Preview
1 HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP 12/21/2020
Dexter B. Louie, Esq. (#105991) dbl@hassard.com
2 B. Thomas French, Esq. (#65848) btf@hassard.com
Erik S. Faussner, Esq. (#308672)
3 275 Battery Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
4 Telephone: (415) 288-9800
Fax: (415) 288-9801
5
MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY AND FEENEY
6 Michael P. Bradley, Esq. (#70243) mbradley@mpbf.com
Jonathan M. Blute, Esq. (#240751) jblute@mpbf.com
7 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
8 Telephone: (415) 788-1900
Fax: (415) 393-8087
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10 ME TIME, INC., and
ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD
11
12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14 JANE DOE #1 (N.K.), No. 18-CIV-03706
15 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. 2
16 vs. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND
17 MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, et ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-
al., STAFFORD’S MOTION TO
18 DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS
Defendants. CONFIDENTIAL
19
Date: 1/19/2021
20 Time: 2:00PM
Dept.: 2
21 Judge: Hon. Marie S. Wiener
22 Complaint Filed: July 18, 2018
Trial Date: Not yet set
23
24 I. INTRODUCTION
25 As predicted, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions of ME TIME, INC., ANGELINE
26 SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD (collectively “ME TIME”), and MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING,
27 LLC (“MEF”) is based on the same non-authoritative federal cases and inapplicable California state
28 court cases cited in Plaintiffs’ informal discovery conference brief. Beyond citing non-authoritative
-1-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 case law, Plaintiffs also fail to present any evidence regarding the discovery dispute, their efforts to
2 meet and confer, and which documents within ME TIME’s 3383-page document production they
3 believe are not properly designated as confidential. In fact, the opposition does not even respond to
4 the issues and arguments put forth in ME TIME’s motion, instead referencing documents that are not
5 at issue, such as ME TIME’s franchise agreement (which ME TIME specifically states it is willing to
6 remove the confidential designation from), as well as documents ME TIME did not have or produce
7 like a document called “The Road to Zero (sexual assaults) PowerPoint.”
8 ME TIME provided evidence in support of its motion establishing that the confidentiality
9 designations applied to the Documents at Issue 1 should be affirmed by this Court because they
10 qualify as “Confidential Information” as that term is defined in the Stipulated Protective Order
11 (“SPO”). [See RJN Ex. A, ¶1 (Confidential Information defined as documents that “contain
12 information involving trade secrets, or confidential business or financial information… and any
13 information regarding any party not otherwise available to the public….”)]. This alone is sufficient
14 for the Court to grant ME TIME’s motion. However, it is also important to note that Plaintiffs will
15 suffer no harm from the Court affirming ME TIME’s confidentiality designations. In this early stage
16 of the lawsuit, the confidential documents are free to be viewed by Plaintiffs’ counsel and used by
17 them to help evaluate their claims and ME TIME’s defenses. All the designations do is prevent
18 Plaintiffs and all defendants who are signatories to the SPO from publicly filing the documents in
19 Court or disseminating them to parties who are not involved in this lawsuit.
20 Because the Documents at Issue are properly designated as confidential under the SPO, ME
21 TIME respectfully requests the Court grant ME TIME’s motion.
22 II. ARGUMENT
23 A. Plaintiffs’ Opposition is Based on Inapplicable Case Law
24 Plaintiffs cite to federal court decisions and California state court decisions that relate to
25 circumstances very different from what is before the Court here. Most of the cases deal with the
26 1
AS-S_ME-TIME_000001-400; 420-429; 443-444; 473-708; 710-996; 999-1006; 108-1157; 1159-1257; 1263-1269;
1271-1294; 1296-1324; 1329-1391; 1393-1598; 1600-1637; 1643-1644; 1646-1651; 1654; 1656-1666; 1668-1670; 1674-
27 1837; 1840-1875; 1877-1906; 1908-2001; 2012-2056; 2068-2073; 2084-2089; 2091-2096; 2099; 2101-2103; 2106-2125;
2135-2168; 2170-2174; 2176-2193; 2195-2201; 2204-2256; 2266-2269; 2294; 2305-2315; 2317-2342; 2344-2349; 2358-
28 2381; 2383-2405; 2408; 2412-2423; 2427-2435; 2437; 2443-2445; 2448-2955; and 3021-3383 (collectively “Documents
at Issue”)
-2-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 standard applied to determine whether documents have been properly filed under seal, or whether a
2 stipulated protective order can lawfully permit a party to unilaterally file documents under seal
3 without following the requirements of California Rule of Court 2.551. These cases are not applicable
4 here, where the only issue is whether the Documents at Issue qualify as “Confidential Information”
5 as that term is defined in the SPO. Additionally, the SPO requires the Parties to follow the
6 requirements of California Rule of Court 2.551 in order to file any document under seal, so the
7 procedures in the SPO for filing documents are not at issue. [See RJN Ex. A, ¶¶12-14].
