Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
1 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) 11/30/2021 11:06 AM
Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697) By: Terri Chavez, Deputy
2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
3 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
4 (213) 488-6555
(213) 488-6554 facsimile
5 lwlee@diversitylaw.com
6 mgavron@diversitylaw.com
7 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131)
Polaris Law Group
8 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
9 Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 531-4214
10 (831) 634-0333 facsimile
bill@polarislawgroup.com
11
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
15
VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892
16 behalf of all others similarly situated,
17 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle,
Plaintiff, Department 3]
18
vs. INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
19 REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA
20 TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PROCEDURE § 2016.080; DECLARATION
21 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, OF MAX W. GAVRON; EXHIBITS
inclusive,
22
23 Defendants.
24
25
26 TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD:
27 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.080, Plaintiff Victoria Tice respectfully
28 requests that the Court schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) with respect to the
1
INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080
1 discovery identified and discussed below. Plaintiff requests that the Court schedule an IDC
2 before December 14, 2021, and no later than within thirty days of this request (pursuant to Code
3 of Civil Procedure § 2016.080(c)(1)) and toll the deadline for the filing of relevant discovery
4 motions pending the completion of the IDC (pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
5 § 2016.080(c)(2)).
6 Plaintiff bases this IDC request upon the instant filing, the attached Declaration of Max
7 W. Gavron, and the attached exhibits.
8
9 DATED: November 30, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
10
By: __________________________
11 Larry W. Lee
12 Max Gavron
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080
1 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON
2 I, Max W. Gavron, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all courts in the State of
4 California and am a member of the law firm of the Diversity Law Group, P.C., one of the
5 attorneys of record for Plaintiff Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled action. I have
6 personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness to testify
7 thereto, I could and would competently do so.
8 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
9 2. As the Court may recall, this case centers on Defendant’s practice of issuing
10 paycards, which are subject to a host of different fees, to employees upon separation of
11 employment without authorization. Plaintiff alleges this policy violates the California Labor
12 Code.
13 3. On October 5, 2021, my office served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on
14 Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”). Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
15 copy of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three.
16 4. On November 8, 2021, Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff’s representative
17 PAGA claim. Defendant’s Motion is set to be heard by the Court on December 14, 2021, and
18 Plaintiff’s Opposition is due on December 1, 2021.
19 5. On November 19, 2021, Defendant served its responses and objections to
20 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of
21 Trader Joe’s Company’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Defendant’s
22 responses did not correspond to the numbering provided by Plaintiff. On November 29, 2021,
23 Defendant served amended responses that corrected the numbering issue. Attached as Exhibit C
24 is a true and correct copy of the Amended Responses.
25 DISCOVERY REQUEST AT ISSUE
26 6. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 10, which Defendant originally identified in
27 its responses as Interrogatory No. 4, requested that Defendant identify the route and accounting
28 numbers for the COMDATA card issued to each employee within the period encompassed by
3
INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080
1 Plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claim. Ex. A.
2 7. Defendant did not provide a substantive response to this request. Instead,
3 Defendant objected on various grounds, including privacy, that producing the information would
4 be burdensome, and that the information exceeds the scope of discovery.
5 MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS & GOOD CAUSE SUPPORTING PRODUCTION
6 8. On November 23, 2021, I sent an email to Defendant’s counsel explaining the
7 reasons that I believed production of the routing and account numbers for the paycards issued to
8 the aggrieved employees was discoverable. I explained that, “The account and routing number
9 for the paycards is relevant and discoverable because Plaintiff will use this information to obtain
10 information from COMDATA to demonstrate whether employees incurred fees when using their
11 paycards. Defendant’s objections are without merit. While Defendant contends the Motion to
12 Strike weighs in favor of not producing the information, the opposite is true. Plaintiff needs the
13 information requested to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Strike. Defendant has already produced
14 the card number and routing number for cards in its exemplar communications, and so it’s
15 objections regarding privacy are undermined by the fact that it already produced the information.
16 See, e.g. TJ_000262, TJ_000273, TJ_000287, TJ_000302, TJ_000316.” Attached as Exhibit D
17 is a true and correct copy of correspondence between me and Defendant’s counsel regarding the
18 discovery at issue.
