Party Discovery: Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)

Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP

8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000

Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

Attomeys for PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated,

"PLAINTIFF,
VS. :

DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP|
OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH
INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET
HEALTH; and DOES | to 100, Inclusive,

DEFENDANTS.

i SEPARATE STATEMENT
|

|
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1

|

| Please state the total number of YOUR former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the
: 1

LIABILITY PERIOD. ((DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR" as used

e FILED BY FAX

PoSTSca bone
-5 PH 2 36
VERO. GLERK

zdwd&

re

Case No.: STK-CV-UOE.201 6-0006523

|
CLASSACTION
[Assigned Jor all purposes to the Hon,
Elizabeth Humphries, Department 22]

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO ©
PLAINTIFf’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

[Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and
Motion to Compel; Declaration of Vincent C.
Granberry in support thereof: and [Proposed]
Order]

Date: TBD
Time: TBD
Dept: 41

I
Hearing Information: |
|

herein shall mean

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL
. DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE:] Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; "LIABILITY PERIOD" as used herein

shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of verification of these responses. | “WORKED” as used
herein shall mean the time during which any person, as defined by California Labor Code section
18, was subject to YOUR control and YOU engaged, suffered or permitted that person to work,
whether or not YOU required the person to do so. “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS” means all
non-exempt employees who performed work-related services for DEFENDANT in California
during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any and all employees employed through temp agencies

and/or staff agencies,
:

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

‘

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad

and confusing, including with respect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that

Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation, Defendant also objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope of
permissible discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately reguiring Defendant to
inquire into the merits of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a member
of the class. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
regarding persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintisf worked and in
positions other than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing,
and outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: To
the extent the scope of the class is in dispute, Defendant cannot provide a response at this time,

‘REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

The legal position in Defendant's substantive response is not justification for its failure to

provide a proper response to these interrogatories,

1

t | Moreover, Defendant’s objections are without merit. First, the material terms of the
: I

interrogatories are defined for Defendant so Defendant's objections based on vague and ambiguous
\

l ' + . + + Vs +
are baseless. Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper merits-based discovery
|
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

* DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC,"S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFE'S
: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
2wv

‘ appropriate discovery.

|

precertification. Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-baded discovery because
they seek to establish “numerosity”, i.e,, that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members
individually would be impractical. This interrogatory also secks to establish the size of employees’
claims which is relevant to show that individual lawsuits would be uneconomical and that the class
action, device is particularly appropriate for this type of wage and hour class] action. (See Daar v.
Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 715 [The class action device is particularly appropriate when
numerous parties suffer injury in small amounts, because individual lawsuits would be
uneconomical and the wrongdoer might otherwise escape liability].). Third, Here, Plaintiff alleges
that he and all of Defendant’s California hourly non-exempt employees weré subject to the same
policies and procedures of Defendant, which give rise to the claims in this case. Accordingly, in
order to respond to these interrogatories, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of
Plaintiff's case, but rather simply provide Plaintiff with the number of current and the number of
former hourly non-exempt employees it employed in California during the |liability period; two

simple numbers. Fourth, for the reasons above, these interrogatories are not outside the scope of

|
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: |

Please state the total number of YOUR current PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ainbiguous, overbroad
and confusing, including with respect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that
Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope of |

‘permissible discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to

jinquire into the merits of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a member
of the class. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds thal it seeks information

regarding persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff worked and in

positions other than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing,

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC."S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
‘ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE| provide a proper response to these interrogatories.

numerous parties suffer injury in small amounts, because individual ‘lawsuits would be

that he and all of Defendant’s California hourly non-exempt employees were subject to the same

Plaintiff's case, but rather simply provide Plaintiff with the number of current and the number of

i
|
and outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: To

. | sons
the extent the scope of the class is in dispute, Defendant cannot provide a response at this time

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

’ The legal position in Defendant’s substantive response is not justification for its failure to

, Moreover, Defendant’s objections are without merit. First, the material terms of the
interrogatories are defined for Defendant so Defendant’s objections based on vague and ambiguous
are baseless. Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper merits-based discovery
 precertification. Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-based discovery because
they seek to establish “numerosity”, i.e., that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members
individually would be impractical. This interrogatory also seeks to establish the size of employees’
claims which is relevant to show that individual lawsuits would be uneconomical and that the class

‘action device is particularly appropriate for this type of wage and hour was ation (See Daar v.

Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 715 [The class action device is particularly appropriate when
uneconomical and the wrongdoer might otherwise escape liability).). Third, Here, Plaintiff alleges

policies and procedures of Defendant, which give rise to the claims in this opse: Accordingly, in

order to respond to these interrogatories, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of
1

former hourly non-exempt employees it employed in California during the liability period; two

simple numbers. Fourth, for the reasons above, these interrogatories are not joutside the scope of

appropriate discovery. |

1
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 3: : |
7

i
' 1 Please IDENTIFY each of YOUR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the LIABILITY
PERIOD. |

|

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA. INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE I
4RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad in scope, unduly

burdensome, oppressive and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence in in part because of the grossly overbroad way the ‘erm PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS is defined. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that disclosure of
the information sought would violate the privacy rights of third parties to this litigation under the
Constitution of the United States and the State of California and under common law privacy
principles. See Cal Const. art. [ § 1. Putative class members have a reasqnable expectation of
privaby that their identifying information will not be disclosed without their fonsent. Belaire-West
Landscape, Inc. v. Super, Ct, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 561 (2007); see also Pioneer Electronics
(USA), Inc, v. Super, Ct., 40 Cal. 4th 360, 370 (2007). Thus, such information cannot be disclosed
prior to "a written notice to [the putative class members] giving them the opportunity to object to the
disclosure of that information." /d. Furthermore, Defendant objects to this|interrogatory on the
grourid that it constitutes discovery on the merits of this action prior to certification of the plaintiff
class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to inquire into the merits of the ptdposed class action to
determine who may or may not be a member of the class. :

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: To
the extent the scope of the class is in dispute, Defendant cannot provide a response at this time.
REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

Regarding Defendant’s third party privacy objection, case law is clear that in precertification
discovery, Plaintiff is entitled to the names and contact information of class members and percipient
witnesses, Crab Addison, Inc, v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 975; Lee v. Dynamex,
| Ine. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1338; Puerto v, Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242,
1259. :

i A review of Crab Addison, and its review of Puerto, illustrates the mule requiring disclosure
|

of class member contact information in wage and hour class actions. In Crab ldddison, the Second

I
Distriét Court of Appeal affirmed a trial judge's order requiring production of class member contact

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOjTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC."S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

5'
!
i

information in a wage and hour class action without any pre-notice to the class members, despite the

fact that certain class members had signed releases expressly stating that they did not want their
contact information to be disclosed at all to third parties. Crab Addison, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at’
974-975. Like here, Crab Addison was a wage and hour class action seeking unpaid overtime. /d. at
961, Like here, the named plaintiff propounded pre-certification discovery seeking class member
contact information by special interrogatories requiring the defendant employer to “IDENTIFY each
CLASS MEMBER." /d. The named plaintiff also served a special interrdgatory requiring the
employer to "IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has knowledge of the facts” supporting the

employer's contention that the case was "not appropriate for class certification." /d. The employer

objected to these interrogatories, including on the basis that they sought “confidential and private
‘information." " Id. The named plaintiff filed a motion to compel, arguing that responses to these
“imerrogatories were "necessary to meeting his burden of proving class certifi cation was appropriate"
and that "production of the information would not violate the witnesses’ right « privacy." /d. at 961~-
1962. the employer opposed this motion, arguing that the class member contact information was not
discoverable and that, if any discovery of this information is permitted, the court should tequire an
“opt-in” notice - especially given the fact that the putative class member employees "had a
heightened expectation of privacy as to their contact information based on forms they signed
regarding release of their contact information." /d. at 962. Specifically, the employer offered

evidence that 19 of its employees signed a form stating that they "do not consent to .the Company's

disclosure of my contact information to third parties," 17 of its employees signed a form stating "I
'

would like to be asked on a case-by-case basis whether I consent to the disclosure of my contact

linformation to a particular third party, and my contact information should only be provided if I
|

eATemtively consent in writing,” and "only a few" employees signed a form stating that they

consented to the disclosure. Jd. at 962-963. Ultimately, the trial court granted the motion to compel
'

and required the production of the class member contact information without reliting any notice to
|
the class members or any “opt-in" or "opt-out" procedure and despite the fact that some employees

had alleady signed a document stating that they did not want their information released, (/d. at 964~

|

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

6965.)

law.