8 The primary case Plaintiffs claim support their position, and the one most heavily cited and
9 relied upon, is In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292 (Providian). [Pltf. Opp.
10 5:17-22; 9:12-18; 10:3-4; 10:8-12; 10:15-11:10]. Providian involved a class action lawsuit filed
11 against several financial institutions alleging the improper assessment of fees to the holders of their
12 credit cards. Id. at 295-296. In connection with the financial institutions’ opposition to plaintiffs’
13 motion to certify the class, the defendant financial institutions filed documents with the court under
14 seal. Id. Plaintiffs and the Hearst Corporation (who filed a motion as an intervenor) challenged the
15 filing of the documents under seal citing the importance of the information to the public. Id. The
16 issue decided by the Court of Appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding that
17 none of the documents filed by the defendant financial institutions should remain under seal. Id. at
18 297. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because
19 the documents were of public interest and based on the “principle that the people have the right to
20 know what is done in their courts[.]” Id. at 310 (citing In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 530).
21 The circumstances in Providian are nothing like what is before the Court here. ME TIME has
22 not filed any documents with the Court under seal, nor has it sought to. Instead, ME TIME is seeking
23 the affirmation of its confidentiality designations on the Documents at Issue pursuant to the standards
24 in the SPO. If ME TIME seeks to file documents with the Court under seal in the future, then the
25 question of whether the documents should be filed under seal or publicly can be debated. However
26 now is not the time for that issue to be decided.
27 The second most cited case in Plaintiffs’ opposition is Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71
28 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Stadish). In Stadish, the plaintiffs sued Southern California Gas Company
-3-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 (“SCGC”) for alleged injuries stemming from exposure to toxic chemicals while living near an
2 underground natural gas storage facility owned by SCGC. Id. at 1134. Plaintiffs propounded
3 document requests on SCGC seeking documents concerning SCGC’s gas storage facility,
4 investigations of stored gas migration, venting of stored gas into the atmosphere and hazardous vapor
5 releases from the storage facility. Id. at fn. 3). SCGC refused to produce the documents without either
6 a court order to do so, or a signed stipulated protective order limiting dissemination of the
7 documents. Id. at 1137. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to sign such an order and moved to compel
8 production of the documents. Id. at 1137-1138. Counsel for SCGC requested a protective order in its
9 opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Id. at 1138. The trial court denied the motion to compel
10 and granted SCGC’s request for a protective order. Id. at 1139. Paragraph 5 of the court’s protective
11 order required the parties to file any documents labeled as confidential under seal. Id. Plaintiffs’
12 counsel filed a writ of mandate challenging the protective order. Id. at 1139-1140.
13 The primary issue addressed on appeal was whether the trial court properly entertained and
14 granted SCGC’s request for a protective order. Id. at 1142. The Court of Appeal determined that
15 SCGC’s request for a protective order was proper and the court could implement such an order. Id. at
16 1144. However, the decision also found that the trial court in this instance did not apply the proper
17 procedure in connection with SCGC’s request for a protective order, and so the matter was remanded
18 back to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. at 1144; 1146.
19 Here, the issues are much different than those in Stadish. For one, a protective order already
20 exists and was signed by counsel for ME TIME and for Plaintiffs. Additionally, ME TIME did not
21 file a motion for a protective order, but instead filed a motion pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the SPO to
22 request that the Court affirm the confidentiality designations on the Documents at Issue. The Stadish
23 decision is simply inapplicable to the matter before the Court and as such, the Court should not
24 consider it as authoritative.