19 9. On November 29, 2021, I telephonically met and conferred with Defendant’s
20 counsel regarding Defendant’s Response to Interrogatory No. 10, which Defendant referred to as
21 Interrogatory No. 4. We discussed my reasoning for requesting the information and Defendant’s
22 objections to producing the information but were unable to come to a proposed resolution. See
23 Ex. D.
24 10. With respect to Defendant’s privacy objection, in addition to the fact that
25 Defendant already produced account and routing numbers through the discovery process, the
26 Parties entered a stipulated protective order, which can be used to alleviate any privacy concerns.
27 While Plaintiff is already in possession of the names and contact information of the aggrieved
28 employees, Plaintiff needs the account and routing numbers of the cards issued to them to be
4
INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080
1 able to send a subpoena to COMDATA to obtain information regarding whether those cards
2 were subjected to fees. My firm has issued subpoenas to paycard companies previously and
3 obtained a ledger detail which cards were subject to fees. Subpoenaing the information without
4 using the account and routing number presents problems because a person could have received a
5 COMDATA paycard from a different employer, or there could be two individuals with the same
6 name. Accordingly, subpoenaing the information from COMDATA with the account and
7 routing numbers is the most effective and efficient way to obtain information regarding which
8 aggrieved employees incurred fees associated with using their cards.
9 11. The information requested by Plaintiff in Interrogatory No. 10 is relevant and
10 discoverable for the reasons articulated above. I request that the Court set an informal discovery
11 conference to address this issue in advance of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Strike,
12 which is set for December 14, 2021.
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
14 States that the foregoing is true and correct.
15 Executed on November 30, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
16
___________________________
17 Max W. Gavron
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080
EXHIBIT A
1 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175)
Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697)
2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
3 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
4 (213) 488-6555
(213) 488-6554 facsimile
5
6 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131)
Polaris Law Group LLP
7 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
8 (831) 531-4214
9 (831) 634-0333 facsimile
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
13
VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892
14 behalf of all others similarly situated,
15 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle,
Plaintiff, Department 3]
16
vs. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL
17 INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
18 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California
19 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
20
21 Defendants.
22
23
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Victoria Tice
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joe’s Company
26 SET NUMBER: Three (3)
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.010, et seq., Defendant
2 Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) is required to respond to the following Interrogatories,
3 under oath and in writing, within 30 days of service of the Interrogatories.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
6 Please state the number of individuals who separated employment during the PAGA
7 PERIOD that YOU paid on paycards at the time of separation of employment (whether voluntary
8 or involuntary) for whom YOU do not have a written authorization for payment via paycard.
9 (For purposes of these Special Interrogatories, “YOU,” “YOUR” and “DEFENDANT” shall
10 refer to Defendant Trader Joe’s Company. “PAGA PERIOD” shall refer to the time period from
11 February 10, 2019, through the present.).
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
13 Please IDENTIFY all employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No.
14 7.
15 (“IDENTIFY” means stating the name and the last known address and telephone
16 numbers.)
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
18 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please
19 IDENTIFY the paycard provider YOU used to issue payment to that employee during the PAGA
20 PERIOD.
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
22 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state the
23 account number and routing number of the paycard issued to that employee during the PAGA
24 PERIOD.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
26 Do YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of
27 a paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7?
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
2 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
3 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state
4 all facts supporting that contention.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
6 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
7 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please
8 IDENTIFY all witnesses supporting that contention.
9
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
11 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
12 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please
13 describe all DOCUMENTS supporting that contention.
14 (For purposes of these interrogatories, “DOCUMENTS” means any “writings” or
15 recorded material in the broadest sense defined in Section 250 of the California Evidence Code.
16 This includes, but is not limited to, all writings of any nature whatsoever, written, typed,
17 transcribed, translated, copied, recorded, e-mails and any other forms of electronic
18 communication, tape recordings, video recordings, and/or pictures, photographs, digital records
19 or visual displays, within the possession, custody or control of defendant, or of any agent,
20 employee, representative, or other person acting on defendant’s behalf, or in concert with
21 defendant, whether prepared by defendant, or by any other person.)
22 DATED: October 5, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, APC.
23
24 By:
Larry W. Lee
25 Max Gavron
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5)
3
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ]
]ss.
5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ]
6
7 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite
8 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071.
