Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
1 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) County of Santa Barbara
Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
12/13/2021 4:40 PM
By: Terri Chavez, Deputy
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
3
Los Angeles, CA 90071
4 (213) 488-6555
(213) 488-6554 facsimile
5
William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131)
6 Polaris Law Group
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
7
Hollister, CA 95023
8 (831) 531-4214
(831) 634-0333 facsimile
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
12
13 VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892
behalf of all others similarly situated,
14 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle,
15 Plaintiff, Department 3]
16 vs. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
17 DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL
18 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE; AND
19 inclusive, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
20 Defendants.
Date: January 11, 2022
21 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: SB Dept. 3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 11, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter
3 as the matter may be heard in 13 of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
4 Barbara, located at 1100 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93121, Plaintiff Victoria Tice
5 (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby does move the Court for an Order compelling Defendant Trader
6 Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Special
7 Interrogatories, No. 10.
8 This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a)
9 and (d) on the ground that Defendant has failed to provide full and complete responses to
10 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, No. 10. Instead, Defendant has set forth baseless and improper
11 objections and have refused to provide the information requested. Counsel for Plaintiff has
12 attempted to secure further responses without the necessity of Court intervention. However, such
13 efforts have been entirely rejected by Defendant.
14 This Motion shall be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further
15 Responses, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declaration
16 of Max W. Gavron and any exhibits attached thereto, the accompanying Separate Statement of
17 Discovery Items in Dispute, the papers and pleadings previously filed with the Court in this
18 action, and on any such further matters or material, evidence, papers, or argument that may be
19 presented at or before the hearing on this Motion.
20 DATED: December 13, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
21
22 By: __________________________
Larry W. Lee
23
Max Gavron
24 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
25
26
27
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”) has brought this action as a class and representative
4 Private Attorneys General Act (the “PAGA”) action against Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”).
5 As alleged in the operative Complaint, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties arising from Defendant’s
6 various wage and hour violations, including violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203 and 2698, et
7 seq.
8 Plaintiff’s claims center of Defendant’s practice of distributing paycards to employees as
9 their final wages, which Plaintiff contends resulted in employees not receiving all wages due and
10 owing at the time of separation. To demonstrate which employees incurred fees while using
11 their paycards, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce the routing and account numbers for
12 the paycards issued to the aggrieved employees. With this information, Plaintiff would then
13 subpoena the paycard provider directly to obtain ledgers that would demonstrate the amount of
14 any fees and when they were incurred, as Plaintiff’s counsel has done before in other cases.
15 Defendant has refused to produce the routing and account numbers, necessitating this Motion.
16 On December 8, 2021, the Parties participated in an informal discovery conference
17 (“IDC”) with the Court regarding the substance of this Motion. After hearing argument from the
18 Parties, the Court indicated its willingness to compel production of the information requested by
19 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 10—the routing and accounting numbers of the COMDATA
20 pay cards issued to the aggrieved employees. Plaintiff’s counsel asked after the IDC whether
21 Defendant would produce the requested information and proposed redactions to any records
22 obtained from COMDATA to alleviate any privacy concerns. However, the Parties were unable
23 to resolve their dispute prior to the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Strike, on December 14,
24 2021. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves to compel as she explained she would do in her Opposition
25 to Defendant’s Motion to Strike to obtain the information necessary to subpoena COMDATA to
26 determine which aggrieved employees were subject to fees while using their final wages, and
27 thus suffered a violation of Labor Code § 203.
3
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2 As the Court may recall, this case centers on Defendant’s practice of issuing paycards,
3 which are subject to a host of different fees, to employees upon separation of employment
4 without authorization. Plaintiff alleges this policy violates the California Labor Code.
5 On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on Defendant
6 Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”). Ex. A to Declaration of Max Gavron (“Gavron Decl.”).
7 On November 8, 2021, Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim.
8 Defendant’s Motion is set to be heard by the Court on December 14, 2021, and Plaintiff opposed
9 Defendant’s Motion. Gavron Decl. ¶ 4.
10 On November 19, 2021, Defendant served its responses and objections to Plaintiff’s
11 Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Gavron Decl., Ex. B. Defendant’s responses did not
12 correspond to the numbering provided by Plaintiff. On November 29, 2021, Defendant served
13 amended responses that corrected the numbering issue. Gavron Decl., Ex. C.
