Preview
eee
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY fiName. State Bar number. and address):
J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975)
[Mayall Hurley
2453 Grand Canai Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207
‘TELEPHONE NO: 209-477-3833 FAXNO. (Optional:
IRTUSE ONLY
SUPERIOR CEURT- STOCKTON
QWIGAPR <2 PH 4: 06
CIV-130
q
RESA- {RO.
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): jabbott@mayallaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): DISCOVERY REFEREE ey:
SUPERIOR GOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STOCKTON ceruT yt
STREET ADDRESS: 180 E. WEBER AVENUE
MAILING ADDRESS: 180 E, WEBER AVENUE
GTY AND ZIPCODE: STOCKTON 95202
BRANCH NAME: STOCKTON
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER:
OR ORDER STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE. =—- [__] LIMITED CASE
{Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
41, Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 03/19/2018
2, Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date: 03/29/2018
J. ANTHONY ABBOTT >
/
(TYPEORPRINTNAMEOF [_] ATTORNEY [___] PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
/
V7 (GIGNATURE)
Page 1of2
Farm eve Open e Winn SOATO AGT
tiga aural ot xt NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERClV-130
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. CASE NUMBER:
STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1. lam atleast 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing tock
place, and my residence or business address is (specify):
2. | served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a. [] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices,
with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a. on (date): 03/29/2018
b. from (city and state): STOCKTON, CA
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: c, Name of person served:
ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON
Street address: 633 WEST 5TH STREET 63RD FL Street address:
City: LOS ANGELES City:
State and zip code: CA 90071 State and zip code:
b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served:
VINCENT C. GRANBERRY
Street address: 8889 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 200 Street address:
City: BEVERLY HILLS City:
State and zip code: CA 90211 State and zip code:
[1] names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number of pages attached 32 .
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: 03/29/2018
MEGAN COOPER > Tr Oe
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) @ (GIGNATURE OF DEGEARANT)
Page 2of2
(CIV-130 (New January 4, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
STREET ADDRESS: 180 E Weber Avenue
MAILING ADDRESS: 180 E Weber Avenue
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Stockton, CA 95202
BRANCH NAME: Superior Court San Joaquin
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al.
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
CASE NUMBER:
STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523
| certify that | am not a party to this cause. | certify that a true copy of Discovery Referee's Recommended Ruling on
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Furhter Responses to Requests for Production of Documents; Order was mailed following
standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated below. The mailing and
this certification occurred at Stockton, California, on 03/19/2018.
Vincent C. Granberry
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills CA 90211
By: Melinda Ruiz, Deputy Clerk
Elizabeth Staggs Wilson
633 West 5th Street - 63rd Floor
Los Angeles CA 90071
J. Anthony Abbott
Discovery Referee
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 2" floor
Stockton, CA 95207
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL, 19 20
J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) MAR 8.
2453 Grand Cana! Boulevard Filed wcpet
Stockton, CA 95207 ROSA JURGUERRO, CLERK
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
jabbott@mayallaw.com
By Raz i
oo DEPUTY
DISCOVERY REFEREE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated,
) Case No. STK-CV-UQE-2016-0006523
) Assigned to Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys; Dept
) 10C
Plaintiff, }
) DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RECOMMENDED
vs. ) RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
) COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF ) DOCUMENTS; ORDER
MANTECA; DRS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, _ )
INC.; SP OF MANTECA, INC.; TENET )
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET )
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; )
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1to 100, )
Inclusive, )
)
)
Submission Date: December 22, 2017
Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Trial Date: June 4, 2018
Defendants.
1.
OVERVIEW
By order filed December 14, 2017, the undersigned was appointed as Discovery
Referee. Plaintiff Reginald Lyle (Plaintiff or Lyle) moves to compel further responses to
enumerated Requests For Production Of Documents, Set One, served on defendant Doctor's
Hospital of Manteca, Inc., (Defendant) on November 8, 2016.
i
i
iI.
FACTS
Plaintiffs’ initial complaint was filed July 5, 2016, as a class action. Plaintiff's operative
pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed July 25, 2016, setting forth eight causes of
action arising from so-called “wage and hour” violations allegedly committed by, among others,
Defendant. Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on November 8,
2016. After at least two extensions, responses were served February 9, 2017. On March 25,
2017, Plaintiff's counsel Vincent Granberry, Esq. sought, and was later granted, an extension
of time to file a motion to compel further responses to April 21, 2017. He suggested a timeline
whereby he would send his “meet and confer” letter by March 27, and the defense would
respond by April 3, 2017. The meet and confer letter dated March 27, 2017 followed.