9 On October 5, 2021, I served the following document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF’S
10 THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S
COMPANY on the interested parties in this action as follows:
11
Helene Wasserman
12 hwasserman@littler.com
13 Shannon R. Boyce
sboyce@littler.com
14 Kennell M. Sambour
ksambour@littler.com
15 Carolyn Ward
16 cward@littler.com
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
17 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
18 Attorneys for Defendant Trader Joe’s Company
19
X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order I caused the above-
20 entitled document(s) to be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website
www.california.tylerhost.net, addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic service list for
21 the above-entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the
22 filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, or maintained with the original document(s)
in this office.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 above is true and correct. Executed on October 5, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
25
26 _________________________________
Olympia Pena
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT B
1 Helene Wasserman, Bar No. 130134
hwasserman@littler.com
2 Shannon R. Boyce, Bar No. 229041
sboyce@littler.com
3 Melissa Velez, Bar No. 316714
mvelez@littler.com
4 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East
5 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067.3107
6 Telephone: 310.553.0308
Fax No.: 310.553.5583
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
11
12
VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892
13 behalf of all others similarly situated,
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY’S
14 Plaintiff, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
15 v. THIRD SET
16 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, JUDGE THOMAS P. ANDERLE, DEPT. 3
17
Defendant. Trial Date: None Set
18 Complaint Filed: February 14, 2020
19
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Victoria Tice
20
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joe’s Company
21
SET NUMBER: Three (3)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210 et seq., Defendant TRADER
2 JOE’S COMPANY (“Defendant” or “Responding Party”) provides the following objections and
3 responses to Plaintiff VICTORIA TICE’S Special Interrogatories, Set Three (“Interrogatories”) as
4 follows:
5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6 These answers and objections are made solely for the purpose of this action. The following
7 answers are based upon information presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery, both
8 internal and external, is still ongoing, and Defendant reserves the right to supplement these answers
9 with subsequently discovered information and/or to introduce such information at trial. Each
10 answer is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility
11 and any and all other objections or grounds that would require exclusion of the answers produced
12 by Defendant, or any part thereof, if any of these answers were presented in court.
13 The fact that Defendant has responded to or objected to any request or Interrogatory or part
14 thereof may not be taken as an admission that it admits the existence of any fact set forth in or
15 assumed by such request or Interrogatory or that such answer constitutes relevant evidence other
16 than as expressly admitted herein. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these
17 answers. The fact that Defendant has answered part or all of any request or Interrogatory shall not
18 be construed to be a waiver by Defendant of any objections to part or all of any request or
19 Interrogatory.
20 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
21 1. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the
22 Interrogatories seek information protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work-
23 product doctrine.
24 2. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent that the
25 Interrogatories are overly broad as to time and scope, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and/or
26 seek information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
2049 C entury Park East
2
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 3. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent that the
2 Interrogatories seek confidential documents and/or information, the disclosure of which would
3 constitute an unwarranted invasion of constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to business
4 and/or personal privacy and confidentiality, and/or trade secrets or other confidential information
5 or documents.
6 4. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent that the
7 Interrogatories demand the production of information and/or documents already in the possession
8 of and/or equally available to Plaintiff.
9 5. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the
10 Interrogatories necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit or
11 summary of or from documents of the party to whom the Interrogatories are directed, and that the
12 burden and/or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
13 propounding party.
14 6. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the
15 Interrogatories are not full and complete in and of themselves and refer to outside documents or
16 require references to preceding or other interrogatories in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §
17 2030.060(d).
18 7. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the
19 Interrogatories contain subparts, or are compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive in violation of Code
20 of Civil Procedure section 2030.060.
21 Subject to and without waiving these General Objections, or any other objections or claims
22 of privilege, Defendant hereby responds and objects to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two,
23 as follows:
24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1:
26 Please state the number of individuals who separated employment during the PAGA
27 PERIOD that YOU paid on paycards at the time of separation of employment (whether voluntary
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
3
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 or involuntary) for whom YOU do not have a written authorization for payment via paycard. (For
2 purposes of these Special Interrogatories, “YOU,” “YOUR” and “DEFENDANT” shall refer to
3 Defendant Trader Joe’s Company. “PAGA PERIOD” shall refer to the time period from February
4 10, 2019, through the present.).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1:
6 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
7 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects as to the term “written authorization” as vague and
8 ambiguous such that Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation.
9 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome
10 and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
11 to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence.
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
14 For the time period of February 10, 2019 to November 12, 2021, there are approximately 348 crew
15 members who were paid on paycards at the time of separation of employment, for whom no written
16 authorization for payment via paycard has yet been located. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant
17 reserves the right to supplement this response as necessary.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2:
19 Please IDENTIFY all employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No.
20 7. (“IDENTIFY” means stating the name and the last known address and telephone numbers.)
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2:
22 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
23 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing,
24 and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim
25 is currently pending. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad
26 and unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information
27 which is neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to
28 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
4
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 that disclosure of the information sought would violate the privacy rights of third parties to this
2 litigation under the Constitution of the United States and the State of California and under common
3 law privacy principles.