Id. at 975.

reasons:

‘ The employer filed a writ, but the Second District Court of Appeal fully affirmed the trial

court's ruling noting that "[u]nder Puerto, the procedure chosen by the trial court was appropriate."

, Under Crab Addison and Puerto, a notice procedure was unnecessary for the following

| (1) Considering the “faimess to the litigants in prosecuting or defending the
forthcoming" suit, a notice procedure would significantly advantage the employer and create
"an inequitable situation in which one party has access to all, or nearly all potential witnesses
but the other party is dependent on the willingness of those witnesses to participate in
. discovery." Puerto at 1256; Crab Addison at 968.

(2). A notice procedure would give percipient witnesses the unilateral choice to refuse to
participate in litigation, a right which is not normally afforded to percipient witnesses by the
discovery act. Crab Addison at 968; Puerto at 1256-1259 ("Not only does the protective
order advantage [the employer], it unnecessarily hamstrings petitioners in their conduct of
legitimate discovery by making their statutory entitlement to percipient witness discovery
entirely dependent on the unreviewable decision of third parties whether they are interested
in participating."). :

\
@G) A notice procedure would also have a chilling effect on participation because
employees choosing to participate in litigation would then have to identify themselves as
persons willing to participate in a lawsuit against their employer. Grab Addison at 968
(citing Gentry v. Superior Court 42 Cal. 4th 443, 460-461) ("Current employees may decline
to opt in to the litigation for fear of retaliation by their employer! This in turn could
immunize the employer from liability for violation of statutory jwage and overtime
requirements. This would violate the public policy protecting employee rights.").

The rule of Puerto, Crab Addison and similar cases is now firmly entrenched in California

Jn fact, it is so well-established that leading practice guides acknowledge this rule, For

example, the California Judges Benchbook now provides the following on this subject:
' |

. Discovery. As noted in Book § 11.76, contact information regarding the identity of
: potential class members is generally discoverable. See Lee v. Dynamex, Inc. (2008)
| 166 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1338, 83 CR3d 241 (employee was entitled to |disclosure of
‘names and contact information of similarly situated employees in a class action
, against employer alleging that employer unlawfully reclassified employees as
| independent contractors); Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242,
| 12,53-1259, 70 CR3d 701 (requiring employees to be sent "opt in" letter before their
; contact information could be disseminated to plaintiffs in wage and hour violations
| case was abuse of discretion because it effectively gave more protection to nonparty

witnesses’ contact information than Discovery Act gives to much ‘more sensitive

consumer or employment records). See Crab Addison, Inc. v, Superior Court (2008)
1 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 969-975, 87 CR3d 400 (court rejected employer's contention
‘that court should impose “opt in" notice requirement because its employees had

\  SERARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOVTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
7wv

we

heightened expectation of privacy as to their contact information based on forms they
‘signed regarding release of information; public policy concerns weigh against
: | enforcing release form that may have effect of waiving employee's right to notice of
| pending class action concerning employer's alleged violations of overtime and wage
, Statutes),
| Protection of recipients‘ privacy rights. It is only under unusual circumstances that
the courts restrict discovery of nonparty witnesses’ residential contact; information,
| e.g., when disclosure of the information would violate their right to privacy and it is
| unnecessary to the prosecution of the litigation or may endanger witnesses. Puerto v.
; Superior Court, supra, 158 CA4th at 1254. When the judge concludes that there is
! no serious invasion of privacy, no balancing of opposing interests is required. 158
! CA4th at 1256. . |
Even when the judge concludes that providing the requested information constitutes
a serious invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy, disclosure may be ordered.
. For example, plaintiffs in a class action against several defendants that alleged a
| i pattern and practice of age discrimination were entitled to seek data on third parties
| from which they could prepare a statistical analysis to support their claims, The
plaintiffs demonstrated that the requested information was directly relevant to their
claims and essential to a fair resolution of their lawsuit. See Alch v. Superior Court
; (2008) 165 CA4th 1412, 1426-1427, 82 CR3d 471.
i