25 The other cases cited by Plaintiffs in their brief are scattered and provide no real detail as to
26 why each of those cases support Plaintiffs’ arguments. For example, Plaintiffs cite to a federal case,
27 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 1172 (Kamakana), apparently to
28 support their argument that the public interest in the documents designated by ME TIME as
-4-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 confidential outweighs ME TIME’s interest in keeping the documents from the public. However,
2 even a cursory reading of the case illustrates how the facts of the case and the legal issues addressed
3 are not comparable to what is before the Court here. The issue addressed in Kamakana was whether
4 documents filed under seal in connection with a dispositive motion had to be released to a
5 newspaper requesting them under the common law right of access. Id. at 1175. The case centered on
6 a Honolulu police detective suing his employer, the County of Honolulu, for its alleged retaliation
7 against him for engaging in whistleblower activities. Id. After the case settled, a local newspaper, the
8 Honolulu Advertiser, filed a motion of intervenor seeking to have the documents filed in the case
9 unsealed. Id. The trial court reviewed the documents filed in the case and decided to unseal nearly all
10 of them. Id. The City & County of Honolulu appealed the decision but was ultimately unsuccessful.
11 The court analyzed the historic right of the public to “inspect and copy public records and
12 documents, including judicial records and documents” (Id. at 1178, citing Nixon v. Warner
13 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 597 n. 7 [emphasis added]) and ultimately found that the trial court’s
14 determination that the public right to access the public records and documents outweighed the
15 interests of the government to keep the documents confidential. Id. at 1187. Here, ME TIME has not
16 attempted to file any documents under seal, no public records or documents are at issue, and there is
17 no intervening party filing a motion to unseal documents filed with the Court relating to a dispositive
18 motion to utilize in public reporting of the issues presented by this lawsuit.
19 The other cases cited are similar to Kamakana in that none of them have any bearing on the
20 issues before this Court. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, (6th Cir. 1983) 710 F.2d 1165,
21 relates to a request to unseal documents based on a freedom of information act request. Foltz v. State
22 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2003) 331 F.3d 1122, concerns the appropriate standard which
23 should be applied when a party files a motion to file documents under seal in federal court. Proctor &
24 Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co. (6th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 219, addressed whether a news magazine
25 could be prohibited from publishing an article which disclosed the contents of documents placed
26 under seal in a federal case by stipulation of the parties. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior
27 Court (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 625, related to whether a court ordered disclosure of information
28 which fell under the attorney-work product privilege was appropriate based on a finding of a prima
-5-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 facie showing of the crime/fraud exception. Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154
2 Cal.App.4th 547, affirmed the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff did not have a claim for
3 trade secret appropriation because it failed to provide evidence that the trade secret possessed
4 independent economic value after a bench trial.
5 Simply put, the authority cited by Plaintiffs in their opposition do not speak to the issues
6 raised by ME TIME’s motion. The cases are not authoritative and mostly relate to the heightened
7 standard which is applied to sealing documents filed with the Court, not marking them as confidential
8 under a stipulated protective order. Because Plaintiffs have failed to present any authority supporting
9 their position that the Documents at Issue are not confidential pursuant to the definition provided by
10 the SPO, the Court must grant ME TIME’s motion.
11 B. Good Cause Exists to Affirm Me Time’s Confidentiality Designations
12 Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the SPO, a party can properly designate documents as confidential
13 if they “contain information involving trade secrets, or confidential business or financial
14 information… and any information regarding any party not otherwise available to the public….”
15 [RJN Ex. A, ¶1]. Here, the Documents at Issue clearly fall within the definition provided in the SPO,
because many of them are trade secrets, and all of them contain information that is “not otherwise
16
available to the public….” [RJN Ex. A, ¶1].
17
The declaration of Angeline Sebastian-Stafford demonstrates that the Documents at Issue
18
were all treated by ME TIME as confidential, and that she took reasonable steps to keep them private
19
and away from the public. The reasons why these documents were kept private are explained well in
20
the declaration of Kristin Pavia. MEF created the documents as part of their standardized business
21
system which would give the owners of MEF franchises a competitive advantage. The manuals,
22
policies, standardized forms and training materials are all valuable because each of them enabled
23
franchise owners to run their businesses without having to create all of those documents themselves.
24
Revealing these documents to the public would undermine MEF’s business model, and the
25
businesses run by franchise owners like ME TIME.