4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
5 Produced herewith is a listing of crew members issued paycards for the period of February 10, 2019
6 to November 12, 2021, for whom no written authorization has yet been located, with contact
7 information included.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3:
9 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please IDENTIFY
10 the paycard provider YOU used to issue payment to that employee during the PAGA PERIOD.
11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3:
12 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
13 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing,
14 and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim
15 is currently pending. Defendant additionally objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome,
16 harassing, and oppressive to the extent duplicative of prior written discovery in this matter.
17 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome
18 and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant
19 to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
20 admissible evidence.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
22 Defendant has issued Comdata paycards throughout the relevant period.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4:
24 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state the
25 account number and routing number of the paycard issued to that employee during the PAGA
26 PERIOD.
27
28
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
5
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4:
2 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
3 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing,
4 and oppressive to the extent any response to this Interrogatory would require a person-by-person
5 review of individual allegedly aggrieved employee authorizations forms. Further, Defendant’s
6 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant objects to
7 this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope
8 of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter
9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that disclosure of the information sought would
11 violate the privacy rights of third parties to this litigation under the Constitution of the United States
12 and the State of California and under common law privacy principles.
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 5:
14 Do YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
15 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7?
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 5:
17 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
18 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect
19 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory
20 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike
21 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this
22 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that
23 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant
24 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal
25 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
26 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is
27 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to
28 the discovery of admissible evidence.
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
6
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
2 Yes.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6:
4 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
5 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state
6 all facts supporting that contention.
7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6:
8 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
9 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect
10 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory
11 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike
12 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this
13 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that
14 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant
15 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal
16 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
17 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is
18 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to
19 the discovery of admissible evidence.
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
21 Throughout the relevant time period, the payroll department has consistently instructed store
22 management to provide departing Crew Members with their paycard (and contents of paycard
23 envelope, which includes instructions and fee schedule), final pay stub, consent form, and a helpful
24 hints document which provides tips for using the paycard. While payroll has always provided
25 information on how the forms were to be completed, including expected use of a voluntary written
26 consent form, the payroll department did not explicitly instruct store management to require
27 signature on the consent form in order for a departing Crew Member to take his or her paycard prior
28 to February 2020. While recognizing this “best practice,” Trader Joe’s ultimate objective has
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
7
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 always been to ensure its departing Crew Members are paid appropriately and timely. Accordingly,
2 although not Trader Joe’s expected “best practice,” verbal consent may be sufficient authorization
3 for receipt of a paycard.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 7:
5 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
6 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please
7 IDENTIFY all witnesses supporting that contention.
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 7:
9 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
10 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect
11 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory
12 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike
13 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this
14 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that
15 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant
16 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal
17 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
18 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is
19 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to
20 the discovery of admissible evidence.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
22 To the extent verbal consent is an individualized issue, witnesses include individual allegedly
23 aggrieved employees and members of management, as well as any other crew members present at
24 the time of separation.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 8:
26 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a
27 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please
28 describe all DOCUMENTS supporting that contention. (For purposes of these interrogatories,
LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C.
Attorneys at Law
8
2049 C entury Park East
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
310.553.0308
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3
1 “DOCUMENTS” means any “writings” or recorded material in the broadest sense defined in
2 Section 250 of the California Evidence Code. This includes, but is not limited to, all writings of
3 any nature whatsoever, written, typed, transcribed, translated, copied, recorded, e-mails and any
4 other forms of electronic communication, tape recordings, video recordings, and/or pictures,
5 photographs, digital records or visual displays, within the possession, custody or control of
6 defendant, or of any agent, employee, representative, or other person acting on defendant’s behalf,
7 or in concert with defendant, whether prepared by defendant, or by any other person.)
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 8:
9 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though
10 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect
11 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory
12 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike
13 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this
14 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that
15 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant
16 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal
17 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
18 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is
19 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to
20 the discovery of admissible evidence.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
22 Depending upon the specific crew member separation, no documentation may exist evidencing
23 verbal consent. Discovery is ongoing.