‘Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (2009 Supp.) Chap. 11, § 11.76

' Under these circumstances, it.is clear that the named plaintiffs are entitled to the identity and
‘contadt information of the potential putative class members absent any notice procedure.

: In fact, current case law holds that depriving a plaintiff of the contact information of class
‘members in pre-certification discovery is grounds to reverse a denial of class certification. Lee v.
‘Dynames, dnc., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at 1336-1338. In Lee v. Dynamex, he, 166 Cal.App.4th
1325 (2008), a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit for wage and hour violations against his
former employer. Lee v. Dynamex, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at 1329-1330: The plaintiff served
discovery seeking the names and contact information of class members. /d! at 1330-1331. The
defendant resisted the discovery demanding that the parties use a notice procedure. /d. At the motion
fe compel hearing, the trial court held that the motion was premature and that woduction of names
and contact information would only be required after the class had been certified. Td. at 1331.
‘Approximately nine months later, the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion for class certification
on the: grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements for class certification. /d. The Lee

} 1 . + ~ : . . . a
court reversed the trial court's denial of class certification holding that the trial court's earlier

discovery order precluding identification of potential class members prior to certification deprived

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
8|
1
|
|
l

plaintiff of "the means to develop evidence capable of supporting his motion for class certification.”

Id. at 1336-1338,

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: :
Please state the average rate of pay for YOUR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the

LIABILITY PERIOD.
‘RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Defendant objects to this Interragatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
and confusing, including with respect to the terms "average rate of pay" and “PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS", such that Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory {without speculation,
Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by
constitutional, statutory, and/or common law rights of privacy of non-parties, Defendant also objects
to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope
of permissible discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to
inquire into the merits of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a member
‘of the class. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
regarding persons employed ‘outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff worked and in
‘positions other than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing,
‘and outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

: First, the material terms of the interrogatories are defined for Defendant so Defendant’s
objections based on vague and ambiguous are baseless. Second, these interrogatories do not
constitute improper merits-based discovery precertification. Conversely, these interrogatories are
actually certification-based discovery because they seek to establish “numerosity”, i.e., that the class
" so humerous that joinder of all members individually would be impractical. This interrogatory
also seeks to establish the size of employees’ claims which is relevant to show that individual
lawsuits would be uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for this

type of wage and hour class action. (See Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 715 [The
‘ I

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
. DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
9class action device is particularly appropriate when numerous parties suffer injury in small amounts,

because individual lawsuits would be uneconomical and the wrongdoer might otherwise escape
liability).). Third, Here, Plaintiff alleges that he and all of Defendant’s California hourly none
exempt employees were subject to the same policies and procedures of Defentlant, which give rise
‘to the'claims in this case. Accordingly, in order to respond to these interrogatories, Defendant is not
‘required to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's case, but rather simply provide Plaintiff with the
‘number of current and the number of former hourly non-exempt employees it employed in
California during the liability period; two simple numbers. Fourth, for the reasons above, these
‘interrogatories are not outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: |

i | Please state the total number of workweeks WORKED by voun hourly non-exempt
employees during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

: ' : Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad

and confusing, including with respect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that

-Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to

this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory,

this Interrogatory on

and/or common law rights of privacy of non-parties. Defendant also objects to
the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope of permissible
discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to inquire into the
merits of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a mnernber of the class.
Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks iformation regarding
‘persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff worked and in positions other
ithan surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, and outside the
cope lof appropriate discovery. Further, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that

I i
iit seeks discovery on the merits prior to the certification of any class.

ineagon WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

!