14 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 10, which Defendant originally identified in its
15 responses as Interrogatory No. 4, requested that Defendant identify the routing and accounting
16 numbers for the COMDATA card issued to each employee within the period encompassed by
17 Plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claim. Ex. A. Defendant did not provide a
18 substantive response to this request. Instead, Defendant objected on various grounds, including
19 privacy, that producing the information would be burdensome, and that the information exceeds
20 the scope of discovery.
21 III. LEGAL STANDARD
22 Each party generally has the right to "obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
23 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... or appears
24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Sinaiko Healthcare
25 Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402 (2007). A responding
26 party is under a duty to furnish all information that is reasonably known to it and that it can
27 reasonably and in good faith obtain. See Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a) ("Each answer in
4
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information
2 reasonably available to the responding party permits.").
3 "If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
4 possible." Id. § 2030.220(b). If a responding party is unable to supply requested information, the
5 party may not simply refuse to answer but must "so state" and "make a reasonable and good faith
6 effort to obtain the information." Id. § 2030.220(c). That means that "[i]f [the responding party]
7 cannot furnish details, [it] should set forth the efforts made to secure the information." Deyo v.
8 Kilbourne, 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 (1978). It "cannot plead ignorance to information which can
9 be obtained from sources under [its] control." Id.
10 To justify a vague and ambiguous objection, the objecting party must demonstrate that
11 the discovery request is totally unintelligible. See Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783
12 (1978); Standon v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 903 (1978) (vague and ambiguous
13 objection considered nuisance objection); Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 606 (S.D. Cal.
14 2012) (“The party objecting to discovery as vague or ambiguous has the burden to show such
15 vagueness or ambiguity. The responding party should exercise common sense and attribute
16 ordinary definitions to terms in discovery requests.”).
17 Privacy concerns can be alleviated by using the stipulated protective order entered by the
18 Court already.
19 IV. MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS & GOOD CAUSE SUPPORTING
20 PRODUCTION
21 On December 8, 2021, the Parties participated in an IDC with the Court where they
22 explained their respective positions. Prior to and after the IDC, the Parties met and conferred to
23 try to resolve this dispute without Court intervention. However, the Parties were unable to do so.
24 Gavron Decl. ¶¶ 8-11, Ex. D.
25 The account and routing number for the paycards is relevant and discoverable because
26 Plaintiff will use this information to obtain information from COMDATA to demonstrate
27 whether employees incurred fees when using their paycards. Defendant’s objections are without
5
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 merit. While Defendant contends the Motion to Strike weighs in favor of not producing the
2 information, the opposite is true. Defendant has already produced the card number and routing
3 number for cards in its exemplar communications, and so its objections regarding privacy are
4 undermined by the fact that it already produced the information. See, e.g. TJ_000262,
5 TJ_000273, TJ_000287, TJ_000302, TJ_000316. Gavron Decl. ¶ 8.
6 With respect to Defendant’s privacy objection, in addition to the fact that Defendant
7 already produced account and routing numbers through the discovery process, the Parties entered
8 a stipulated protective order, which can be used to alleviate any privacy concerns. While
9 Plaintiff is already in possession of the names and contact information of the aggrieved
10 employees, Plaintiff needs the account and routing numbers of the cards issued to them to be
11 able to send a subpoena to COMDATA to obtain information regarding whether those cards
12 were subjected to fees. Plaintiff’s counsel has issued subpoenas to paycard companies
13 previously in other cases and obtained a ledger detailing which cards were subject to fees.
14 Gavron Decl. ¶ 10.
15 Subpoenaing the information without using the account and routing number presents
16 problems because a person could have received a COMDATA paycard from a different
17 employer, or there could be two individuals with the same name. Id. Accordingly, subpoenaing
18 the information from COMDATA with the account and routing numbers is the most effective
19 and efficient way to obtain information regarding which aggrieved employees incurred fees
20 associated with using their cards. Id.
21 Plaintiff also proposed a way to redact information obtained from the paycard provider to
22 alleviate any privacy concerns. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff proposed that Trans Details, Trans
23 City, Amount, and Running Balance Column from the account ledger could all be redacted with
24 the exception of the first row, which denotes the final wages loaded on the paycard by
25 Defendant. In other words, the records would reflect when the card was loaded, and whether the
26 employee incurred any fees, and if so, the type of fees and date incurred. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11, Ex.