Defense counsel Shannon Boyce, Esq., suggested a reply date of April 14, and extended the
time for filing a motion to compel to May 5, 2017. On April 26, 2017, no responsive letter
having been received, Mr. Granberry advised if no response to the meet and confer letter of
March 27, 2017, or amended responses were received by April 28, a motion to compel would
be filed. . Ms. Boyce responded by e-mail on April 28, 2017, that she had been out of the
office, and would respond further in detail the following week. There was no further
correspondence prior to the filing of the motion on May 5, 2017. Defendant does not contend
that the instant motion is untimely or that it should be denied for failure to comply with CCP §§
2030.300(b). ,
At the request of the referee, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on the effect of
Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531, which had not been published at the time
plaintiffs reply was filed. These briefs were submitted February 8, 2018. Defendant also
submitted an unsolicited Request For Judicial Notice, which is denied as untimely.
The Proposed Recommended Ruling was served February 20, 2018. No request for
hearing was received from either side during the ensuing 5 court days. Accordingly, this
Recommended Ruling and Order are submitted to the court./ Ml.
THE CLASS ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The class allegations of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) pertinent to this discovery
dispute are the following; the numbered subparagraphs below are paragraphs quoted from the
FAC:
A. UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE CLASS
23. In this case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure
whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for
their shift. Similarly, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of
their scrubs.
24, In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby
they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours
worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
wages for that time.
25. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be
“on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. During “on-call” time Plaintiff's and
similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” prevented them
from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time.
46A. Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the
filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified
class, who were under contro! of Defendants during time prior to and after to a work period,
whose daily hours worked were rounded down or shaved down to the nearest quarter of an
hour and/or who were required to be “on-call” and Defendants did not pay wages for that timea
at the legal minimum wage rate.
B. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES CLASS
27. As described above, Defendants’ policies, practices, and Procedures require
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don and doff their scrubs off the clock, round
down or shave down employees daily hours down to the nearest quarter hour, and require
that an employees to remain “on-call” without being compensated for that time. The
foregoing resulted in time each work day which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
were under control of Defendants but were not compensated.
29. Despite that California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours
worked and at a higher rate of pay when those hours fall during work periods in excess of 8
hours in a workday and 40 hours in a workweek; Defendants would fail to pay employees
wages for the time it took to don and doff their scrubs, for the time each workday that
employees’ were not compensated for due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure
of rounding down or shaving down employees’ daily hours down to the nearest quarter hour,
and requiring that an employees remain “on-call” without being compensated for that time
which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under contro! of Defendants. To the
extent the employees had already worked 8 hours in the day and on workweeks they had
already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the employees should have been paid overtime for
this unpaid time. This resulted in non-exempt employees working time which should have
been paid at the legal overtime rate, but was not paid any wages in violation of Labor Code
sections 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders.
46B. Unpaid Work Overtime Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the
filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified
class, who were under control of Defendants during time prior to a work period and on
workdays they had already worked in excess of 8 hours in a day, 40 hours in a week, or were
working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not Pay wages for thattime.
C. MISSED MEAL PERIOD CLASS
33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts long
enough to entitle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Despite
the fact that California law requires employers to authorize or permit an uninterrupted, duty-
free first meal period of not less than 30 minutes prior to their sixth hour of work when they
worked shifts more than five hours in length and a second, duty-free meal period of not less
than 30 minutes when they worked shifts over 10 hours in length, Defendants routinely failed
to authorize or permit first meal periods of not less than 30 minutes because Defendants
would require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don their scrubs prior to conclusion
of their first meal periods and failed to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether
when employees worked shifts of more than 10 hours.
46C. Meal Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint in this action and through ‘the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked
shifts of at least six hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of
not less than 30 minutes, and/or who worked shifts more than ten hours yet Defendants did
not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of
their eleventh hour of work.
D. REST PERIOD CLASS
36. Defendants often employed hourly employees, including the named Plaintiff
and all others similarly-situated, for shifts at least three and one-half (3.5) hours in length.
39. Defendants employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, if
the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not
authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest period of ten net minutes.
