintiff on or about January 8, 2021 responding to Plaintiff's November 4, 2020 letter.
18 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct
copy of email correspondence
19 exchanged between counsel for Plaintiff
and CVI related to CVI’s pending Demurrer.
20 7, On December 16, 2020, I conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding CVI’s
21 objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories [Set One]. In our prior lengthy meet and confer prior
22 to CVI’s filing of its Demurrer, I explained CVI’s objections to the definitions of “CLASS
23 MEMBER,” “CLASS MEMBERS,” and “AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE,” particularly with respect to
24 the lack of a definition for the tem “non-exempt.” I also noted the ambiguity caused by employees’
25 waivers of rights under various Wage Orders, but Plaintiff’s counsel seemed to argue that employees
26 who waived rights under the Wage Orders should be classified as “exempt.”
27 Il
28 Il
YOUNG, MINNEY
& CORR, LLP 2.
SSSUNIVERSTTY AVENE,
mn DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL
‘SACRAMENTO, CA 95605
DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
8. CVI’s objections to the Special Interrogatories and its meet and confer correspondence
stated the inordinate work that would be required and the difficulties that CVI would face in
responding
to Plaintiff’s interrogatories under the definitions, which required a list of current and.
former employees’ full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last known e-
mail address(es), dates of employment
by CVI and job title(s) held by each person during
each pay
period while employed by CVI. The Demurrer, which is currently pending also, sets forth these
objections
at length. In our December 16 meet and confer discussion, I suggested
to Plaintiff’
s counsel
astay of CVI’s responses to the Special Interrogatories and Plaintiff’s corresponding Motion to
Compel deadline, until after the demurrer
was decided, but Plaintiff’
s counsel did not agree.
10 Unfortunately, the discussions
reached an impasse, and the parties were not able to agree regarding the
11 objections or responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the foregoing is
13 true and correct. This declaration was executed this 28th day of January 2021, in Sacramento,
14 Califomia.
15 WVaQe ow
WENDY ASWALKER
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
YOUNG, MINNEY
& CORR, LLP 3
SSSUNIVERSTTY AVENE,
SuTE 15 DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL
‘SACRAMENTO, CA 95605
DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT “A”
VL
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
Shani O. Zakay (State Bar #277924)
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
San Diego, CA 921
Telephone: (619)255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
Jean-Claude Lapuyade (State Bar #248676)
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619)599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
Attomeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
INAND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUITE
11
THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf | Case No: 20CV01514
12 of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL
13 INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
14 Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. (SET
Vv. ONE)
15
CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a
16 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive,
17
18 Defendants.
19 Plaintiff Thomas Haven, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
20 (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”), requests that defendant Califomia Vocations, Inc. (hereinafter
21 "DEFENDANT"), respond in full to each of the following specially prepared interrogatories, in
22 writing and under oath, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the same, pursuant to
23 Code of Civil Procedure§ 2030.010 et seq.
24 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
25 In answering these Special Interrogatories, please furnish all information available to you,
26 including information in the possession of your attorneys, and not merely such information known
27 of your own personal knowledge. After exercising due diligence to secure the information to
28 answer the Special Interrogatories, if you cannot answer the following Special Interrogatories
1
SI. TO DEFENDANT (SET ONE)
completely, state such and answer to the extent possible, specifying any inability to answer the
remaining and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered
portion.
If, at any time subsequent to the service of DEFENDANT’s responses to these
interrogatories, DEFENDANT becomes aware of additional information which in any way can be
said to supplement, contradict, or otherwise modify any of those answers, DEFENDANT is
required to provide that information to DEFENDANT in the form of amended and supplemental
responses to these interrogatories. DEFENDANT’s supplemental answers must be served within
thirty days of the discovery of the supplemental information.
10 DEFINITIONS
11 1 The terms “YOU” or “YOUR” when used herein shall mean defendant California
12 Vocations, Inc., a California corporation.
13 2 The term “CLASS MEMBER” or “CLASS MEMBERS” shall mean all of YOUR
14 current and former non-exempt employees employed in Califommia during the “CLASS PERIOD.”
15 3 The term “CLASS PERIOD” shall mean the period between April 6, 2016 and the
16 present.
17 4 The term “AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE” shall mean all of YOUR current and former
18 non-exempt employees employed in California during the “PAGA PERIOD.”
19 5. The “PAGA PERIOD” shall mean the period between A pril 6, 2019 and the present.
20 6 The term “PLAINTIFF” when used herein shall mean plaintiff Thomas Haven.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1/1
2
SI. TO DEFENDANT (SET ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please IDENTIFY each CLASS MEMBER.
For the purpose of this interrogatory the term “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respect to a
person to state the person's full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s)
last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person
during each pay period while employed by “YOU.”
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please IDENTIFY each AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE
10 For the purpose of this interrogatory the term “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respect to a
11 person to state the person's full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s),
12 last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person
13 during each pay period while employed by “YOU.”
14
15 Dated: October 2, 2020 JCL LAW FIRM, APC
16
lest
17
Attorneys a
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
SI. TO DEFENDANT (SET ONE)
EXHIBIT “B”
YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP
PAUL C. MINNEY, SBN 166989
WILLIAM]J. TRINKLE, SBN 102280
WENDY A. WALKER, SBN 295877
JOHN D. SAGER, SBN 289982
655 Universi Ave. Suite 150
Sacramento, “A 95825
Telephone: (916) 646-1400
Facsimile: (916) 646-1300
E-mail: wjttinkle@mychartedaw.com
wwalker@: chartedaw.com.
jsege@ny: aw.com
Atto1 for Def
CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.
10
11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF BUITE
13
14 THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO.: 20CV01514
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
15 situated, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S
RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’S
16 Plaintiff, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
ONE
17 Vv.
18 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a Califomia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff THOMAS HAVEN
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.