24 Dated: November 19, 2021 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
25
26 Helene Wasserm
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) 11/30/2021 11:06 AM Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697) By: Terri Chavez, Deputy 2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 3 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 5 lwlee@diversitylaw.com 6 mgavron@diversitylaw.com 7 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) Polaris Law Group 8 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 9 Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 531-4214 10 (831) 634-0333 facsimile bill@polarislawgroup.com 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 15 VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892 16 behalf of all others similarly situated, 17 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, Plaintiff, Department 3] 18 vs. INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19 REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA 20 TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PROCEDURE § 2016.080; DECLARATION 21 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, OF MAX W. GAVRON; EXHIBITS inclusive, 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD: 27 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.080, Plaintiff Victoria Tice respectfully 28 requests that the Court schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) with respect to the 1 INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080 1 discovery identified and discussed below. Plaintiff requests that the Court schedule an IDC 2 before December 14, 2021, and no later than within thirty days of this request (pursuant to Code 3 of Civil Procedure § 2016.080(c)(1)) and toll the deadline for the filing of relevant discovery 4 motions pending the completion of the IDC (pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 5 § 2016.080(c)(2)). 6 Plaintiff bases this IDC request upon the instant filing, the attached Declaration of Max 7 W. Gavron, and the attached exhibits. 8 9 DATED: November 30, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 10 By: __________________________ 11 Larry W. Lee 12 Max Gavron Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080 1 DECLARATION OF MAX W. GAVRON 2 I, Max W. Gavron, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all courts in the State of 4 California and am a member of the law firm of the Diversity Law Group, P.C., one of the 5 attorneys of record for Plaintiff Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled action. I have 6 personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness to testify 7 thereto, I could and would competently do so. 8 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 9 2. As the Court may recall, this case centers on Defendant’s practice of issuing 10 paycards, which are subject to a host of different fees, to employees upon separation of 11 employment without authorization. Plaintiff alleges this policy violates the California Labor 12 Code. 13 3. On October 5, 2021, my office served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on 14 Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”). Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct 15 copy of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. 16 4. On November 8, 2021, Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff’s representative 17 PAGA claim. Defendant’s Motion is set to be heard by the Court on December 14, 2021, and 18 Plaintiff’s Opposition is due on December 1, 2021. 19 5. On November 19, 2021, Defendant served its responses and objections to 20 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of 21 Trader Joe’s Company’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Defendant’s 22 responses did not correspond to the numbering provided by Plaintiff. On November 29, 2021, 23 Defendant served amended responses that corrected the numbering issue. Attached as Exhibit C 24 is a true and correct copy of the Amended Responses. 25 DISCOVERY REQUEST AT ISSUE 26 6. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 10, which Defendant originally identified in 27 its responses as Interrogatory No. 4, requested that Defendant identify the route and accounting 28 numbers for the COMDATA card issued to each employee within the period encompassed by 3 INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080 1 Plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claim. Ex. A. 2 7. Defendant did not provide a substantive response to this request. Instead, 3 Defendant objected on various grounds, including privacy, that producing the information would 4 be burdensome, and that the information exceeds the scope of discovery. 5 MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS & GOOD CAUSE SUPPORTING PRODUCTION 6 8. On November 23, 2021, I sent an email to Defendant’s counsel explaining the 7 reasons that I believed production of the routing and account numbers for the paycards issued to 8 the aggrieved employees was discoverable. I explained that, “The account and routing number 9 for the paycards is relevant and discoverable because Plaintiff will use this information to obtain 10 information from COMDATA to demonstrate whether employees incurred fees when using their 11 paycards. Defendant’s objections are without merit. While Defendant contends the Motion to 12 Strike weighs in favor of not producing the information, the opposite is true. Plaintiff needs the 13 information requested to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Strike. Defendant has already produced 14 the card number and routing number for cards in its exemplar communications, and so it’s 15 objections regarding privacy are undermined by the fact that it already produced the information. 16 See, e.g. TJ_000262, TJ_000273, TJ_000287, TJ_000302, TJ_000316.” Attached as Exhibit D 17 is a true and correct copy of correspondence between me and Defendant’s counsel regarding the 18 discovery at issue. 19 9. On November 29, 2021, I telephonically met and conferred with Defendant’s 20 counsel regarding Defendant’s Response to Interrogatory No. 10, which Defendant referred to as 21 Interrogatory No. 4. We discussed my reasoning for requesting the information and Defendant’s 22 objections to producing the information but were unable to come to a proposed resolution. See 23 Ex. D. 24 10. With respect to Defendant’s privacy objection, in addition to the fact that 25 Defendant already produced account and routing numbers through the discovery process, the 26 Parties entered a stipulated protective order, which can be used to alleviate any privacy concerns. 27 While Plaintiff is already in possession of the names and contact information of the aggrieved 28 employees, Plaintiff needs the account and routing numbers of the cards issued to them to be 4 INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080 1 able to send a subpoena to COMDATA to obtain information regarding whether those cards 2 were subjected to fees. My firm has issued subpoenas to paycard companies previously and 3 obtained a ledger detail which cards were subject to fees. Subpoenaing the information without 4 using the account and routing number presents problems because a person could have received a 5 COMDATA paycard from a different employer, or there could be two individuals with the same 6 name. Accordingly, subpoenaing the information from COMDATA with the account and 7 routing numbers is the most effective and efficient way to obtain information regarding which 8 aggrieved employees incurred fees associated with using their cards. 9 11. The information requested by Plaintiff in Interrogatory No. 10 is relevant and 10 discoverable for the reasons articulated above. I request that the Court set an informal discovery 11 conference to address this issue in advance of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Strike, 12 which is set for December 14, 2021. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United 14 States that the foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed on November 30, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. 16 ___________________________ 17 Max W. Gavron 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REUQEST BY PLAINTIFF VICTORIA TICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2016.080 EXHIBIT A 1 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697) 2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 3 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 5 6 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) Polaris Law Group LLP 7 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 8 (831) 531-4214 9 (831) 634-0333 facsimile 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 13 VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892 14 behalf of all others similarly situated, 15 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, Plaintiff, Department 3] 16 vs. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL 17 INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT 18 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California 19 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Victoria Tice 25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joe’s Company 26 SET NUMBER: Three (3) 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.010, et seq., Defendant 2 Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) is required to respond to the following Interrogatories, 3 under oath and in writing, within 30 days of service of the Interrogatories. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 6 Please state the number of individuals who separated employment during the PAGA 7 PERIOD that YOU paid on paycards at the time of separation of employment (whether voluntary 8 or involuntary) for whom YOU do not have a written authorization for payment via paycard. 9 (For purposes of these Special Interrogatories, “YOU,” “YOUR” and “DEFENDANT” shall 10 refer to Defendant Trader Joe’s Company. “PAGA PERIOD” shall refer to the time period from 11 February 10, 2019, through the present.). 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 13 Please IDENTIFY all employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 14 7. 15 (“IDENTIFY” means stating the name and the last known address and telephone 16 numbers.) 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 18 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please 19 IDENTIFY the paycard provider YOU used to issue payment to that employee during the PAGA 20 PERIOD. 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 22 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state the 23 account number and routing number of the paycard issued to that employee during the PAGA 24 PERIOD. 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 26 Do YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of 27 a paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7? 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 2 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 3 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state 4 all facts supporting that contention. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 6 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 7 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please 8 IDENTIFY all witnesses supporting that contention. 9 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 11 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 12 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please 13 describe all DOCUMENTS supporting that contention. 14 (For purposes of these interrogatories, “DOCUMENTS” means any “writings” or 15 recorded material in the broadest sense defined in Section 250 of the California Evidence Code. 16 This includes, but is not limited to, all writings of any nature whatsoever, written, typed, 17 transcribed, translated, copied, recorded, e-mails and any other forms of electronic 18 communication, tape recordings, video recordings, and/or pictures, photographs, digital records 19 or visual displays, within the possession, custody or control of defendant, or of any agent, 20 employee, representative, or other person acting on defendant’s behalf, or in concert with 21 defendant, whether prepared by defendant, or by any other person.) 22 DATED: October 5, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, APC. 23 24 By: Larry W. Lee 25 Max Gavron Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5) 3 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. 5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] 6 7 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 8 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. 9 On October 5, 2021, I served the following document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF’S 10 THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TRADER JOE’S COMPANY on the interested parties in this action as follows: 11 Helene Wasserman 12 hwasserman@littler.com 13 Shannon R. Boyce sboyce@littler.com 14 Kennell M. Sambour ksambour@littler.com 15 Carolyn Ward 16 cward@littler.com Littler Mendelson, P.C. 17 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 18 Attorneys for Defendant Trader Joe’s Company 19 X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order I caused the above- 20 entitled document(s) to be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website www.california.tylerhost.net, addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic service list for 21 the above-entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the 22 filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, or maintained with the original document(s) in this office. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 above is true and correct. Executed on October 5, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. 25 26 _________________________________ Olympia Pena 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT B 1 Helene Wasserman, Bar No. 130134 hwasserman@littler.com 2 Shannon R. Boyce, Bar No. 229041 sboyce@littler.com 3 Melissa Velez, Bar No. 316714 mvelez@littler.com 4 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5 5th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067.3107 6 Telephone: 310.553.0308 Fax No.: 310.553.5583 7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 11 12 VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892 13 behalf of all others similarly situated, TRADER JOE’S COMPANY’S 14 Plaintiff, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 15 v. THIRD SET 16 TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, JUDGE THOMAS P. ANDERLE, DEPT. 3 17 Defendant. Trial Date: None Set 18 Complaint Filed: February 14, 2020 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Victoria Tice 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joe’s Company 21 SET NUMBER: Three (3) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210 et seq., Defendant TRADER 2 JOE’S COMPANY (“Defendant” or “Responding Party”) provides the following objections and 3 responses to Plaintiff VICTORIA TICE’S Special Interrogatories, Set Three (“Interrogatories”) as 4 follows: 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 6 These answers and objections are made solely for the purpose of this action. The following 7 answers are based upon information presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery, both 8 internal and external, is still ongoing, and Defendant reserves the right to supplement these answers 9 with subsequently discovered information and/or to introduce such information at trial. Each 10 answer is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility 11 and any and all other objections or grounds that would require exclusion of the answers produced 12 by Defendant, or any part thereof, if any of these answers were presented in court. 13 The fact that Defendant has responded to or objected to any request or Interrogatory or part 14 thereof may not be taken as an admission that it admits the existence of any fact set forth in or 15 assumed by such request or Interrogatory or that such answer constitutes relevant evidence other 16 than as expressly admitted herein. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these 17 answers. The fact that Defendant has answered part or all of any request or Interrogatory shall not 18 be construed to be a waiver by Defendant of any objections to part or all of any request or 19 Interrogatory. 20 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 21 1. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the 22 Interrogatories seek information protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work- 23 product doctrine. 24 2. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent that the 25 Interrogatories are overly broad as to time and scope, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and/or 26 seek information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. 2049 C entury Park East 2 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 3. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent that the 2 Interrogatories seek confidential documents and/or information, the disclosure of which would 3 constitute an unwarranted invasion of constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to business 4 and/or personal privacy and confidentiality, and/or trade secrets or other confidential information 5 or documents. 6 4. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent that the 7 Interrogatories demand the production of information and/or documents already in the possession 8 of and/or equally available to Plaintiff. 9 5. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the 10 Interrogatories necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit or 11 summary of or from documents of the party to whom the Interrogatories are directed, and that the 12 burden and/or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 13 propounding party. 14 6. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the 15 Interrogatories are not full and complete in and of themselves and refer to outside documents or 16 require references to preceding or other interrogatories in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 17 2030.060(d). 18 7. Defendant objects to these Interrogatories, and each of them, to the extent the 19 Interrogatories contain subparts, or are compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive in violation of Code 20 of Civil Procedure section 2030.060. 21 Subject to and without waiving these General Objections, or any other objections or claims 22 of privilege, Defendant hereby responds and objects to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, 23 as follows: 24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1: 26 Please state the number of individuals who separated employment during the PAGA 27 PERIOD that YOU paid on paycards at the time of separation of employment (whether voluntary 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 3 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 or involuntary) for whom YOU do not have a written authorization for payment via paycard. (For 2 purposes of these Special Interrogatories, “YOU,” “YOUR” and “DEFENDANT” shall refer to 3 Defendant Trader Joe’s Company. “PAGA PERIOD” shall refer to the time period from February 4 10, 2019, through the present.). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1: 6 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 7 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects as to the term “written authorization” as vague and 8 ambiguous such that Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. 9 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome 10 and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant 11 to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 12 admissible evidence. 13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 14 For the time period of February 10, 2019 to November 12, 2021, there are approximately 348 crew 15 members who were paid on paycards at the time of separation of employment, for whom no written 16 authorization for payment via paycard has yet been located. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant 17 reserves the right to supplement this response as necessary. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2: 19 Please IDENTIFY all employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 20 7. (“IDENTIFY” means stating the name and the last known address and telephone numbers.) 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2: 22 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 23 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing, 24 and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim 25 is currently pending. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad 26 and unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information 27 which is neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to 28 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 4 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 that disclosure of the information sought would violate the privacy rights of third parties to this 2 litigation under the Constitution of the United States and the State of California and under common 3 law privacy principles. 4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 5 Produced herewith is a listing of crew members issued paycards for the period of February 10, 2019 6 to November 12, 2021, for whom no written authorization has yet been located, with contact 7 information included. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3: 9 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please IDENTIFY 10 the paycard provider YOU used to issue payment to that employee during the PAGA PERIOD. 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3: 12 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 13 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing, 14 and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim 15 is currently pending. Defendant additionally objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, 16 harassing, and oppressive to the extent duplicative of prior written discovery in this matter. 17 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome 18 and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant 19 to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 20 admissible evidence. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 22 Defendant has issued Comdata paycards throughout the relevant period. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4: 24 For each employee YOU state in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state the 25 account number and routing number of the paycard issued to that employee during the PAGA 26 PERIOD. 27 28 LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 5 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4: 2 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 3 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, harassing, 4 and oppressive to the extent any response to this Interrogatory would require a person-by-person 5 review of individual allegedly aggrieved employee authorizations forms. Further, Defendant’s 6 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant objects to 7 this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope 8 of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that disclosure of the information sought would 11 violate the privacy rights of third parties to this litigation under the Constitution of the United States 12 and the State of California and under common law privacy principles. 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 5: 14 Do YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 15 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7? 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 5: 17 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 18 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect 19 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory 20 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike 21 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this 22 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that 23 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant 24 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal 25 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly 26 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is 27 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to 28 the discovery of admissible evidence. LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 6 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 2 Yes. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6: 4 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 5 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please state 6 all facts supporting that contention. 7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6: 8 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 9 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect 10 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory 11 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike 12 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this 13 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that 14 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant 15 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal 16 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly 17 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is 18 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to 19 the discovery of admissible evidence. 20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 21 Throughout the relevant time period, the payroll department has consistently instructed store 22 management to provide departing Crew Members with their paycard (and contents of paycard 23 envelope, which includes instructions and fee schedule), final pay stub, consent form, and a helpful 24 hints document which provides tips for using the paycard. While payroll has always provided 25 information on how the forms were to be completed, including expected use of a voluntary written 26 consent form, the payroll department did not explicitly instruct store management to require 27 signature on the consent form in order for a departing Crew Member to take his or her paycard prior 28 to February 2020. While recognizing this “best practice,” Trader Joe’s ultimate objective has LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 7 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 always been to ensure its departing Crew Members are paid appropriately and timely. Accordingly, 2 although not Trader Joe’s expected “best practice,” verbal consent may be sufficient authorization 3 for receipt of a paycard. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 7: 5 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 6 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please 7 IDENTIFY all witnesses supporting that contention. 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 7: 9 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 10 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect 11 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory 12 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike 13 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this 14 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that 15 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant 16 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal 17 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly 18 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is 19 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to 20 the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 22 To the extent verbal consent is an individualized issue, witnesses include individual allegedly 23 aggrieved employees and members of management, as well as any other crew members present at 24 the time of separation. 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 8: 26 If YOU contend verbal consent is sufficient authorization to issue wages in the form of a 27 paycard to the employees YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, please 28 describe all DOCUMENTS supporting that contention. (For purposes of these interrogatories, LITTLER MEND ELSO N P.C. Attorneys at Law 8 2049 C entury Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 3 1 “DOCUMENTS” means any “writings” or recorded material in the broadest sense defined in 2 Section 250 of the California Evidence Code. This includes, but is not limited to, all writings of 3 any nature whatsoever, written, typed, transcribed, translated, copied, recorded, e-mails and any 4 other forms of electronic communication, tape recordings, video recordings, and/or pictures, 5 photographs, digital records or visual displays, within the possession, custody or control of 6 defendant, or of any agent, employee, representative, or other person acting on defendant’s behalf, 7 or in concert with defendant, whether prepared by defendant, or by any other person.) 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 8: 9 Defendant incorporates all of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as though 10 fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect 11 to the terms “verbal consent” and “sufficient authorization.” Defendant objects to this Interrogatory 12 as unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent Defendant’s Motion to Strike 13 Plaintiff’s PAGA representative claim is currently pending. Defendant further objects that this 14 Interrogatory unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information that 15 is individualized in nature, which is not manageable for trial on a representative basis. Defendant 16 also objects to the extent this Interrogatory poses an incomplete hypothetical and calls for a legal 17 conclusion. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly 18 burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is 19 neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint nor reasonably calculated to lead to 20 the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 22 Depending upon the specific crew member separation, no documentation may exist evidencing 23 verbal consent. Discovery is ongoing. 24 Dated: November 19, 2021 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 25 26 Helene Wasserm