27 D. Below is an example of the ledger for ease of reference:
6
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Motion be granted,
3 that the Court order Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories,
4 Set Three.
5
6 DATED: December 13, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
7
8 By: __________________________
Larry W. Lee
9 Max Gavron
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California 1 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) County of Santa Barbara Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 12/13/2021 4:40 PM By: Terri Chavez, Deputy 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 5 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) 6 Polaris Law Group 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 7 Hollister, CA 95023 8 (831) 531-4214 (831) 634-0333 facsimile 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 12 13 VICTORIA TICE, as an individual and on Case No. 20CV00892 behalf of all others similarly situated, 14 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, 15 Plaintiff, Department 3] 16 vs. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 17 DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a California PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL 18 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE; AND 19 inclusive, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 20 Defendants. Date: January 11, 2022 21 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: SB Dept. 3 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 11, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter 3 as the matter may be heard in 13 of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa 4 Barbara, located at 1100 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93121, Plaintiff Victoria Tice 5 (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby does move the Court for an Order compelling Defendant Trader 6 Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Special 7 Interrogatories, No. 10. 8 This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) 9 and (d) on the ground that Defendant has failed to provide full and complete responses to 10 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, No. 10. Instead, Defendant has set forth baseless and improper 11 objections and have refused to provide the information requested. Counsel for Plaintiff has 12 attempted to secure further responses without the necessity of Court intervention. However, such 13 efforts have been entirely rejected by Defendant. 14 This Motion shall be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further 15 Responses, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declaration 16 of Max W. Gavron and any exhibits attached thereto, the accompanying Separate Statement of 17 Discovery Items in Dispute, the papers and pleadings previously filed with the Court in this 18 action, and on any such further matters or material, evidence, papers, or argument that may be 19 presented at or before the hearing on this Motion. 20 DATED: December 13, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 21 22 By: __________________________ Larry W. Lee 23 Max Gavron 24 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 25 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff Victoria Tice (“Plaintiff”) has brought this action as a class and representative 4 Private Attorneys General Act (the “PAGA”) action against Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”). 5 As alleged in the operative Complaint, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties arising from Defendant’s 6 various wage and hour violations, including violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203 and 2698, et 7 seq. 8 Plaintiff’s claims center of Defendant’s practice of distributing paycards to employees as 9 their final wages, which Plaintiff contends resulted in employees not receiving all wages due and 10 owing at the time of separation. To demonstrate which employees incurred fees while using 11 their paycards, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce the routing and account numbers for 12 the paycards issued to the aggrieved employees. With this information, Plaintiff would then 13 subpoena the paycard provider directly to obtain ledgers that would demonstrate the amount of 14 any fees and when they were incurred, as Plaintiff’s counsel has done before in other cases. 15 Defendant has refused to produce the routing and account numbers, necessitating this Motion. 16 On December 8, 2021, the Parties participated in an informal discovery conference 17 (“IDC”) with the Court regarding the substance of this Motion. After hearing argument from the 18 Parties, the Court indicated its willingness to compel production of the information requested by 19 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 10—the routing and accounting numbers of the COMDATA 20 pay cards issued to the aggrieved employees. Plaintiff’s counsel asked after the IDC whether 21 Defendant would produce the requested information and proposed redactions to any records 22 obtained from COMDATA to alleviate any privacy concerns. However, the Parties were unable 23 to resolve their dispute prior to the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Strike, on December 14, 24 2021. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves to compel as she explained she would do in her Opposition 25 to Defendant’s Motion to Strike to obtain the information necessary to subpoena COMDATA to 26 determine which aggrieved employees were subject to fees while using their final wages, and 27 thus suffered a violation of Labor Code § 203. 3 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 As the Court may recall, this case centers on Defendant’s practice of issuing paycards, 3 which are subject to a host of different fees, to employees upon separation of employment 4 without authorization. Plaintiff alleges this policy violates the California Labor Code. 5 On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on Defendant 6 Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”). Ex. A to Declaration of Max Gavron (“Gavron Decl.”). 7 On November 8, 2021, Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim. 8 Defendant’s Motion is set to be heard by the Court on December 14, 2021, and Plaintiff opposed 9 Defendant’s Motion. Gavron Decl. ¶ 4. 