46D. Rest Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed byoN @
10
Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked
at least three and one-half (3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive required rest
periods of ten net minutes rest time for every four hours worked between three and one-half
and six hours, six and ten hours, or ten and fourteen hours.
E. WAGE STATEMENT CLASS
43. Defendants failed to provide accurate wage and hour statements to Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendants’ control for
uncompensated time and who did not receive the wages they earned (including minimum
wages, overtime wages, as well as failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and rest
periods).
46E, Wage Statement Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants in California at any time within the one year prior to the filing of the initial
complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who
received inaccurate or incomplete wage and hour statements.
F. WAITING TIME CLASS
45. Because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees all their earned wages (including minimum wages, overtime wages, and unpaid
meal and rest period premium wages), Defendants failed to pay those employees timely after
each employee's termination and/or resignation.
46F. Waiting Time Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants in California at any time within the three years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who did not
receive payment of all unpaid wages upon separation of employment within the statutory time
period.
i
iIV.
THE PAGA ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The PAGA-based allegations of the FAC, set forth in the 8" Cause of Action, track the
class action allegations. The pertinent portions are these:
109. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 88 of this complaint as if fully
alleged herein.
112. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage: In
this case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the
start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift. Similarly,
Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs.
113. In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure
whereby they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily
hours worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees wages for that time.
114. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be
“on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. During “on-call” time Plaintiff's and
similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” prevented them
from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time.
120. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for
workdays Defendants failed to provide required rest periods: Defendants employed
policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would not
receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, if the employees worked shifts between
10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to
provide a third rest period of ten net minutes.Vv.
PERTINENT DEFINED TERMS IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
The following defined terms are pertinent to a discussion of the requests for
production and responses in dispute:
Wt
Wt
It
i
“DEFENDANT,” shall mean the DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA, INC named in this lawsuit, together with any representatives,
affiliates, EMPLOYEES, agents or assigns, and any representatives or persons
acting or authorized to act on their behalf.
“YOU" or “YOUR refers to DEFENDANT and its agents, EMPLOYEES,
representatives, attorneys, and anyone acting on its behalf.
"LIABILITY PERIOD": as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2012, to present.
“EMPLOYEE” or “EMPLOYEES”: any person DEFENDANT engaged, suffered
or permitted to work, or over whom DEFENDANT exercised contro! of that
person's wages, hours, or working conditions, in the State of California, as
defined in the applicable wage order promulgated by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
“PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS”: hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES employed
‘ by DEFENDANT from July 5, 2012 to present.
"MEAL PERIOD": means a period of not !ess than 30 uninterrupted duty-free
minutes for each five hours WORKED.
“PERTAINING and RELATING”: means evidencing, memorializing, referring,
constituting, containing, discussing, describing, embodying, reflecting,
identifying, mentioning, stating, or otherwise relating to in any way, in whole or
in part, the subject matter referred to in this request.
“REST PERIOD": This capitalized term is not defined in the requests for
production. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean the rest periods
described in Labor Code § 226.7 and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(12)(A).Vi.
DISCUSSION
"Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions ‘when the question is one
of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is
impracticable to bring them all before the court ... .". Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court
(2004) 34 Cal.4" 319, 326, citation omitted. “The party seeking certification has the burden to
establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest
among class members. /bid. “The ‘community of interest’ requirement embodies three
factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims
or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent
the class.” Ibid.
The right to conduct discovery on class certification issues is well established. See
Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4" 223, 232-233; Barthold v. Glendale Federal
Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4" 816, 836; Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4” 239,
244, However, the court has the power to restrict discovery which is unduly burdensome and
expensive taking into account the needs of the case. CCP § 2019.030(a). Plaintiff bears the
burden of showing that the discovery in issue is likely to produce substantiation of the class
allegations. Mantolete v. Bolger cg" Circuit 1985) 767 F.2d 1416, 1424, citing Doninger v.
Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc. (9" Circuit 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, 1313. ‘On the other hand, failure
to allow precertification discovery where it is necessary to determine the existence of a class is
an abuse of discretion. Kamm v. California City Development Co. (9"" Circuit 1975) 509 F.2d
205, 210.
As shown below, many of the requests for production are objectionable, primarily due to
the overbroad definitions incorporated into the requests, and the consequent failure of the
requests to describe specifically each item requested or to “reasonably particularize each
category of item." CCP § 2031.030(c)(1). However, the policy in California for at least the last
57 years is that courts, where possible, “should impose partial limitations rather than outrightdenial of discovery.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531, 559, citing Greyhound
Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384. Accordingly, certain requests have
been limited instead of denying them in their entirety.
Vil.
RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Declarations in support of and in opposition to a motion must set forth admissible
evidence. See McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 359-360. An affidavit to be
used as evidence cannot be based on hearsay. Star Motor Imports, inc. v. Superior Court
(1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 201, 204. Plaintiff has made objections to the declaration of Traci
Holzer submitted in opposition to the motion. These objections are ruled upon as follows:
1. § 2 of the Declaration: Overruled.
2. 13 of the Declaration: Overruled.
3. J 4 of the Declaration: Overruled.
4. 75 of the Declaration: Overruled.
5. 96 of the Declaration: Overruled.
6. {7 of the Declaration: Overruled.
7. 98 of the Declaration: Sustained.
8. {9 of the Declaration: Sustained.
9. {| 10 of the Declaration: Sustained.
Vil.
RECOMMENDED RULINGS ON DISPUTED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
In ruling on the requests for production presented by the motion, the text of the request
will be set forth, followed by a brief synopsis of the positions of the parties if appropriate, and
finally the ruling as to whether a further response is required with a statement of the reasons
for the reccommended ruling.
i
i
104 PD HO fF WN
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Any and all documents or files PERTAINING to calculations of PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS!’ wages during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9
Defendant objected to this request on, among other grounds, that it is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome, that it seeks to violate the privacy rights of third
parties, and that it is improper merits-based discovery. Defendant stated it would produce
plaintiff's wage statements.
Plaintiff responded that defendant “indicated that it would produce responsive
documents, but improperly and unilaterally limited those documents to documents relating or
pertaining to Plaintiff. All responsive documents related to putative class members must be
‘produced.” Plaintiff is incorrect in his assertion that defendant indicated it would produce all
responsive documents.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9.
Defendant argues Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause justifying the discovery
sought, citing Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1)and Kirkland v. Superior Court, (2002)95
Cal. App. 4th 92, 98. This is true, but the standard is not high; all that is required is a fact
specific showing of relevance, which is met here despite the request’s other flaws. /bid.
Defendant also makes a perfunctory objection that the request is burdensome, which is
overruled. Defendant has not submitted any evidence supporting its assertion that preparing a
response to this request would be burdensome, and burden alone--that responding would
require a large amount of work--is an insufficient ground to refuse to answer. See Weil &
Brown, et. al. Cal. Prac, Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) § 8.1095 at p.
8F-47, citing West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407,
417-418. Defendant's request in its supplemental brief that it be given the opportunity to fully
brief the issue of burden is denied. The requirement that evidence showing burden be
“4submitted with the opposition is not new. Ibid. All Papers opposing a motion must be timely
filed. See CCP § 1005(b).
Defendant's objection based on the privacy interests of other putative class members is
also overruled. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy
interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a
threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552, citing
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., (1994) 7 Cal.4" 1, 35. An individual does have a
protected privacy interest in his financial affairs, which would appear to include his
employment related compensation. See Williams at 554; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc.,
v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4" 554, 561-562. However, defendant has not made a
showing that the other putative class members have a reasonable expectation of privacy
regarding documents showing the manner in which their wages were calculated. Specifically,
it appears unlikely that these other employees would want these documents withheld from a
plaintiff seeking to prove wage and hour violations committed against them in order to collect
damages and penalties on their behalf. See Williams at 554, Because this element is lacking,
there is no need to conduct a balancing of interests to determine whether the discovery should
be allowed. /d. at 555. However, if such balancing is required, the result should be to place
limitations on such discovery to protect the privacy rights of the third parties, (such redactions
or a Belaire notice, as opposed to an absolute prohibition. /bid.
‘Defendant’s objection that the request is prohibited merits-based discovery is overruled.
Certain documents pertaining to calculation of wages, such as wage statements, could be
used, for example, to show that overtime wages were uniformly but incorrectly calculated ,
within a given class or subclass, thereby helping plaintiff prove predominant common
questions of law or fact. Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4" at 326.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is well taken. None of the classes
or subclasses described in paragraphs 23 to 46 of the FAC is described as broadly as the
defined term PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS--all “hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES employed
12by DEFENDANT from July 5, 2012 to present.” Plaintiffs Reply does not contest that he
worked only for Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. Production of documents possessed by
“affiliates” of Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc., which are included in the definition of
“DEFENDANT,” is beyond the scope of the class allegations of the FAC. Whatever is the
scope of documents described in this request, Producing all of them would necessarily
include production of wage documents pertaining to persons who are neither potential class
members nor aggrieved employees within the meaning of PAGA.