26 SET NUMBER: ONE
27 Ml
28 Ml
YOUNG, MINNEY
CORR, LLP -L
eSSUNvensry AVENE,
sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Defendant CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. (“Responding Party”), by and through counsel,
hereby partially responds to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded
by Plaintiff
THOMAS HAVEN (“Plaintiff” or “Haven”) as follows:
Responding Party hereby provides the following responses without prejudice to further
discovery and specifically reserves the right to present subsequently discovered evidence at trial of this
action.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATIONS
Each of the following responses is rendered based upon information in possession of the
Responding Party at the time of preparation of these responses after diligent inquiry. Discovery will
10 continue as long as permitted by statute or stipulation of the parties and the investigation of this
11 Responding Party’ s attomeys
and agents will continue to and throughout
the trial of this action. The
12 Responding Party, therefore, specifically reserves the right at the time of trial to introduce any evidence}
13 from any source which may hereafter be discovered and testimony from any witnesses
whose identities
14 may hereafter
be discovered.
15 These introductory comments shall apply to each and every response given herein and shall be
16 incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in all of the responses appearing on the following
17 pages,
18 As some of these responses may have been ascertained by Responding
Party’ s attomeys and.
19 investigators, Responding Party may not have personal knowledge of the information from which these
20 responses are derived.
21 To the extent that any interrogatory seeks documents that are protected by the attomey-client
22 privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine, Responding Party object to said interrogatory on that
23 basis. To the extent that any interrogatory calls for responses which are of a confidential or proprietary
24 nature as protected by the United States and/or the Califomia Constitution, or the Health Insurance
25 Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Responding Party objects to said interrogatory
26 on that basis.
27 Il
28 Il
YOUNG, MINNEY
CORR, LLP -2
eSSUNvensry AVENE,
sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please IDENTIFY each CLASS MEMBER.
For the purpose of this interrogatory the tem “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respect
to a
person to state the person's
full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last
known e-mail address(es), dates of employment
by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person during
each pay period while employed by “YOU.”
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Responding Party objects to the definitions of “IDENTIFY” and “CLASS MEMBER,” because
the definitions are improper
under Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(d).
10 Responding Party further objects to the terms “IDENTIFY” and “CLASS MEMBER,” because each
11 make the interrogatory compound and thus prohibited by Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section
12 2030.060(f). Responding Party objects to the interrogatory because the term “non-exempt employee”
13 is in the definitions but is itself not defined and therefore its meaning is vague, unclear and ambiguous,
14 as it requires Responding Party to determine what the meaning is which could result in a dispute as to
15 What or who are such employees. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory because answering it
16 would result in an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, and is an undue burden
17 and expense. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks private information of
18 Responding Party’s present or former employees. Responding Party, as their employer, has an
19 obligation to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information protected by privacy rights under
20 Califomia and Federal law. Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230,
21 Responding Party further objects that this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the
22 making of a compilation, audit, or summary of documents.
23 This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
24 as it seeks information
froma class that has not yet been certified in this purported class action.
25 Responding Party objects to the extent it seeks information which does not concem events, conditions,
26 or matters relating to the alleged actionable conduct underlying this lawsuit.
27 Il
28 Il
YOUNG, MINNEY
CORR, LLP 3
eSSUNvensry AVENE,
sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please IDENTIFY each AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE.
For the purpose of this interrogatory the tem “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respectto a
person to state the person's
full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last
known e-mail address(es), dates of employment
by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person during
each pay period while employed by “YOU.”
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Responding Party objects to the definitions of “IDENTIFY” and “AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE,”
because the definitions are improper under Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(d).
10 Responding Party further objects to the tems “IDENTIFY” and “AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE,”
11 because each make the interrogatory compound
and thus prohibited
by Califomia Code of Civil
12 Procedure section 2030.060(f). Responding Party objects to the interrogatory because
the term “non-
13 exempt employee” is in the definitions but is itself not defined and therefore its meaning is vague,
14 unclear
and ambiguous, as it requires Responding Party to determine what the meaning is which could
15 result in a dispute as to what or who are such employees. Responding Party objects
to the interrogatory
16 because answering it would result in an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, and
17 is an undue burden and expense. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks
18 Private information of Responding Party’s present or former employees. Responding Party, as their
19 employer, has an obligation to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information protected by privacy
20 rights under Califomia and Federal law. Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section
21 2030.230, Responding Party further objects that this interogatory would necessitate the preparation or
22 the making of a compilation, audit, or summary of documents.
23
24 Dated: November 3, 2020 YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP
25
» VaQadts
26
27
Altona
foc baer
CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.
28
YOUNG, MINNEY
CORR, LLP 4
eSSUNvensry AVENE,
sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’ S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, VANESSA R. LITTLEJOHN, declare:
Tam over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within action. I am employed
by the
law fim of Young, Minney
& Corr, LLP. In the County
of Sacramento, Califomia
and my business
address is 655 University Ave., Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825. On the date set forth below, I
served the foregoing document described as CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES
TO
THOMAS HAVEN’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, on the interested
parties in this action as
follows:
9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10 [ J (VIA U.S. MAIL) to be placed in the U.S. Mail at Sacramento, Califomia
with postage
thereon fully prepai
11
I am“readily familiar” with the finm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
12 mailing. It is depositedwith the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of
business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation
13 date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[Xx] (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) Pursuant to the Emergency Rules related to COVID-19,
14 Emergency Rule 12(b), I caused such document to be transmittedvia e-mail to the
addressee from the e-mail address of vlittlejohn@mycharteraw.com. The transmission.
15 was reported as complete and without error.
16 [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
offices of the
17 [ ] (VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
18
envelope, with delive
ovemi
fees paid or provided for, in a designated area for outgoi
, addressed as set forth below. In the o1 course of business
placed in that designated area is picked up that same day or delivery the following
mal
19
20
[Xx] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under
the Iaws of the State of Califomia that
21 the foregoing is true and correct.
22
23 Executed on November3, 2020 at Sacramento, Al
24
25
26
27
28
YOUNG, MINNEY
CORR, LLP 3
sun, Aves,
Sucrant, CA 9505 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
SERVICE LIST
HAVENV. CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.
BUTTE SUPERIOR COURT CASE No.: 20CV01514
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Shani O. THOMAS HAVEN
5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619)255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
E-mail: — shani@zakaylaw.com
JCL LAW FIRM, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Jean-Claude rade THOMAS HAVEN
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204.
San Dis , CA 92110
Telephone: (619)599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
10 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfimm.com.
tstone@jcl-lawfimm.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
YOUNG, MINNEY
CORR, LLP 6
eSSUNvensry AVENE,
sacrass,CA 955 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
EXHIBIT “C”
From: Tesla Stone
To: Vanessa Littlejohn; Claude Lapuyade; shani@zakaylaw.com
Ce: Wendy A. Walker; William |. Trinkle; YMC - Litigation Support
Subject: RE: Haven v. CA Vocations, Inc.
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:30:51 AM
Attachments: imaqge001.pnq
image002.pnq
imaqge003.pnq
imaqe004.pnq
020 11 04 PLA"s Meet & Confer to Defendant.pdf
Good Aftemoon Counsel,
Please find attached comespondence regarding the above referenced matter. Thank
you.
Best Regards,
Tesla Stone} JCL Law Firm, A.P.C.
Paralegal
3990 Old Town Avenue} Suite C204
San Diego | CA ; 92110
T: 619.599.8292 | F: 619.599.8291
Toll Free | 1.888.498.6999
http://www. jcl-lawfirm.com | tstone@jcl-lawfirm.com
Disclosure: This e-mail message is a confidential communication from the law firm of the JCL Law
Firm, APC, and is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that
is a trade secret, proprietary, privileged or attorney work product. If you have received this message
in error, or are not the named or intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender at
619.599.8292 and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your workstation or network
mail system.
Nothing in this e-mail should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to
form, execute, document, agree to, enter into, accept or authenticate a contract or other legal
document.
The JCL Law Firm, APC, does not offer tax advice to its clients.
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
jcl
SS law San Diego, CA 92110
a
7 firm Tel: 619-599-8292
Ezz apc Toll Fri
Fax: 619-599-8291
888-498-6999
www. jcl-lawfirm.com
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
November 4, 2020
Paul C. Minney
William J. Trinkle
John D. Sager
MY CHARTER LAW
655 University Ave., Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95825
Case Name: Haven v., California Vocations, Inc.
Case No.: Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 20CV 01514
Re: Meet and Confer Regarding Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Special
Interrogatories (Set One)
Counsel:
This firm is in receipt of your client, California Vocations, Inc., (“Defendant”) responses
to Plaintiff's, Special Interrogatories (Set One). This letter is Plaintiffs attempt to meet and
confer prior to filing a motion to compel further responses and a request for sanctions.
A. Defendant’s Discovery Obligation:
Before discussing Defendant’s inadequate responses, it appears necessary to remind
Defendant of its general obligations in responding to discovery. The purpose of discovery is to
promote the ascertainment of truth and the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit in accordance
therewith. Hickman v. Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495, 507. Stated differently, the basic purpose of
discovery is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation by enabling parties to obtain the
evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute beforehand. Greyhound Corp. v. Sup.Ct.
(Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376; Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4%
1101, 1107. Discovery seeks to remove surprises from trial preparation so the parties can obtain
evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute. Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd. (C.D.
Cal. 1998) 179 F.R.D. 281, 283
“The discovery laws of California are designed to expedite trial of civil matters by (1)
enabling counsel to more quickly and thoroughly obtain evidence and evidentiary leads, and thus
to more quickly and effectively prepare for trial, and (2) enabling counsel to ‘set at rest’ issues
that are not genuinely disputed.” Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429. To
accomplish the goals of discovery, the scope of discovery is broad and the California rules of
civil discovery are “liberally construed in favor of disclosure.” Emerson Elec. Co., supra, 16
Cal.4th at 1107.
Califomia Vocations, Inc,
Meet and Confer
November 4, 2020
Page 2of 5
The parties “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
the subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010 (emphasis added). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial
if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Id. To aid in the quest for relevant information, parties should not seek to evade disclosure in
discovery by quibbling and objecting but should admit to the fullest extent possible and explain
in detail why other portions of request may not be admitted. Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center
(9m Cir. 1994) 22 F.3d 933, 938.
General or boilerplate objections to discovery requests such as “overly burdensome and
harassing” are improper, especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations
supporting such objections. A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber (C.D. Cal. 2006) 234 F.R.D.
186. Similarly, boilerplate relevancy objections, without setting forth any explanation or
argument why the requested documents are not relevant, are improper. Id. Requests for discovery
are relevant if there is any possibility that information sought may be relevant to subject matter
of the action. Paulsen v. Case Corp. (C.D. Cal. 1996) 168 F.R.D. 285, 287-288. Therefore,
discovery is allowed under concept of relevancy unless it is clear that information sought can
have no possible bearing upon subject matter of the action. Id.
B Defendant’s Inadequate and Evasive Responses to Special Interrogatories No. 1
On or about October 2, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatory (Set
One) containing two interrogatories. Each narrowly tailored interrogatory sought identification
of Defendant’s current and former employees during the relevant claim period. It is well settled
that in both class actions and actions arising under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”),
the identities and contact information for similarly situated employees are relevant and
discoverable. Williams v. Superior Court (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531; Belair-
West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-62.
On or about November 3, 2020, Defendant provided a response containing a litany of
objections without any substantive response.