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
_ DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA. INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
10First, case law holds that contact information or percipient witnesses must be produced in
discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1259.)

Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper merits-based discovery
precertification, Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-based discovery because
they seek information required to establish “numerosity,” “ascertainability,” j'commonality,” and
“typicality” in order for this matter to be maintained as a class action. Third, in this case, Plaintiff
“alleges that, regardless of the California location that they worked, he and all of Defendant's
California hourly non-exempt employees were subject to the same policies and procedures of
Defendant, which give rise to the claims in this case. . Accordingly, in oder to respond to these
interrogatories, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's case, but rather simply
provide Plaintiff with substantive responses to straightforward questions. For! these reasons, these

interrogatories are not outside the scope of appropriate discovery. :

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
a

’ State the name, address, and telephone number of any and all payroll companies which you
ised in relation to hourly non-exempt employees in the State of California doin the LIABILITY
‘PERIOD. |
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: |

’ Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
and confusing such that Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory ‘without speculation.
Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on. the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it sceks information which
neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiffs Complaint nor reasonably caltulated to. lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
it eis information regarding persons employed outside of the San Joaquin fability where Plaintiff,

worked and in positions other than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant,

burdensome, harassing, and outside the scope of appropriate discovery. Further, Defendant objects

lo this! Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks discovery on the merits prior to the certification of

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
, " iany class.

| Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant tesponds as follows:

Dell Payroll Processing. '

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:
1 t

i

‘Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide “deftly worded
i |

\conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions." (Deyo, v. Kilbourne (1978)

84 Cal.App.3d 77), 783.) Because these interrogatories seek information that constitutes directly

1
I
relevant, certification-based discovery, and do not ask for Defendant’s legal

sitions in defense of

‘this case, Defendant's responses are nothing more than an improper response designed to evade the

call these interrogatories.

: Defendant failed to provide a complete response to this interrogatory because although it did
i

provide the name of its payroll processor, it failed to provide the address and telephone number.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:

‘If YOU contend YOU provided PLAINTIFF all MEAL PERIODS !due to PLAINTIFF

\
during the LIABILITY PERIOD, please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which. support YOUR

|
contention.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:

;
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad

and confusing such that Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation.

Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to

and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:

|
: Defendant does not contend that it provided putative class members, including Plaintiff, with

all required meal periods. Rather, in individualized circumstances which vary by employee,

: . . . |
manager, department, and patient care requirements (amongst other variables),
'

employees may be

| + . : + .
unable, to take their meal breaks and are provided a meal premium in accordance with the law.
i :

Employees have the ability to log missed, late, and/or short meal and rest breaks and to receive

| : . .
premiums payments for the same. Further, premiums are paid automatically |where an employee
' i

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

» DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
12

j
|
t :

|w

does not take a timely meal break that is a full thirty minutes in length.

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

' Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide “deftly worded
jconchisionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions." (Deyo v, Kilbourne (1978)
' !

'84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Because these interrogatories seek information that constitutes directly

tp ee . Pee
‘relevant, certification-based discovery, and do not ask for Defendant's legal pasitions in defense of

| ., . .
this case, Defendant's responses ave nothing more than an improper response designed to evade the

1
call these interrogatories. |

Defendant’s response deliberately misses the call of the question, Plaintift is asking whether
Defendant has any documents in support of its defense in this case and, if 50, to identify those

documents. In response, Defendant described its meal period policy, which is tot responsive to this

interrogatory.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:

i
Describe all DEFENDANT’S attendance policies in effect at any time during the

LIABILITY PERIOD for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in the State of California,

‘RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ainbiguous, overbroad
‘and confusing, including with Tespect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that
Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to
‘this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory,
and/or common law rights of privacy of non-parties. Defendant also objects to ‘this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope of permissible
‘discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to inquire into the
merits! of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a thember of the class.
(Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information regarding
persor's employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff worked and in positions other
than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, and outside the
1
t
|

1
I

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA. INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S:

13

: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE |

| |scope of appropriate discovery. Further, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
it seeks discovery on the merits prior to the certification of any class.

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

First, case law holds that contact information or percipient witnesses must be produced in

i discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1259.)

; Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper mmetits-based discovery
preceifcation, Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-based discovery because
they seek information required to establish “numerosity,” “ascertinability,” “commonality” and
‘“typicality” in order for this matter to be maintained as a class action. Third, in this case, Plaintiff
alleges that, regardless of the California location that they worked, he and all of Defendant’s
California hourly non-exempt employees were subject to the same policies and procedures of
‘Defendant, which give rise to the claims in this case. Accordingly, in order to respond to these
interrogator ies, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's of but rather simply
provide Plaintiff with substantive responses to straightforward questions. Foy, these reasons, these
jiterregatories are not outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

‘SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66: i
Please IDENTIFY each and every EMPLOYEE that waived their 1‘! MEAL PERIOD during
‘the LIABILITY PERIOD.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66: i

» Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
‘and confusing, including as to the term "EMPLOYEE", such that Defendant is unable to respond to
this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to this Interrogdtory on the grounds
that it seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory, and/or common law tights of privacy
of nor-parties. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information

whichis neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiffs Complaint nor reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the
1

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
+ DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC."S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Wgrounds that it seeks information regarding persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility
where Plaintiff worked and in positions other than surgical technician, and such information
irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, and outside the scope of appropriate discovery. Further
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks discovery on the merits prior to

the cettification of any class. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant

responds as follows: |
‘ ' .

‘Individual employees may voluntarily execute meal period waivers during the course of their
' : + woe * sgt +
employment, which remain in effect unless and until revoked. Any determination as to the specific

' .
dates on which an individual employee may have waived his or her meal period is therefore entirely

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE: '

. Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide "deftly worded

individualized in nature.

conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo|v. Kilbourne (1978)
84 Cal. App.3d 771, 783.) Because these interrogatories seek information that constitutes directly
relevant, certification-based discovery, and do not ask for Defendant’s legal Positions in defense of

this case, Defendant’s responses are nothing more than an improper response designed to evade the

call these interrogatories.
: Defendant’s response deliberately misses the call of the question. Plaintiff asks Defendant
to identify the putative class members who allegedly waived their first meal reriods. In response,
Defendant described its meal period waiver policy, which is not responsive to this interrogatory.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67:
: : Please state the dates each hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEE waived a ‘| MEAL PERIOD.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67:
/ Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ainbiguous, overbroad

and confusing, including as to the term "EMPLOYEE", such that Defendant is|unable to respond to

‘this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds

‘that it'seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory, and/or common law rights of privacy

1

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE '

1sof non-parties. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery in that k seeks information
which is neither relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiffs Complaint nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this|Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks information regarding persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility
where! Plaintiff worked and in positions other than surgical technician, and such information
irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, and outside the scope of appropriate] discovery. Further
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks discovery on the merits prior to
the certification of any class. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant
responds as follows:

‘ | Individual employees may voluntarily execute meal period waivers aug the course of their
employment, which remain in effect unless and until revoked. Any deterination as to the specific
dates on which an individual employee may have waived his or her meal period is therefore entirely
individualized in nature.

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

“Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide “deftly worded
conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions." (Deyo, v. Kilbourne (1978)
84 Cal. App.d 771, 783.) Because these interrogatories seek information that constitutes directly
relevant, certification-based discovery, and do not ask for Defendant’s legal positions in defense of
this case, Defendant’s responses are nothing more than an improper response designed to evade the
call these interrogatories,

, _ Defendant's response deliberately misses the call of the question. Plaintiff asks Defendant
to identity the date(s) that putative class members allegedly waived their fi inst meal periods. In
response Defendant described its meal period waiver policy, which is nol responsive to this
interrigaory.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68:

|

I
|
| Please identify the number of occasions that MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to
! |

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT T DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
16i Bn
| e
:

YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 1" MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY
PERIOD.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68:

| Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
and confusing, including with respect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that
Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. Deferldant also objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory,
and/or common law rights of privacy of non-parties. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope of permissible
discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to inquire into the
inerits‘of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a member of the class.
Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information regarding
persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff woe ate in positions other

: 1
than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, and outside the

scope of appropriate discovery. Further, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory, on the grounds that
1 I

it seeks discovery on the merits prior to the certification of any class,
REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

, First, case law holds that contact information or percipient witnesses ‘pst be produced in
discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1259.)

‘ | Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper merits-based discovery
precertification. Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-based discovery because
they seek information required to establish “numerosity,” “ascertainability,” “commonality,” and
“ypicaiy” in order for this matter to be maintained as a class action. Third, in this case, Plaintiff
alleges that, regardless of the California location that they worked, he and all of Defendant’s
California hourly non-exempt employees were subject to the same policies and procedures of
Defend, which give rise to the claims in this case. Accordingly, in order|to respond to these
ienoyaories, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's case, but rather simply

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

17'
!
i |
1
|

provide Plaintiff with substantive responses to straightforward questions. Forlthese reasons, these
interrogatories are not outside the scope of appropriate discovery.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69:

Please state the amount of MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-
exempt EMPLOYEES for missed Ist MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 69:
I 1

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
and confusing, including with respect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that
Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory,
and/or common law rights of privacy of non-parties. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on

the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the scope of permissible
discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to inquire into the
merits of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a member of the class,
Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information regarding
person employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff worked and i in positions other
than surgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harassing, and outside the

scope of appropriate discovery. Further, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that

it seeks discovery on the merits prior to the certification of any class.

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

First, case law holds that contact information or percipient witnesses must be produced in

discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1259.)

“Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper merits-| based discovery
precerifi ication. Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-based discovery because
they seek information required to establish “numerosity,” “ascertainability,” commonality,” and
' '

“typicality” in order for this matter to be maintained as a class action. Third, in this case, Plaintiff

alleges that, regardless of the California location that they worked, he and! all of Defendant’s

1
i
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
’ 18California hourly non-exempt employees were subject to the same policies and procedures of
Defendant, which give rise to the claims in this case, Accordingly, in order|to respond to these
interrogatories, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's case, but rather simply
provide Plaintiff with substantive responses to straightforward questions.- For!these reasons, these

i
interrogatories are not outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70: |

| Please identify the number of shifts between 10,1 and 11 hours that jYOUR hourly non-

exo EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PEIORD.

|

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70: |

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
and confusing, including with respect to the term "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS", such that
Defendant is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without speculation. Defendant also objects to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by constitutional, statutory,
and/or common law rights of privacy of non-parties. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and exceeds the ope of permissible
discovery prior to certification of any class, inappropriately requiring Defendant to inquire into the
merits ‘of the proposed class action to determine who may or may not be a rember of the class,
Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information regarding
persons employed outside of the San Joaquin facility where Plaintiff worked.and in positions other
than stirgical technician, and such information is irrelevant, burdensome, harasting, and outside the
scope of appropriate discovery. Further, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory, on the grounds that
it seeks discovery on the merits prior to the certification of any class.

REASON WHY RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE:

\ First, case law holds that contact information or percipient witnesses must be produced in

'
|
discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1259.)

:Second, these interrogatories do not constitute improper merits-based discovery
1

'
|
precertification. Conversely, these interrogatories are actually certification-based discovery because

'

1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

19
I Ii

they seek information required to establish “numerosity,” “ascertainability,” j‘commonality,” and
“typicality” in order for this matter to be maintained as a class action. Third, ia this case, Plaintiff
alleges that, regardless of the California location that they worked, he and al] of Defendant’s
California hourly non-exempt employees were subject to the same policies and procedures of
Defendant, which give rise to the claims in this case. Accordingly, in orderjto respond to these
interrogatories, Defendant is not required to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's case, but rather simply
provide Plaintiff with substantive responses to straightforward questions. For|these reasons, these
interrogatories are not outside the scope of appropriate discovery.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71:

‘Please identify the number of shifts between 11.1 and 12 hours that YOUR hourly non-
exempt EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PEIORD,
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 7h:

: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad
and confusin