26
Although this motion was brought pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the SPO, it is clear that good
27
cause would exist under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.060 to limit the dissemination of the
28
-6-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 Documents at Issue because they each meet the criteria of a trade secret or confidential business
2 information which warrants shielding from public disclosure, at least at the discovery stage.
3 Businesses like ME TIME and MEF have a protectable interest in confidential business information
4 even if that information is not a trade secret. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060; NBC Subsidiary
5 (KNBC-TV, Inc.) v. Super. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, n. 46. Confidential information can be
6 any information about a business that is not generally known to the public. See Glassdoor Inc. v.
7 Super. Ct. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 644. There is no reasonable dispute here that the Documents at
8 Issue are not generally known to the public, and Plaintiffs provide no evidence to the contrary.
9 Both ME TIME and MEF are confident that if the Court were to conduct an in camera review
10 of the documents, it would determine that the confidentiality designations placed on the Documents
11 at Issue are appropriate pursuant to the requirements of the SPO. Good cause exists to affirm those
12 designations, and ME TIME respectfully requests the Court do so.
13 C. Plaintiffs’ Opposition Makes Baseless Assertions of Fact
14 Plaintiffs make a number of assertions in their opposition that are not supported by any
15 evidence and are simply not true. ME TIME will briefly address these baseless assertions so that the
16 Court is aware of them and does not consider them in ruling on ME TIME’s motion.
17 Plaintiff claims that ME TIME is attempting to “hoodwink this Court into believing the
18 documents are trade secrets” and that the Documents at Issue “are not trade secrets as they are
19 commonly used documents used by 99.9% of businesses including massage parlors.” [Pltf. Opp.
20 5:24-26]. ME TIME is not trying to “hoodwink” the Court in any manner, and its counsel takes their
21 obligation to act with candor when presenting argument to the Court seriously. All ME TIME is
22 interested in is protecting confidential business records and the privacy rights of third parties.
23 Additionally, the documents utilized by ME TIME to run its location are not used by 99.9% of
24 businesses as Plaintiffs’ counsel claims, because they were proprietary MEF documents. Plaintiffs
25 have presented no evidence that the Documents at Issue are utilized by 99.9% of businesses, and ME
26 TIME requests that the Court not consider that baseless assertion in ruling on this motion.
27 Additionally, Plaintiffs’ claim that ME TIME’s motion is motivated by embarrassment about
28 the facts found in the documents is without merit. [See Pltf. Opp. 5:22-24]. It is unclear to ME TIME
-7-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 how policies about things like the dress code, employee timeliness, sick leave, training and the
2 procedures involved in providing certain services would be embarrassing. What ME TIME is
3 concerned with is protecting private and confidential business records and third-party privacy rights,
4 nothing more.
5 D. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to ME TIME’s Motion is an Inappropriate Forum to
Criticize the SPO and Plaintiffs’ Claims About the Need for Public Access to
6 the Documents at Issue is Not Supported
7 Plaintiffs’ counsel spends a significant portion of their opposition arguing that there is a
8 pressing need to make the Documents at Issue public to assist them in other lawsuits they have filed
9 against MEF and other franchisees around the country. [Pltf. Opp. 15:7-17:11]. These arguments are
10 based on inapplicable cases like Stadish, supra, and Plaintiffs’ claim that these documents should be
11 publicly available, or at least available to Plaintiffs’ counsel in unrelated litigation because of “public
12 health” implications. These arguments are not legally sound, nor are they rooted in logic.
13 Plaintiffs’ claim that the Documents at Issue are “relevant to public health and safety”
14 because “the public has an interest in knowing of the extreme dangers of using Massage Envy
15 services.” [Pltf. Opp. 16:1-4]. However, this claim is not rooted in anything aside from hyperbole.
16 The Documents at Issue are composed of policies and procedures that are proprietary to MEF,
17 personnel files, training materials and other proprietary information relating to all aspects of running
18 a Massage Envy franchise. It is unclear how a training document on how best to sell a moisturizer to
19 a customer has any bearing on public health or safety. Likewise, the policies and procedures relate to
20 how to run different aspects of the business, and to ME TIME’s counsel’s knowledge do not reveal
21 anything that if publicly known would somehow have a positive impact on health and safety. The
22 incident reports involving the Plaintiffs and their alleged assailants are more sanguine than those
23 Plaintiffs’ allegations in their operative complaint. All that they would reveal to the public are the
24 proprietary forms and processes used to investigate claims of inappropriate conduct (which are
25 protected trade secrets) the Plaintiffs’ names and contact information, and information about third
26 parties such as ME TIME employees who are accused of wrongdoing or were involved in
27 investigating wrongdoing (which are protected by third-party privacy rights).
28 Plaintiffs argue that “it is absurd to claim that documents relating to Plaintiffs’ reporting of
-8-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 their sexual assaults and MEF incident report and investigative documents are trade secrets or should
2 be subject to MEF’s assessment of confidentiality. Such an argument is akin to a police report of a
3 car crash involving a MEF employee as a trade secret.” [Pltf. Opp. 12:22-27]. However, comparing a
4 police report to a report generated by a private business is not proper because public records, such as
5 police reports, are treated much differently than private records, like proprietary internal reporting
6 documents created by a business. The public has a right to know what is in a police report, but they
7 do not have a right to know what is in a private report created by a private business or individual.
8 If Plaintiffs’ did not like the fact that the SPO would not allow them to share documents
9 disclosed in this litigation, then they did not have to sign the SPO. But they did, and now the SPO is
10 what governs the process of designating documents as confidential and how such documents can be
11 utilized by all parties who signed the SPO. Furthermore, the prohibition on dissemination of the
12 Documents at Issue in the SPO does not prejudice Plaintiffs in this case in any way. They are still
13 permitted to utilize the documents in this litigation, they are just prohibited from disseminating the
14 documents publicly or to utilize them in unrelated litigation.
15 Plaintiffs argue that ME TIME waived their right to designate the documents as confidential
16 due to a delay in making the designations. The Court rejected this argument at the informal discovery
17 conference and noted that there appeared to be ambiguity in the parties’ interpretation of the SPO.
18 This prompted the Court to request that the parties meet and confer with each other to fix those
19 ambiguities. Counsel for MEF and ME TIME made minor tweaks to the SPO that would fix
20 ambiguities surrounding when and how documents could be designated as confidential and sent those
21 tweaks to Plaintiffs’ counsel. In return, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent back a version of the SPO that gutted
22 all the confidentiality protections and would allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to share and utilize documents
23 designated as confidential in this case in any other case in the country as long as Plaintiffs’ counsel in
24 those unrelated cases signed the SPO. This, of course, makes the SPO toothless since the entire
25 purpose of the SPO was to limit the use of confidential documents to this case and no others.
26 Plaintiffs’ opposition is not the proper forum to ask the Court to toss out the SPO. The only
27 issue before the Court here is whether the Documents at Issue should be affirmed as properly
28 designated confidential. ME TIME respectfully requests the Court to only consider that issue.
-9-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, ME TIME respectfully requests the Court grant its Motion to
3 Designate Material as Confidential and issue an order designating as confidential the documents
4 produced by ME TIME Bates labeled AS-S_ME-TIME_000001-400; 420-429; 443-444; 473-708;
5 710-996; 999-1006; 108-1157; 1159-1257; 1263-1269; 1271-1294; 1296-1324; 1329-1391; 1393-
6 1598; 1600-1637; 1643-1644; 1646-1651; 1654; 1656-1666; 1668-1670; 1674-1837; 1840-1875;
7 1877-1906; 1908-2001; 2012-2056; 2068-2073; 2084-2089; 2091-2096; 2099; 2101-2103; 2106-
8 2125; 2135-2168; 2170-2174; 2176-2193; 2195-2201; 2204-2256; 2266-2269; 2294; 2305-2315;
9 2317-2342; 2344-2349; 2358-2381; 2383-2405; 2408; 2412-2423; 2427-2435; 2437; 2443-2445;
10 2448-2955; and 3021-3383.
11
Dated: December 21, 2020
12
HASSARD BONNINGTON LLP
13
14
By: __/s/ Erik S. Faussner_______
15 Dexter B. Louie
B. Thomas French
16 Erik S. Faussner
17 Attorneys for Defendants ME TIME, INC.
and ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Jane Doe v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, et al.