10 On November 19, 2021, Defendant served its responses and objections to Plaintiff’s 11 Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Gavron Decl., Ex. B. Defendant’s responses did not 12 correspond to the numbering provided by Plaintiff. On November 29, 2021, Defendant served 13 amended responses that corrected the numbering issue. Gavron Decl., Ex. C. 14 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 10, which Defendant originally identified in its 15 responses as Interrogatory No. 4, requested that Defendant identify the routing and accounting 16 numbers for the COMDATA card issued to each employee within the period encompassed by 17 Plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claim. Ex. A. Defendant did not provide a 18 substantive response to this request. Instead, Defendant objected on various grounds, including 19 privacy, that producing the information would be burdensome, and that the information exceeds 20 the scope of discovery. 21 III. LEGAL STANDARD 22 Each party generally has the right to "obtain discovery regarding any matter, not 23 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... or appears 24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Sinaiko Healthcare 25 Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402 (2007). A responding 26 party is under a duty to furnish all information that is reasonably known to it and that it can 27 reasonably and in good faith obtain. See Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a) ("Each answer in 4 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information 2 reasonably available to the responding party permits."). 3 "If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent 4 possible." Id. § 2030.220(b). If a responding party is unable to supply requested information, the 5 party may not simply refuse to answer but must "so state" and "make a reasonable and good faith 6 effort to obtain the information." Id. § 2030.220(c). That means that "[i]f [the responding party] 7 cannot furnish details, [it] should set forth the efforts made to secure the information." Deyo v. 8 Kilbourne, 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 (1978). It "cannot plead ignorance to information which can 9 be obtained from sources under [its] control." Id. 10 To justify a vague and ambiguous objection, the objecting party must demonstrate that 11 the discovery request is totally unintelligible. See Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783 12 (1978); Standon v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 903 (1978) (vague and ambiguous 13 objection considered nuisance objection); Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 606 (S.D. Cal. 14 2012) (“The party objecting to discovery as vague or ambiguous has the burden to show such 15 vagueness or ambiguity. The responding party should exercise common sense and attribute 16 ordinary definitions to terms in discovery requests.”). 17 Privacy concerns can be alleviated by using the stipulated protective order entered by the 18 Court already. 19 IV. MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS & GOOD CAUSE SUPPORTING 20 PRODUCTION 21 On December 8, 2021, the Parties participated in an IDC with the Court where they 22 explained their respective positions. Prior to and after the IDC, the Parties met and conferred to 23 try to resolve this dispute without Court intervention. However, the Parties were unable to do so. 24 Gavron Decl. ¶¶ 8-11, Ex. D. 25 The account and routing number for the paycards is relevant and discoverable because 26 Plaintiff will use this information to obtain information from COMDATA to demonstrate 27 whether employees incurred fees when using their paycards. Defendant’s objections are without 5 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 merit. While Defendant contends the Motion to Strike weighs in favor of not producing the 2 information, the opposite is true. Defendant has already produced the card number and routing 3 number for cards in its exemplar communications, and so its objections regarding privacy are 4 undermined by the fact that it already produced the information. See, e.g. TJ_000262, 5 TJ_000273, TJ_000287, TJ_000302, TJ_000316. Gavron Decl. ¶ 8. 6 With respect to Defendant’s privacy objection, in addition to the fact that Defendant 7 already produced account and routing numbers through the discovery process, the Parties entered 8 a stipulated protective order, which can be used to alleviate any privacy concerns. While 9 Plaintiff is already in possession of the names and contact information of the aggrieved 10 employees, Plaintiff needs the account and routing numbers of the cards issued to them to be 11 able to send a subpoena to COMDATA to obtain information regarding whether those cards 12 were subjected to fees. Plaintiff’s counsel has issued subpoenas to paycard companies 13 previously in other cases and obtained a ledger detailing which cards were subject to fees. 14 Gavron Decl. ¶ 10. 15 Subpoenaing the information without using the account and routing number presents 16 problems because a person could have received a COMDATA paycard from a different 17 employer, or there could be two individuals with the same name. Id. Accordingly, subpoenaing 18 the information from COMDATA with the account and routing numbers is the most effective 19 and efficient way to obtain information regarding which aggrieved employees incurred fees 20 associated with using their cards. Id. 21 Plaintiff also proposed a way to redact information obtained from the paycard provider to 22 alleviate any privacy concerns. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff proposed that Trans Details, Trans 23 City, Amount, and Running Balance Column from the account ledger could all be redacted with 24 the exception of the first row, which denotes the final wages loaded on the paycard by 25 Defendant. In other words, the records would reflect when the card was loaded, and whether the 26 employee incurred any fees, and if so, the type of fees and date incurred. Gavron Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 27 D. Below is an example of the ledger for ease of reference: 6 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Motion be granted, 3 that the Court order Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, 4 Set Three. 5 6 DATED: December 13, 2021 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 7 8 By: __________________________ Larry W. Lee 9 Max Gavron 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE