Preview
TT
63640
Diana M. Estrada (State Bar No. 212702)
Jennifer A. Brody (State Bar No. 291668)
FILED
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900 ALAMEDA GOUNTY
Los Angeles, California 90071-2407
Telephone: (213) 443-5100 APR 2 8 2021
Facsimile: (213) 443-5101
E-mail: diana.estrada@wilsonelser.com CLERK He SUPER.CR COURT
jennifer.brody@wilsonelser.com B mee
y Deputy
Attomeys for Defendants
PPH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC;
PASSPORT HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11 Case No.: RG19017399
MARK TIRMAN, individually, and on behalf )
of all others similarly situated, )
12 ) [Assigned for allpurposes to Hon. Brad
13
Plaintiff, ) Seligman, Dept. 23]
)
14
) CLASS ACTION
VS. )
15
) DEFENDANT PPH FRANCHISE
) HOLDING, LLC’S EVIDENTIARY
16
PPH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC, ) OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
PASSPORT HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC and ) SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF MARK
\7
DOES | through 100, inclusive ) TIRMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
) FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
18 Defendant. [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
19
)
) [Concurrently filed with Opposition to Motion
20
) for Class Certification; Memorandum of
) Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; and
21
) Evidence}
)
22
) Date: May 11, 2021
)
“Utey
Time: 3:00 p.m.
23
) Dept: 23
)
24
)
Action Filed: May 2, 2019
25
26
Defendant PPH Franchise Holdings, LLC (‘Passport Health” or “Defendant’”) respectfully
27
submits the following evidentiary objections to PlaintiffMark Tirman’s (“Tirman” or“Plaintiff’)
28
evidence submitted in support of his Motion for Class Certification in the above-captioned action.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
253347513v.1
I.
- OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MARK TIRMAN
1. “During that time, I worked at PPH Lacks foundation. (Evid. Code § 403.)
Franchise Holdings, LLC's locations in Oakland, Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
San Mateo, Fremont, and Pleasanton, evidence "as to the existence ofa
California.” preliminary fact".
(Declaration of Mark Tirman in Support of Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
Motion for Class Certification (“Tirman’Decl.) — §§ 210, 403)
at ¥ 3,page 1,lines 26 through 27.)
Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
10 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
11 2. “There were no fundamental differences Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
12 between the work Idid at any of these Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
locations.” evidence “as to the existence of a
13 preliminary fact".
Tirman Decl. at3, page 1, line 27 and page 2,
14 line 1.) . Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
‘a preliminary fact (Evid: Code §
15
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
16 lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
could reasonably find that [the witness]
17 has such knowledge.” (People v.
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
18
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
19
§§ 210, 403)
20
Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
21 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23).
22 3. “During the period of my employment, I Lacks foundation (Evid. Code §403.)
was able to seamlessly transition from one Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
23
location to another without any need for re- - evidence "as to the existence of a
24|. orientation or retraining. Each of these locations preliminary fact”.
had the same equipment/materials and offered
25 the same services.” Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
a preliminary fact (Evid.
Code
26 (Tirman Decl. atJ 3, page 2, lines | through 3. | ‘|403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
27 lack of personal knowledge "if no jury
could reasonably find that [the witness]
28 has such knowledge." (People v.
2
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
2533475 13v.1
Biacrraneuen
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. Ath 543, 573.)
Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible
(Evid. Code §350.)
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403)
Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
Evid: Code §§ 1520-23)
4. “Tobserved an average of 3-4 nurses Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
10 working for each of the locations towhich I was a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
assigned. Based upon my knowledge of the other 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
11 locations, I believe the locations where I worked lack of personal knowledge “ifno jury
were typical of other locations in California.” could reasonably find that [the witness]
12 has such knowledge." (People v.
(Tirman Decl. atq 4, page 2, lines 4 through 6.) Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
13
14 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code §403.) -
Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
15 evidence "as to the existence of a
preliminary fact”.
16
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
17
§§ 210, 403)
18
‘Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
19 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
20 5. “I knew of many other nurses who worked Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
at these locations. Ihave no reason to believe a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
21
that my experience.was any different than the 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
22 nurses at any other locations.” lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
could reasonably find that [the witness].
23 (Tirman Decl. at | 55] page 2, lines 7 through 8.) has such knowledge." (People v.
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
24
Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
25
Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
26 evidence "as to the existence ofa
preliminary fact".
27
Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible
28
(Evid. Code § 350.)
3
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
2533475 13v.1
BESS. pitame oe
6. “Many nurses would regularly work at ] Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of 7
multiple locations.” apreliminary fact (Evid. Code §
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
(Tirman Decl. atJ 6, page 2, line 9.) lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury’
could reasonably find that [the witness]
has such knowledge." (People v.
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
sa N
Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
lo.)
evidence "as to the existence ofa
preliminary fact".
10
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
ll §§ 210, 403)
12 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
13
14 7. “TIclocked in and out using an application Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
called ‘Dayforce.’ I did not have access to clock (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
15 in or out except while at the clinic.” does not proffer evidence "as to the
existence of a preliminary fact".
16 (Tirman Decl. atJ 7, page 2, lines 10 through
17
11.) Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
18 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
19 could reasonably find that [the witness]
| has such knowledge." (People v.
20 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
21
Improper Testimony Regarding the
22 Contents of a Writing
23 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
"1 §§ 210, 403)
24
Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible
25
(Evid. Code § 350.)
26
Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
27 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
28
4
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
253347513v.1
2 “
. “When clocking in on Dayforce, there was Hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code $1200)
an option to change the location where you were ~
working (the “Work Transfer’ button), Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
specifically because many nurses would work at (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff's statement
multiple locations.” does not proffer evidence "as to the
existence of a preliminary fact".
(Tirman Decl. at {8, page 2, lines 12 through ©
14.) Improper Testimony Regarding the
Contents of a Writing
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403)
10
Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
12 lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury |
could reasonably find that [the witness]
13 has such knowledge." (People v.
14 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
15 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) .
16
9. “Nurses could cover shiftsfor other nurses Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
17 at other locations, and this happened frequently.” Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
18 evidence "as to the existence of a
(Tirman Decl. at 9, page 2, lines 15 through preliminary fact”.
19 16.)
Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
20 a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
21 lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
22 could reasonably find that [the witness] _
has such knowledge." (People v.
23 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
24 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible
25 (Evid. Code § 350.)
26 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
27
10. “The scheduling was complex because it Hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code §1200)
28 was dependent on what appointments were
5
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
’ FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
253347513v.1
booked and things would be changed atthe last Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
minute. The scheduling was so complex, PPH (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
employed people in the position of “Schedulers’ does not proffer evidence "as to the
just to handle the scheduling of nurses.” existence of a preliminary fact".
(Tirman Decl. atJ 10,page 2,lines 17 through Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
19.) |
oD)
apreliminary fact (Evid. Code §
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
a
lack of personal knowledge "1fno jury
could reasonably find that [the witness]
lo)
has such knowledge." (People v. —
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
10
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
ul 210, 403
12 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible
(Evid. Code § 350.)
13
14 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule ( Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
15
11. “The company had a strictpolicy “Hearsay, without exception (Cal.Evid.
16 regarding nurses clocking in before theirfirst Code §1200)
scheduled appointment. A nurse's official"Start
17 time" was the time of their firstappointment. So, Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
18 | ifmy firstappointment was at 9:00 a.m., I would 210, 403
be scheduled to start at 9:00 a.m. However, it
19 was not possible to arrive and begin work at 9:00 Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
‘a.m. and be prepared to see the firstpatient at (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
20 9:00 a.m.” does not proffer evidence "as to the
existence of a preliminary fact".
21
(Tirman Decl. at{ 11,page 2,lines 20 through
22 24.) Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
23 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
lack of personal knowledge “ifno jury
24 could reasonably find that [the witness]
has such knowledge.". (People v.
25
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
26
Improper Testimony Regarding the
27 Contents of a Writing
28 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
6
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
2533475 13v.1
LEE
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
12. “Before seeing any patients, there were Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
administrative tasks I was required to perform in Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
the clinic, such as setting up my workstation, | evidence "as to the existence of a
logging temperature checks on-the fridge, preliminary fact".
N
printing the itineraries for patients to be seen that
day, and preparing and printing paperwork for Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
s
patients to sign.” a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
Oo
(Tirman Decl. atJ 12,page 2, lines 25 through lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
oO
26, and page 3, lines 1-2. ) could reasonably find that [the witness]
10 has such knowledge." (People v.
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
12 §§ 210, 403)
13 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
14 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
15 13. “For each patient, wasrequiredtodo | Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
research on the area they were planning to visit Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
16 to ensure we were recommending allthe evidence "asto the existence of a
necessary shots for that location. These preliminary fact”.
17 recommendations were updated frequently, so I
18 had to check this information before each Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
appointment to prepare. Iwould also review the a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
19 patient's medical history for any information 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
relevant to these recommendations”. lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
20 could reasonably find that [the witness]
(Tirman Decl. atJ 13, page 3, lines 3 through 7.) has such knowledge." (People v.
21
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
22 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403)
23
14. “In order to be prepared to see my first Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
24 patient, I would often arrive at work 1hour or Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
25 more before the firstpatient was scheduled. I '|evidence "as to the existence of a
had no choice but to do this or Iwould not be - preliminary fact".
26 able to complete my duties for the day.”
Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible
27 (Tirman Decl. at { 14,page 3,lines 8 through (Evid. Code § 350.)
10.)
28 15. “Because nurses would often arrive and Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code § |
7
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
2533475 13v.1
clock ini
ahead of their firstappointment, the 1200.)
company came out with apolicy that nurses Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
were prohibited from clocking in more than 30 (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
minutes before their first appointment. This time does not proffer evidence "as tothe
was later reduced to only 15 minutes. Ifa nurse existence of a preliminary fact”.
clocked in earlier than 30 (or 15)minutes before
they were scheduled to startwork, that time | Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
would be taken off their timesheet and not paid.” a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
(Tirman Decl. at { 15,page 3, lines 11 through lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
15.) could reasonably find that [the witness]
has such knowledge." (People v.
10 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
WW Improper Testimony Regarding the
Contents of a Writing ©
12
| Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
13 §§ 210, 403)
14
Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
15 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
16 16. “Likewise, there were tasks Iwas required Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.)
to perform atthe end of my shiftafter the last Plaintiff's statement does not proffer
17 patient had left.I had to complete allcharting for evidence "as to the existence ofa
18 the
logs
patients
and
Ihad
checks
seen
on
that
equipment
day, complete
and
other
supplies,
preliminary fact".
19 close up my work station, restock supplies, Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
vacuum, take out the trash, and (ifpossible) §§ 210, 403)
20 begin to prepare for the next day.‘This would
sometimes take an hour or more.” Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
21 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
22 (Tirman Decl. at J 16,page 3, lines 16 through
20.)
23 17. “The company has a policy that nurses are Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code §
not allowed to clock out more than 30 minutes | 1200.)
24 after the end of their lastappointment.If a nurse
clocks out beyond this time, their time punch Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
25
will be changed by HR and they are not tpaid for (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
26 that time.” does not proffer evidence "as to the
existence of a preliminary fact".
27 (Tirman Decl. at J 17,page 3, lines 21 through
23.) Speculation/ lacks personal knowledge of
28 apreliminary fact (Evid. Code §
8
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
2533475 13v.1
403(a)\(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury
could reasonably find that [the witness]
| has such knowledge." (People v.
Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
Improper Testimony Regarding the
Contents of a Writing
Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule ( Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
10
§§ 210, 403) ,
11
Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible. ©
12 (Evid. Code § 350.)
13 18. “The company also had a policy and Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code §
14 practice toschedule appointments back to back. 1200.)
The goal was tomake sure each nurse was fully
15 scheduled their entire shift.There was no time _ Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
between the appointments. For example, one (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
16 appointment would end at 10:00 a.m. and the does not proffer evidence “as to the
next appointment was scheduled to start at 10:00 existence of a preliminary fact".
17 a.m.” a
18 Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
(Tirman Decl. at ] 18, page 3, lines 24 through | a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
19 27.) oe 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
lack of personal knowledge "if no jury
20 | could reasonably find that [the witness]
has such knowledge." (People v.
21 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.)
22
Improper Testimony Regarding the
23 Contents of a Writing
24 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 1520-23)
25
26 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403)
27
19. “Because there was no time between Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
28 appointments, I often had no time totake rest (Evid. Code §403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
9
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
'253347513v.1
SRST
periods during my shifts. In order to "keep ap does not proffer evidence "as tothe
with the preparations for upcoming existence of a preliminary fact".
appointments and charting for prior.
appointments, I had to work nonstop.” Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal.
Evid. Code SS 1520-23)
(Tirman Decl. at{ 19, page 4, lines 1 through 3.)
Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code
§§ 210, 403)
20. “In addition, appointments would often run Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code §
long, especially when there were multiple family 1200.)
members in the appointment. PPH set stricttime
10 limits for how long each appointment was Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity
_supposed to take. The time limits were not based (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement
is on the complexity of the case or the number of does not proffer evidence “as tothe
shots that were required. A travel visit was existence of a preliminary fact".
12 always 45 minutes, regardless of how complex
the case was or even how many people were Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of
13 being seen.” a preliminary fact (Evid. Code §
14 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for
Preview
TT 63640 Diana M. Estrada (State Bar No. 212702) Jennifer A. Brody (State Bar No. 291668) FILED WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900 ALAMEDA GOUNTY Los Angeles, California 90071-2407 Telephone: (213) 443-5100 APR 2 8 2021 Facsimile: (213) 443-5101 E-mail: diana.estrada@wilsonelser.com CLERK He SUPER.CR COURT jennifer.brody@wilsonelser.com B mee y Deputy Attomeys for Defendants PPH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC; PASSPORT HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 Case No.: RG19017399 MARK TIRMAN, individually, and on behalf ) of all others similarly situated, ) 12 ) [Assigned for allpurposes to Hon. Brad 13 Plaintiff, ) Seligman, Dept. 23] ) 14 ) CLASS ACTION VS. ) 15 ) DEFENDANT PPH FRANCHISE ) HOLDING, LLC’S EVIDENTIARY 16 PPH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC, ) OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PASSPORT HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC and ) SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF MARK \7 DOES | through 100, inclusive ) TIRMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ) FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND 18 Defendant. [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 19 ) ) [Concurrently filed with Opposition to Motion 20 ) for Class Certification; Memorandum of ) Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; and 21 ) Evidence} ) 22 ) Date: May 11, 2021 ) “Utey Time: 3:00 p.m. 23 ) Dept: 23 ) 24 ) Action Filed: May 2, 2019 25 26 Defendant PPH Franchise Holdings, LLC (‘Passport Health” or “Defendant’”) respectfully 27 submits the following evidentiary objections to PlaintiffMark Tirman’s (“Tirman” or“Plaintiff’) 28 evidence submitted in support of his Motion for Class Certification in the above-captioned action. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 253347513v.1 I. - OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MARK TIRMAN 1. “During that time, I worked at PPH Lacks foundation. (Evid. Code § 403.) Franchise Holdings, LLC's locations in Oakland, Plaintiff's statement does not proffer San Mateo, Fremont, and Pleasanton, evidence "as to the existence ofa California.” preliminary fact". (Declaration of Mark Tirman in Support of Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code Motion for Class Certification (“Tirman’Decl.) — §§ 210, 403) at ¥ 3,page 1,lines 26 through 27.) Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 10 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 11 2. “There were no fundamental differences Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) 12 between the work Idid at any of these Plaintiff's statement does not proffer locations.” evidence “as to the existence of a 13 preliminary fact". Tirman Decl. at3, page 1, line 27 and page 2, 14 line 1.) . Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of ‘a preliminary fact (Evid: Code § 15 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for 16 lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury could reasonably find that [the witness] 17 has such knowledge.” (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 18 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code 19 §§ 210, 403) 20 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 21 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23). 22 3. “During the period of my employment, I Lacks foundation (Evid. Code §403.) was able to seamlessly transition from one Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 23 location to another without any need for re- - evidence "as to the existence of a 24|. orientation or retraining. Each of these locations preliminary fact”. had the same equipment/materials and offered 25 the same services.” Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of a preliminary fact (Evid. Code 26 (Tirman Decl. atJ 3, page 2, lines | through 3. | ‘|403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for 27 lack of personal knowledge "if no jury could reasonably find that [the witness] 28 has such knowledge." (People v. 2 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 2533475 13v.1 Biacrraneuen Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. Ath 543, 573.) Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible (Evid. Code §350.) Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code §§ 210, 403) Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. Evid: Code §§ 1520-23) 4. “Tobserved an average of 3-4 nurses Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of 10 working for each of the locations towhich I was a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § assigned. Based upon my knowledge of the other 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for 11 locations, I believe the locations where I worked lack of personal knowledge “ifno jury were typical of other locations in California.” could reasonably find that [the witness] 12 has such knowledge." (People v. (Tirman Decl. atq 4, page 2, lines 4 through 6.) Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 13 14 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code §403.) - Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 15 evidence "as to the existence of a preliminary fact”. 16 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code 17 §§ 210, 403) 18 ‘Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 19 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 20 5. “I knew of many other nurses who worked Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of at these locations. Ihave no reason to believe a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 21 that my experience.was any different than the 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for 22 nurses at any other locations.” lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury could reasonably find that [the witness]. 23 (Tirman Decl. at | 55] page 2, lines 7 through 8.) has such knowledge." (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 24 Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) 25 Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 26 evidence "as to the existence ofa preliminary fact". 27 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible 28 (Evid. Code § 350.) 3 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 2533475 13v.1 BESS. pitame oe 6. “Many nurses would regularly work at ] Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of 7 multiple locations.” apreliminary fact (Evid. Code § 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for (Tirman Decl. atJ 6, page 2, line 9.) lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury’ could reasonably find that [the witness] has such knowledge." (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) sa N Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff's statement does not proffer lo.) evidence "as to the existence ofa preliminary fact". 10 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code ll §§ 210, 403) 12 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 13 14 7. “TIclocked in and out using an application Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity called ‘Dayforce.’ I did not have access to clock (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement 15 in or out except while at the clinic.” does not proffer evidence "as to the existence of a preliminary fact". 16 (Tirman Decl. atJ 7, page 2, lines 10 through 17 11.) Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 18 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury 19 could reasonably find that [the witness] | has such knowledge." (People v. 20 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 21 Improper Testimony Regarding the 22 Contents of a Writing 23 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code "1 §§ 210, 403) 24 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible 25 (Evid. Code § 350.) 26 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 27 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 28 4 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 253347513v.1 2 “ . “When clocking in on Dayforce, there was Hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code $1200) an option to change the location where you were ~ working (the “Work Transfer’ button), Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity specifically because many nurses would work at (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff's statement multiple locations.” does not proffer evidence "as to the existence of a preliminary fact". (Tirman Decl. at {8, page 2, lines 12 through © 14.) Improper Testimony Regarding the Contents of a Writing Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code §§ 210, 403) 10 Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for 12 lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury | could reasonably find that [the witness] 13 has such knowledge." (People v. 14 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 15 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) . 