2 San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 18CIV03706
3 I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 275 Battery Street, Suite
1600, San Francisco, CA 94111. My email address is xlb@hassard.com. I am employed
4 in the County of San Francisco where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the within cause. I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
5
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-
6 STAFFORD’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
7 on the interested parties in said action addressed as follows:
8 COUNSEL FOR Robert W. Thompson, Esq. Tel.: 650/513-6111
Plaintiffs Jane Doe Kristen A. Vierhaus, Esq. Fax: 650/513-6071
9 #1-5 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C. bobby@tlopc.com
700 Airport Blvd., Suite 160 kris@tlopc.com
10 Burlingame, CA 94010
11 CO-COUNSEL Brian D. Kent, Esq. Tel.: 215/399-9255
FOR Nellie Fitzpatrick, Esq. Fax: 215/241-8700
12 Plaintiffs Jane Doe LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP bkent@laffeybuccikent.com
#1-5 1100 Ludlow Street, Suite 300
13 Philadelphia, PA 19107
COUNSEL FOR Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. (# Tel.: 510/629-4877
14 Plaintiffs Jane Doe 191389) Fax: 510/491-9742
#6 Jamie G. Goldstein, Esq. (# elise@aswtlawyers.com
15 302479) jamie@aswtlawyers.com
ARIAS, SANGUINETTI, WANG &
16 TORRIJOS LLP
220 Powell Street, Suite 740
17 Emeryville, CA 94608
18 CO-COUNSEL Michael P. Bradley Tel: 415-788-1900
FOR Jonathan M. Blute Fax: 415-393-8087
19 Angeline Sebastian- Tyra Singleton Asst: Lynn
Stafford and Murphy Pearson Bradley and mbradley@mpbf.com
20 Me Time, Inc. Feeney jblute@mpbf.com
580 California Street, Suite 1100 TSingleton@MPBF.com
21 San Francisco, CA 94104
COUNSEL FOR Luanne Sacks O: 415-549-0580
22 Massage Envy Jacqueline E. Young c: 415-518-3391
Franchising LLC Michelle Floyd Fax: 415-549-0640
23 SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE, LLP lsacks@srclaw.com
177 Post Street, Suite 650 jyoung@srclaw.com
24 San Francisco, CA 94108 mfloyd@srclaw.com
25 CO-COUNSEL Robert Atkins Tel: 212-373-3000
FOR Jacqueline P. Rubin Fax: 212-492-0056
26 Massage Envy PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, ratkins@paulweiss.com
Franchising LLC WHARTON & GARRISON LLP jrubin@paulweiss.com
27 1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
28 COUNSEL FOR Christopher Shawn Andre phone: 562-653-3200
-11-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120
1 JDSME Inc, ATKINSON ANDELSON LOYA Fax: 562-653-3333
Leocadia Ellen RUUD candre@aalrr.com
2 Salas 12800 Center Court Drive, Suite
300
3 Cerritos, CA, 90703-8597
4 COUNSEL FOR Gregory Sabo Tel: (310) 207-7722
Ravella Ventures, Jeffery Stewart Fax: 310-207-6550
5 Inc.; Erica Rice; and CHAPMAN GLUCKSMAN DEAN jstewart@cgdrblaw.com
Mary Guidry ROEB & BARGER PC gsabo@cgdrblaw.com
6 11900 West Olympic Blvd., Suite
800
7 Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704
COURT: San Mateo County Superior Court complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
8 Hall of Justice
400 County Center
9 Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
10 X By Electronic Service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the
parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted a true and
11 correct copy of the document(s) listed above to One Legal. The above listed
document(s) is to be sent to all parties listed on the Proof of Service. This
12 service complies with California Rules of Court Rule 2.251. A copy of the One
Legal. Filing Receipt page will be maintained with the original document(s) in
13 our office.
14 X ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. E-mailing the document(s) to
the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice previously provided
15 that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be primarily
working remotely, unable to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using
16 only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the
17 transmission.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
December 21, 2020 at San Francisco, California.
19
20 ______________________________________
Xiomara Barcenas
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ME TIME, INC., AND ANGELINE SEBASTIAN-STAFFORD’S
MOTION TO DESIGNATE MATERIAL AS CONFIDENTIAL
P:\WDOCS\HBMAIN\02992\00011\01282980.DOCX-122120