The relevancy of this information is not honestly in dispute. Nevertheless, For instance,
the similarly situated employees are likely to possess facts, testimony and information that will
tend in reason to prove or disprove Defendant’s unlawful meal and rest period policies and
practices, e.g., the existence of policies, Defendant’s staffing and scheduling practices that deny
duty free meal breaks and separate compensation for rest periods, and the nature, extent and
frequency of their complaints. The similarly situated employees are likely to possess facts,
testimony and information that will tend in reason to prove or disprove Defendant’s unlawful
compensation policies. Without access to these necessary witnesses, Plaintiff cannot effectively
prosecute this action. California Courts have regularly held that access to this information is, if
ee
Califomia Vocations, Inc,
Meet and Confer
November 4, 2020
Page 3of 5
not a compelling interest, a legitimate interest justifying disclosure of contact information.
(Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5' at 538; Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4™ 1242;
Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4" 360; Belaire-West
Landscape, Inc., v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4" 554.)
1 Improper Boilerplate Objection:
Defendant’s boilerplate objections are an open invitation to sanctions. Stein v. Hassen
(1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 294. Objections must be specific. A motion to compel lies where
objections are “too general.” CCP § 2030.300(a)(3); see Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Sup.Ct.
(1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516, (objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate”
objections). Here, Defendant’s objections are simply generic, non-specific and boilerplate. For
instance, Defendant, in one sentence, claims the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
harassing, oppressive, unduly burdensome, calls for speculation, calls for expert opinion, and
calls for legal conclusion, all without identifying anything about the interrogatory to support the
same. With respect to Defendant’s objection on the basis that the interrogatory is vague and
ambiguous, Defendant shamelessly contends that two key terms that Plaintiff specifically defined
in detail are still somehow vague or ambiguous. Similarly, Defendant objects on the basis of the
attorney-client privilege and the attomey-work-product doctrine, while the interrogatory clearly
does not ask for any information that would be even remotely subject to the same. Further,
nothing about the interrogatory is argumentative, and it does not make any assumptions.
As you must know, this interrogatory asks for simple, straight-forward information that is
routinely requested and produced in the course of PAGA actions like this one. In fact, the Court
in Williams called it the first essential step in the discovery process in such actions. Defendant
chose to ignore established law and provide two pages of inapplicable objections instead. This,
more than anything else, highlights Defendant’s gamesmanship and lays the foundation to a
successful motion for sanctions.
2 Improper Unduly Burdensome Objection:
Defendant’s unduly burdensome objection is without merit. To sustain an objection of
burden, the objecting party must show the quantum of work required, while to support an
objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable
burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought. See,
West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.
(Objections to interrogatories vacated; Discovery is meant to expedite trial). Here, Defendant has
not shown the work required to answer these interrogatories nor has Defendant shown an intent
by Plaintiff to create an unreasonable burden. There is no rule which holds that proper discovery
is limited to interrogatories which may be answered without effort or loss of time. Sigerseth v.
Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427, 433. (Discovery on the qualifications on expert was
proper).
ee
Califomia Vocations, Inc,
Meet and Confer
November 4, 2020
Page 4of 5
The description of the potential burden by Defendant cannot be cursory; specific details
are required so that the proper balancing between the potential benefit versus the potential
burden can be weighed by the Court. In West Pico, the declaration of the manager of West Pico’s
commercial operations and administrations department filed a declaration that the information
requested could only be obtained by a search of the records of 78 of its branch offices. While
acknowledging that the declaration provided some indication of burden, the Court said the
declaration did not specifically describe the extent of the burden as no estimate of the manhours
were provided to accomplish the task. West Pico, supra, at p. 417. In contrast to West Pico,
Defendant has not even provided a declaration much less a showing that it would have to visit
multiple offices requiring hundreds of manhours.
In sum, Defendant has not established (1) the specific burden caused by these
interrogatories, (2) the potential result or information obtained by these interrogatories, and (3)
the burden created is incommensurate or out of proportion with the potential information to be
obtained. Because Defendant has not engaged in this type of analysis, it cannot claim that
response is unduly burdensome.
3 Improper V ague and A mbiguous Objectio
Likewise, Defendant’s vague and ambiguous objection is lacks merit. As counsel is
undoubtedly aware, it is not “ground for objection that the request is ‘ambiguous,’ unless it is so
ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply.” Cembrook
v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429. The interrogatory as crafted is not so ambiguous
that Defendant cannot, in good faith, frame an intelligent reply. The interrogatory is limited to a
defined set of persons during a finite period of time relevant to the pleadings. As such,
Defendant’s vague and ambiguous objection lacks any merit.
4. Improper Privacy Objections
Defendant further improperly objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it invades
“non-party's right to privacy” rights. Plaintiffs Special Interrogatory requests the identities of
putative class members employed by Defendant during the applicable claim period as defined in
the interrogatory. Such information is discoverable at this stage and such a request is calculated
to lead to discoverable information. Plaintiff is open to discussing measures to satisfy privacy
concems of employees (current or previous), however, Plaintiff is entitled to contact information.
See Belair-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-62 (holding
no serious invasion of privacy is involved in disclosing current and former employees' names to
plaintiffs' counsel in an employment (wage and hour) class action, after requiring the defendant
employer to send them letters stating their address and phone numbers will be given to counsel
unless they timely return an enclosed post card).
Nevertheless, Plaintiff is open to discussing measures to satisfy the limited privacy
concems of employees (current or former) by agreeing to a Belaire type notice. In an attempt to
ee
Califomia Vocations, Inc,
Meet and Confer
Preview
YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP F Superior Court of California PAUL C. MINNEY, SBN 166989 County of Butte WILLIAMJ. TRINKLE, SBN 102280 | WENDY A. WALKER, SBN 295877 BRYAN K. JAMES, SBN 260753 L 1/28/2021 655 Universi Ave. Suite 150 E Sacramento, “A 95825 D ‘Telephone: (916) 646-1400 By bY Flerier lerk Deputy Facsimile: (916) 646-1300 Electronically FILED E-mail: wjtrinkle@mychartedaw.com wwelker@mycharterlaw.com bjames@mycharteraw.com Atto1 for Def CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. 10 11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF BUITE 13 14 THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO.: 20CV01514 himself and on behalf of all persons similarly 15 situated, DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 17 Vv. DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 18 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a Califomia INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY 19 SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT Defendants. AND ITS COUNSEL YOUNG, 20 MINNEY & CORR, LLP 21 Date: February 10, 2021 22 Time: 9:00am Dept. 6 23 Complaint filed: August 3, 2020 24 25 26 27 28 YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP SSSUNIVERSTY AVENE, SuTE 15 DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL ‘SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS I, WENDY A. WALKER, declare as follows: 1 Tama Senior Counsel at Young, Minney & Corr, LLP, and represent Defendant Califomia Vocations, Inc. (“CVI”) in the above captioned matter. I am personally familiar with the facts set forth herein, and, if called upon to do so, I could competently testify thereto. I make this Declaration in the support of its Defendant’ s Opposition to Plaintiff’ s Motion to Compel Defendant’ s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories [Set One] and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant and Its Counsel Young, Minney & Corr, LLP (“Opposition”). The following statements are based on my personal knowledge, except where stated on information and belief, and if called as a witness in any proceeding, I could and would testify competently thereto. 10 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Special 11 Interogatories [Set One], which were served on or about October 2, 2020. 12 3, Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of CVI’s objections to Plaintiff’s 13 Special Interrogatories [Set One]. 14 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and comect copy of a letter from Plaintiff’s 15 counsel sent to counsel for CVI by email on or about November4, 2020. 16 5, Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and comect copy of a letter that I sent to counsel 17 for Plaintiff on or about January 8, 2021 responding to Plaintiff's November 4, 2020 letter. 18 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of email correspondence 19 exchanged between counsel for Plaintiff and CVI related to CVI’s pending Demurrer. 20 7, On December 16, 2020, I conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding CVI’s 21 objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories [Set One]. In our prior lengthy meet and confer prior 22 to CVI’s filing of its Demurrer, I explained CVI’s objections to the definitions of “CLASS 23 MEMBER,” “CLASS MEMBERS,” and “AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE,” particularly with respect to 24 the lack of a definition for the tem “non-exempt.” I also noted the ambiguity caused by employees’ 25 waivers of rights under various Wage Orders, but Plaintiff’s counsel seemed to argue that employees 26 who waived rights under the Wage Orders should be classified as “exempt.” 27 Il 28 Il YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP 2. SSSUNIVERSTTY AVENE, mn DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL ‘SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 8. CVI’s objections to the Special Interrogatories and its meet and confer correspondence stated the inordinate work that would be required and the difficulties that CVI would face in responding to Plaintiff’s interrogatories under the definitions, which required a list of current and. former employees’ full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last known e- mail address(es), dates of employment by CVI and job title(s) held by each person during each pay period while employed by CVI. The Demurrer, which is currently pending also, sets forth these objections at length. In our December 16 meet and confer discussion, I suggested to Plaintiff’ s counsel astay of CVI’s responses to the Special Interrogatories and Plaintiff’s corresponding Motion to Compel deadline, until after the demurrer was decided, but Plaintiff’ s counsel did not agree. 10 Unfortunately, the discussions reached an impasse, and the parties were not able to agree regarding the 11 objections or responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is 13 true and correct. This declaration was executed this 28th day of January 2021, in Sacramento, 14 Califomia. 15 WVaQe ow WENDY ASWALKER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP 3 SSSUNIVERSTTY AVENE, SuTE 15 DECLARATION OF WENDY A. WALKER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’ S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL ‘SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS EXHIBIT “A” VL ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC Shani O. Zakay (State Bar #277924) 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Diego, CA 921 Telephone: (619)255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 JCL LAW FIRM, APC Jean-Claude Lapuyade (State Bar #248676) 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619)599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 Attomeys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 INAND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUITE 11 THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf | Case No: 20CV01514 12 of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL 13 INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT 14 Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. (SET Vv. ONE) 15 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a 16 Califomia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, 17 18 Defendants. 19 Plaintiff Thomas Haven, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated 20 (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”), requests that defendant Califomia Vocations, Inc. (hereinafter 21 "DEFENDANT"), respond in full to each of the following specially prepared interrogatories, in 22 writing and under oath, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the same, pursuant to 23 Code of Civil Procedure§ 2030.010 et seq. 24 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 25 In answering these Special Interrogatories, please furnish all information available to you, 26 including information in the possession of your attorneys, and not merely such information known 27 of your own personal knowledge. After exercising due diligence to secure the information to 28 answer the Special Interrogatories, if you cannot answer the following Special Interrogatories 1 SI. TO DEFENDANT (SET ONE) completely, state such and answer to the extent possible, specifying any inability to answer the remaining and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion. If, at any time subsequent to the service of DEFENDANT’s responses to these interrogatories, DEFENDANT becomes aware of additional information which in any way can be said to supplement, contradict, or otherwise modify any of those answers, DEFENDANT is required to provide that information to DEFENDANT in the form of amended and supplemental responses to these interrogatories. DEFENDANT’s supplemental answers must be served within thirty days of the discovery of the supplemental information. 10 DEFINITIONS 11 1 The terms “YOU” or “YOUR” when used herein shall mean defendant California 12 Vocations, Inc., a California corporation. 13 2 The term “CLASS MEMBER” or “CLASS MEMBERS” shall mean all of YOUR 14 current and former non-exempt employees employed in Califommia during the “CLASS PERIOD.” 