16 9. “Nurses could cover shiftsfor other nurses Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) 17 at other locations, and this happened frequently.” Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 18 evidence "as to the existence of a (Tirman Decl. at 9, page 2, lines 15 through preliminary fact”. 19 16.) Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of 20 a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for 21 lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury 22 could reasonably find that [the witness] _ has such knowledge." (People v. 23 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 24 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible 25 (Evid. Code § 350.) 26 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 27 10. “The scheduling was complex because it Hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code §1200) 28 was dependent on what appointments were 5 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ’ FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 253347513v.1 booked and things would be changed atthe last Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity minute. The scheduling was so complex, PPH (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement employed people in the position of “Schedulers’ does not proffer evidence "as to the just to handle the scheduling of nurses.” existence of a preliminary fact". (Tirman Decl. atJ 10,page 2,lines 17 through Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of 19.) | oD) apreliminary fact (Evid. Code § 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for a lack of personal knowledge "1fno jury could reasonably find that [the witness] lo) has such knowledge." (People v. — Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 10 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code ul 210, 403 12 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible (Evid. Code § 350.) 13 14 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule ( Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 15 11. “The company had a strictpolicy “Hearsay, without exception (Cal.Evid. 16 regarding nurses clocking in before theirfirst Code §1200) scheduled appointment. A nurse's official"Start 17 time" was the time of their firstappointment. So, Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code 18 | ifmy firstappointment was at 9:00 a.m., I would 210, 403 be scheduled to start at 9:00 a.m. However, it 19 was not possible to arrive and begin work at 9:00 Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity ‘a.m. and be prepared to see the firstpatient at (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement 20 9:00 a.m.” does not proffer evidence "as to the existence of a preliminary fact". 21 (Tirman Decl. at{ 11,page 2,lines 20 through 22 24.) Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 23 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for lack of personal knowledge “ifno jury 24 could reasonably find that [the witness] has such knowledge.". (People v. 25 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 26 Improper Testimony Regarding the 27 Contents of a Writing 28 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 6 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 2533475 13v.1 LEE Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 12. “Before seeing any patients, there were Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) administrative tasks I was required to perform in Plaintiff's statement does not proffer the clinic, such as setting up my workstation, | evidence "as to the existence of a logging temperature checks on-the fridge, preliminary fact". N printing the itineraries for patients to be seen that day, and preparing and printing paperwork for Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of s patients to sign.” a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for Oo (Tirman Decl. atJ 12,page 2, lines 25 through lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury oO 26, and page 3, lines 1-2. ) could reasonably find that [the witness] 10 has such knowledge." (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code 12 §§ 210, 403) 13 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 14 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 15 13. “For each patient, wasrequiredtodo | Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) research on the area they were planning to visit Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 16 to ensure we were recommending allthe evidence "asto the existence of a necessary shots for that location. These preliminary fact”. 17 recommendations were updated frequently, so I 18 had to check this information before each Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of appointment to prepare. Iwould also review the a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 19 patient's medical history for any information 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for relevant to these recommendations”. lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury 20 could reasonably find that [the witness] (Tirman Decl. atJ 13, page 3, lines 3 through 7.) has such knowledge." (People v. 21 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 22 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code §§ 210, 403) 23 14. “In order to be prepared to see my first Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) 24 patient, I would often arrive at work 1hour or Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 25 more before the firstpatient was scheduled. I '|evidence "as to the existence of a had no choice but to do this or Iwould not be - preliminary fact". 26 able to complete my duties for the day.” Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible 27 (Tirman Decl. at { 14,page 3,lines 8 through (Evid. Code § 350.) 10.) 28 15. “Because nurses would often arrive and Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code § | 7 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 2533475 13v.1 clock ini ahead of their firstappointment, the 1200.) company came out with apolicy that nurses Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity were prohibited from clocking in more than 30 (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement minutes before their first appointment. This time does not proffer evidence "as tothe was later reduced to only 15 minutes. Ifa nurse existence of a preliminary fact”. clocked in earlier than 30 (or 15)minutes before they were scheduled to startwork, that time | Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of would be taken off their timesheet and not paid.” a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for (Tirman Decl. at { 15,page 3, lines 11 through lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury 15.) could reasonably find that [the witness] has such knowledge." (People v. 10 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) WW Improper Testimony Regarding the Contents of a Writing © 12 | Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code 13 §§ 210, 403) 14 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 15 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 16 16. “Likewise, there were tasks Iwas required Lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403.) to perform atthe end of my shiftafter the last Plaintiff's statement does not proffer 17 patient had left.I had to complete allcharting for evidence "as to the existence ofa 18 the logs patients and Ihad checks seen on that equipment day, complete and other supplies, preliminary fact". 19 close up my work station, restock supplies, Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code vacuum, take out the trash, and (ifpossible) §§ 210, 403) 20 begin to prepare for the next day.‘This would sometimes take an hour or more.” Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. 21 Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 22 (Tirman Decl. at J 16,page 3, lines 16 through 20.) 23 17. “The company has a policy that nurses are Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code § not allowed to clock out more than 30 minutes | 1200.) 24 after the end of their lastappointment.If a nurse clocks out beyond this time, their time punch Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity 25 will be changed by HR and they are not tpaid for (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement 26 that time.” does not proffer evidence "as to the existence of a preliminary fact". 27 (Tirman Decl. at J 17,page 3, lines 21 through 23.) Speculation/ lacks personal knowledge of 28 apreliminary fact (Evid. Code § 8 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 2533475 13v.1 403(a)\(2).) Evidence may be excluded for lack of personal knowledge "ifno jury could reasonably find that [the witness] | has such knowledge." (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) Improper Testimony Regarding the Contents of a Writing Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule ( Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code 10 §§ 210, 403) , 11 Lacks relevancy and isinadmissible. © 12 (Evid. Code § 350.) 13 18. “The company also had a policy and Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code § 14 practice toschedule appointments back to back. 1200.) The goal was tomake sure each nurse was fully 15 scheduled their entire shift.There was no time _ Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity between the appointments. For example, one (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement 16 appointment would end at 10:00 a.m. and the does not proffer evidence “as to the next appointment was scheduled to start at 10:00 existence of a preliminary fact". 17 a.m.” a 18 Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of (Tirman Decl. at ] 18, page 3, lines 24 through | a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 19 27.) oe 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for lack of personal knowledge "if no jury 20 | could reasonably find that [the witness] has such knowledge." (People v. 21 Anderson (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 543, 573.) 22 Improper Testimony Regarding the 23 Contents of a Writing 24 Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23) 25 26 Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code §§ 210, 403) 27 19. “Because there was no time between Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity 28 appointments, I often had no time totake rest (Evid. Code §403.) Plaintiff'sstatement 9 DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION '253347513v.1 SRST periods during my shifts. In order to "keep ap does not proffer evidence "as tothe with the preparations for upcoming existence of a preliminary fact". appointments and charting for prior. appointments, I had to work nonstop.” Best (Secondary) Evidence Rule (Cal. Evid. Code SS 1520-23) (Tirman Decl. at{ 19, page 4, lines 1 through 3.) Misstates the testimony (Cal Evid. Code §§ 210, 403) 20. “In addition, appointments would often run Hearsay, without exception (Evid. Code § long, especially when there were multiple family 1200.) members in the appointment. PPH set stricttime 10 limits for how long each appointment was Lacks foundation and lacks authenticity _supposed to take. The time limits were not based (Evid. Code § 403.) Plaintiff'sstatement is on the complexity of the case or the number of does not proffer evidence “as tothe shots that were required. A travel visit was existence of a preliminary fact". 12 always 45 minutes, regardless of how complex the case was or even how many people were Speculation/lacks personal knowledge of 13 being seen.” a preliminary fact (Evid. Code § 14 403(a)(2).) Evidence may be excluded for