15 3 The term “CLASS PERIOD” shall mean the period between April 6, 2016 and the 16 present. 17 4 The term “AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE” shall mean all of YOUR current and former 18 non-exempt employees employed in California during the “PAGA PERIOD.” 19 5. The “PAGA PERIOD” shall mean the period between A pril 6, 2019 and the present. 20 6 The term “PLAINTIFF” when used herein shall mean plaintiff Thomas Haven. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1/1 2 SI. TO DEFENDANT (SET ONE) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please IDENTIFY each CLASS MEMBER. For the purpose of this interrogatory the term “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respect to a person to state the person's full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s) last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person during each pay period while employed by “YOU.” SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please IDENTIFY each AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE 10 For the purpose of this interrogatory the term “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respect to a 11 person to state the person's full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), 12 last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person 13 during each pay period while employed by “YOU.” 14 15 Dated: October 2, 2020 JCL LAW FIRM, APC 16 lest 17 Attorneys a 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 SI. TO DEFENDANT (SET ONE) EXHIBIT “B” YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP PAUL C. MINNEY, SBN 166989 WILLIAM]J. TRINKLE, SBN 102280 WENDY A. WALKER, SBN 295877 JOHN D. SAGER, SBN 289982 655 Universi Ave. Suite 150 Sacramento, “A 95825 Telephone: (916) 646-1400 Facsimile: (916) 646-1300 E-mail: wjttinkle@mychartedaw.com wwalker@: chartedaw.com. jsege@ny: aw.com Atto1 for Def CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. 10 11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF BUITE 13 14 THOMAS HAVEN, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO.: 20CV01514 himself and on behalf of all persons similarly 15 situated, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’S 16 Plaintiff, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 17 Vv. 18 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff THOMAS HAVEN 25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. 26 SET NUMBER: ONE 27 Ml 28 Ml YOUNG, MINNEY CORR, LLP -L eSSUNvensry AVENE, sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Defendant CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. (“Responding Party”), by and through counsel, hereby partially responds to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff THOMAS HAVEN (“Plaintiff” or “Haven”) as follows: Responding Party hereby provides the following responses without prejudice to further discovery and specifically reserves the right to present subsequently discovered evidence at trial of this action. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATIONS Each of the following responses is rendered based upon information in possession of the Responding Party at the time of preparation of these responses after diligent inquiry. Discovery will 10 continue as long as permitted by statute or stipulation of the parties and the investigation of this 11 Responding Party’ s attomeys and agents will continue to and throughout the trial of this action. The 12 Responding Party, therefore, specifically reserves the right at the time of trial to introduce any evidence} 13 from any source which may hereafter be discovered and testimony from any witnesses whose identities 14 may hereafter be discovered. 15 These introductory comments shall apply to each and every response given herein and shall be 16 incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in all of the responses appearing on the following 17 pages, 18 As some of these responses may have been ascertained by Responding Party’ s attomeys and. 19 investigators, Responding Party may not have personal knowledge of the information from which these 20 responses are derived. 21 To the extent that any interrogatory seeks documents that are protected by the attomey-client 22 privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine, Responding Party object to said interrogatory on that 23 basis. To the extent that any interrogatory calls for responses which are of a confidential or proprietary 24 nature as protected by the United States and/or the Califomia Constitution, or the Health Insurance 25 Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Responding Party objects to said interrogatory 26 on that basis. 27 Il 28 Il YOUNG, MINNEY CORR, LLP -2 eSSUNvensry AVENE, sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please IDENTIFY each CLASS MEMBER. For the purpose of this interrogatory the tem “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respect to a person to state the person's full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person during each pay period while employed by “YOU.” RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Responding Party objects to the definitions of “IDENTIFY” and “CLASS MEMBER,” because the definitions are improper under Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(d). 10 Responding Party further objects to the terms “IDENTIFY” and “CLASS MEMBER,” because each 11 make the interrogatory compound and thus prohibited by Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 12 2030.060(f). Responding Party objects to the interrogatory because the term “non-exempt employee” 13 is in the definitions but is itself not defined and therefore its meaning is vague, unclear and ambiguous, 14 as it requires Responding Party to determine what the meaning is which could result in a dispute as to 15 What or who are such employees. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory because answering it 16 would result in an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, and is an undue burden 17 and expense. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks private information of 18 Responding Party’s present or former employees. Responding Party, as their employer, has an 19 obligation to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information protected by privacy rights under 20 Califomia and Federal law. Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, 21 Responding Party further objects that this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the 22 making of a compilation, audit, or summary of documents. 23 This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 24 as it seeks information froma class that has not yet been certified in this purported class action. 25 Responding Party objects to the extent it seeks information which does not concem events, conditions, 26 or matters relating to the alleged actionable conduct underlying this lawsuit. 27 Il 28 Il YOUNG, MINNEY CORR, LLP 3 eSSUNvensry AVENE, sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please IDENTIFY each AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE. For the purpose of this interrogatory the tem “IDENTIFY” shall mean with respectto a person to state the person's full legal name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment by “YOU” and job title(s) held by each person during each pay period while employed by “YOU.” RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Responding Party objects to the definitions of “IDENTIFY” and “AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE,” because the definitions are improper under Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(d). 10 Responding Party further objects to the tems “IDENTIFY” and “AGGRIEVED EMPLOY EE,” 11 because each make the interrogatory compound and thus prohibited by Califomia Code of Civil 12 Procedure section 2030.060(f). Responding Party objects to the interrogatory because the term “non- 13 exempt employee” is in the definitions but is itself not defined and therefore its meaning is vague, 14 unclear and ambiguous, as it requires Responding Party to determine what the meaning is which could 15 result in a dispute as to what or who are such employees. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory 16 because answering it would result in an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, and 17 is an undue burden and expense. Responding Party objects to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks 18 Private information of Responding Party’s present or former employees. Responding Party, as their 19 employer, has an obligation to prevent unauthorized disclosure of information protected by privacy 20 rights under Califomia and Federal law. Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 21 2030.230, Responding Party further objects that this interogatory would necessitate the preparation or 22 the making of a compilation, audit, or summary of documents. 23 24 Dated: November 3, 2020 YOUNG, MINNEY & CORR, LLP 25 » VaQadts 26 27 Altona foc baer CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. 28 YOUNG, MINNEY CORR, LLP 4 eSSUNvensry AVENE, sacra,CA 95025, CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’ S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE PROOF OF SERVICE I, VANESSA R. LITTLEJOHN, declare: Tam over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. I am employed by the law fim of Young, Minney & Corr, LLP. In the County of Sacramento, Califomia and my business address is 655 University Ave., Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document described as CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, on the interested parties in this action as follows: 9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 10 [ J (VIA U.S. MAIL) to be placed in the U.S. Mail at Sacramento, Califomia with postage thereon fully prepai 11 I am“readily familiar” with the finm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for 12 mailing. It is depositedwith the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation 13 date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [Xx] (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) Pursuant to the Emergency Rules related to COVID-19, 14 Emergency Rule 12(b), I caused such document to be transmittedvia e-mail to the addressee from the e-mail address of vlittlejohn@mycharteraw.com. The transmission. 15 was reported as complete and without error. 16 [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the 17 [ ] (VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 18 envelope, with delive ovemi fees paid or provided for, in a designated area for outgoi , addressed as set forth below. In the o1 course of business placed in that designated area is picked up that same day or delivery the following mal 19 20 [Xx] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of the State of Califomia that 21 the foregoing is true and correct. 22 23 Executed on November3, 2020 at Sacramento, Al 24 25 26 27 28 YOUNG, MINNEY CORR, LLP 3 sun, Aves, Sucrant, CA 9505 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE SERVICE LIST HAVENV. CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC. BUTTE SUPERIOR COURT CASE No.: 20CV01514 ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC Attorneys for Plaintiff, Shani O. THOMAS HAVEN 5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619)255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 E-mail: — shani@zakaylaw.com JCL LAW FIRM, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jean-Claude rade THOMAS HAVEN 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204. San Dis , CA 92110 Telephone: (619)599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 10 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfimm.com. tstone@jcl-lawfimm.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YOUNG, MINNEY CORR, LLP 6 eSSUNvensry AVENE, sacrass,CA 955 CALIFORNIA VOCATIONS, INC.’S RESPONSES TO THOMAS HAVEN’ S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE EXHIBIT “C” From: Tesla Stone To: Vanessa Littlejohn; Claude Lapuyade; shani@zakaylaw.com Ce: Wendy A. Walker; William |. Trinkle; YMC - Litigation Support Subject: RE: Haven v. CA Vocations, Inc. Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:30:51 AM Attachments: imaqge001.pnq image002.pnq imaqge003.pnq imaqe004.pnq 020 11 04 PLA"s Meet & Confer to Defendant.pdf Good Aftemoon Counsel, Please find attached comespondence regarding the above referenced matter. Thank you. Best Regards, Tesla Stone} JCL Law Firm, A.P.C. Paralegal 3990 Old Town Avenue} Suite C204 San Diego | CA ; 92110 T: 619.599.8292 | F: 619.599.8291 Toll Free | 1.888.498.6999 http://www. jcl-lawfirm.com | tstone@jcl-lawfirm.com Disclosure: This e-mail message is a confidential communication from the law firm of the JCL Law Firm, APC, and is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is a trade secret, proprietary, privileged or attorney work product. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named or intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender at 619.599.8292 and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your workstation or network mail system. Nothing in this e-mail should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to form, execute, document, agree to, enter into, accept or authenticate a contract or other legal document. The JCL Law Firm, APC, does not offer tax advice to its clients. 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 jcl SS law San Diego, CA 92110 a 7 firm Tel: 619-599-8292 Ezz apc Toll Fri Fax: 619-599-8291 888-498-6999 www. jcl-lawfirm.com Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com November 4, 2020 Paul C. Minney William J. Trinkle John D. Sager MY CHARTER LAW 655 University Ave., Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825 Case Name: Haven v., California Vocations, Inc. Case No.: Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 20CV 01514 Re: Meet and Confer Regarding Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set One) Counsel: This firm is in receipt of your client, California Vocations, Inc., (“Defendant”) responses to Plaintiff's, Special Interrogatories (Set One). This letter is Plaintiffs attempt to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel further responses and a request for sanctions. A. Defendant’s Discovery Obligation: Before discussing Defendant’s inadequate responses, it appears necessary to remind Defendant of its general obligations in responding to discovery. The purpose of discovery is to promote the ascertainment of truth and the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit in accordance therewith. Hickman v. Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495, 507. Stated differently, the basic purpose of discovery is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation by enabling parties to obtain the evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute beforehand. Greyhound Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376; Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4% 1101, 1107. Discovery seeks to remove surprises from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute. Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd. (C.D. Cal. 1998) 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 “The discovery laws of California are designed to expedite trial of civil matters by (1) enabling counsel to more quickly and thoroughly obtain evidence and evidentiary leads, and thus to more quickly and effectively prepare for trial, and (2) enabling counsel to ‘set at rest’ issues that are not genuinely disputed.” Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429. To accomplish the goals of discovery, the scope of discovery is broad and the California rules of civil discovery are “liberally construed in favor of disclosure.” Emerson Elec. Co., supra, 16 Cal.4th at 1107. Califomia Vocations, Inc, Meet and Confer November 4, 2020 Page 2of 5 The parties “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 (emphasis added). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. To aid in the quest for relevant information, parties should not seek to evade disclosure in discovery by quibbling and objecting but should admit to the fullest extent possible and explain in detail why other portions of request may not be admitted. Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center (9m Cir. 1994) 22 F.3d 933, 938. General or boilerplate objections to discovery requests such as “overly burdensome and harassing” are improper, especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections. A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber (C.D. Cal. 2006) 234 F.R.D. 186. Similarly, boilerplate relevancy objections, without setting forth any explanation or argument why the requested documents are not relevant, are improper. Id. Requests for discovery are relevant if there is any possibility that information sought may be relevant to subject matter of the action. Paulsen v. Case Corp. (C.D. Cal. 1996) 168 F.R.D. 285, 287-288. Therefore, discovery is allowed under concept of relevancy unless it is clear that information sought can have no possible bearing upon subject matter of the action. Id. B Defendant’s Inadequate and Evasive Responses to Special Interrogatories No. 1 On or about October 2, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatory (Set One) containing two interrogatories. Each narrowly tailored interrogatory sought identification of Defendant’s current and former employees during the relevant claim period. It is well settled that in both class actions and actions arising under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), the identities and contact information for similarly situated employees are relevant and discoverable. Williams v. Superior Court (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531; Belair- West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-62. On or about November 3, 2020, Defendant provided a response containing a litany of objections without any substantive response. The relevancy of this information is not honestly in dispute. Nevertheless, For instance, the similarly situated employees are likely to possess facts, testimony and information that will tend in reason to prove or disprove Defendant’s unlawful meal and rest period policies and practices, e.g., the existence of policies, Defendant’s staffing and scheduling practices that deny duty free meal breaks and separate compensation for rest periods, and the nature, extent and frequency of their complaints. The similarly situated employees are likely to possess facts, testimony and information that will tend in reason to prove or disprove Defendant’s unlawful compensation policies. Without access to these necessary witnesses, Plaintiff cannot effectively prosecute this action. California Courts have regularly held that access to this information is, if ee Califomia Vocations, Inc, Meet and Confer November 4, 2020 Page 3of 5 not a compelling interest, a legitimate interest justifying disclosure of contact information. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5' at 538; Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4™ 1242; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4" 360; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc., v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4" 554.) 1 Improper Boilerplate Objection: Defendant’s boilerplate objections are an open invitation to sanctions. Stein v. Hassen (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 294. Objections must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” CCP § 2030.300(a)(3); see Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516, (objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections). Here, Defendant’s objections are simply generic, non-specific and boilerplate. For instance, Defendant, in one sentence, claims the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, harassing, oppressive, unduly burdensome, calls for speculation, calls for expert opinion, and calls for legal conclusion, all without identifying anything about the interrogatory to support the same. With respect to Defendant’s objection on the basis that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, Defendant shamelessly contends that two key terms that Plaintiff specifically defined in detail are still somehow vague or ambiguous. Similarly, Defendant objects on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and the attomey-work-product doctrine, while the interrogatory clearly does not ask for any information that would be even remotely subject to the same. Further, nothing about the interrogatory is argumentative, and it does not make any assumptions. As you must know, this interrogatory asks for simple, straight-forward information that is routinely requested and produced in the course of PAGA actions like this one. In fact, the Court in Williams called it the first essential step in the discovery process in such actions. Defendant chose to ignore established law and provide two pages of inapplicable objections instead. This, more than anything else, highlights Defendant’s gamesmanship and lays the foundation to a successful motion for sanctions. 2 Improper Unduly Burdensome Objection: Defendant’s unduly burdensome objection is without merit. To sustain an objection of burden, the objecting party must show the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought. See, West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. (Objections to interrogatories vacated; Discovery is meant to expedite trial). Here, Defendant has not shown the work required to answer these interrogatories nor has Defendant shown an intent by Plaintiff to create an unreasonable burden. There is no rule which holds that proper discovery is limited to interrogatories which may be answered without effort or loss of time. Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427, 433. (Discovery on the qualifications on expert was proper). ee Califomia Vocations, Inc, Meet and Confer November 4, 2020 Page 4of 5 The description of the potential burden by Defendant cannot be cursory; specific details are required so that the proper balancing between the potential benefit versus the potential burden can be weighed by the Court. In West Pico, the declaration of the manager of West Pico’s commercial operations and administrations department filed a declaration that the information requested could only be obtained by a search of the records of 78 of its branch offices. While acknowledging that the declaration provided some indication of burden, the Court said the declaration did not specifically describe the extent of the burden as no estimate of the manhours were provided to accomplish the task. West Pico, supra, at p. 417. In contrast to West Pico, Defendant has not even provided a declaration much less a showing that it would have to visit multiple offices requiring hundreds of manhours. In sum, Defendant has not established (1) the specific burden caused by these interrogatories, (2) the potential result or information obtained by these interrogatories, and (3) the burden created is incommensurate or out of proportion with the potential information to be obtained. Because Defendant has not engaged in this type of analysis, it cannot claim that response is unduly burdensome. 3 Improper V ague and A mbiguous Objectio Likewise, Defendant’s vague and ambiguous objection is lacks merit. As counsel is undoubtedly aware, it is not “ground for objection that the request is ‘ambiguous,’ unless it is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply.” Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429. The interrogatory as crafted is not so ambiguous that Defendant cannot, in good faith, frame an intelligent reply. The interrogatory is limited to a defined set of persons during a finite period of time relevant to the pleadings. As such, Defendant’s vague and ambiguous objection lacks any merit. 4. Improper Privacy Objections Defendant further improperly objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it invades “non-party's right to privacy” rights. Plaintiffs Special Interrogatory requests the identities of putative class members employed by Defendant during the applicable claim period as defined in the interrogatory. Such information is discoverable at this stage and such a request is calculated to lead to discoverable information. Plaintiff is open to discussing measures to satisfy privacy concems of employees (current or previous), however, Plaintiff is entitled to contact information. See Belair-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-62 (holding no serious invasion of privacy is involved in disclosing current and former employees' names to plaintiffs' counsel in an employment (wage and hour) class action, after requiring the defendant employer to send them letters stating their address and phone numbers will be given to counsel unless they timely return an enclosed post card). Nevertheless, Plaintiff is open to discussing measures to satisfy the limited privacy concems of employees (current or former) by agreeing to a Belaire type notice. In an attempt to ee Califomia Vocations, Inc, Meet and Confer