Defendant's objection based on CCP § § 2031.030(c)(1) is sustained. The phrase
“documents or files PERTAINING to calculations of PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS’ wages”
does not describe each individual item, nor does it reasonably particularize each category of
item. This ts particularly evident when the definitions of PERTAINING and PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS, and their internal defined terms, are incorporated into the request, producing the
following:
“Any and all documents or files evidencing, memarializing, referring,
constituting, containing, discussing, describing, embodying, reflecting,
identifying, mentioning, stating, or otherwise relating to in any way, in whole or
in part, to calculations of [wages of] hourly non-exempt persons engaged,
suffered or permitted to work, or over whom DEFENDANT DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC named in this lawsuit, together with any
representatives, affiliates, EMPLOYEES, agents or assigns, and any
representatives or persons acting or authorized to act on their behalf
exercised control of that person's wages, hours, or working conditions, in the
State of California, as defined in the applicable wage order promulgated by the
Industrial Welfare Commission, during the LIABILITY PERIOD.”
It was this sort of request which was condemned as an “outrageous abuse of the
discovery system" and “particularly obnoxious" in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1997) 53 CalApp.4" 216, 221-223, Perhaps there are persons who, reading this
description, can determine with some degree of reliability the particular category of
documents requested. The referee cannot, and will not impute this ability to Defendant.
There is no feasible way to limit this request. Accordingly, no further response Is required.
i
13REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Time card data, in non-pdf text file format on a Compact Disc (cd-rom) and/or DVD
which is accessible by Microsoft Office Excel and/or other similar software, for hourly, non-
exempt employees in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD with names and first five digits
of any social security numbers redacted.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10.
The arguments of the parties are virtually identical to those presented regarding
Request No. 9. For reasons set forth in the proposed recommended ruling regarding Request
No. 9, Defendant's objections based on overbreadth and CCP § 2031 -030(c)(1) are sustained.
Defendant's other objections are overruled. “Time card data,” which according to the ordinary
meaning of the words used denotes when potential class members clocked in and out of their
work days, is reasonably particular. This is not personal financial data, in that the records are
of time worked, not wages earned. There is not a serious privacy interest in such information
or a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the information; if the contrary is true
redacting the names and first five digits of the social security numbers adequately protects this
interest. This is not merits-based discovery, because only by comparing time card data with
wage statements will Plaintiff be able to demonstrate that the violations he complains of are
common across the classes described in the FAC. See Salgado v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc. 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175158, *22.
Production of the requested documents for all “hourly non-exempt employees in
California” is not warranted. To limit this discovery to subject matter relevant documents,
production should be limited to time card data from July 5, 2012 to the present of hourly
employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., who fall into any of the classes described in
the FAC:
1. ‘Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to
14clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to
changing out of their scrubs.
2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest
quarter hour for computation of wages.
3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call.
4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
Further, it is not necessary that the time card data for all such employees be produced
to enable plaintiff to show predominant common questions of law or fact. Where any of the
four potential classes described above consist of more than 50 persons, a blind sample of
25% of the time card data for such class may, at Defendant's option, be produced. If the data
cannot be produced in the electronic format requested, Defendant should so state in its further
response and produce the data in an alternative electronic format usable by Plaintiff.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Any and all daily punch-in and punch-out data and/or history of the PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS, during the LIABILITY PERIOD on a Compact Dise (CD) and/or DVD which is
accessible by Microsoft Office Excel and/or other similar software.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 11.
The referee finds the term “daily punch-in and punch-out data and/or history"
indistinguishable from “time card data.” The proposed recommended ruling ts identical to that
for Request 10.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any internal
complaints, inquiries or comments from any PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER regarding YOUR
failure to pay wages during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
15RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other
objections are overruled. Defendant's objections based on Lyle’s alleged benefitting from
Defendant's time rounding policy goes to his standing, and a discovery motion is not the
proper vehicle to litigate the merits of this issue. Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5" at
558-559, citing Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1,12. The same is true of
Defendant's objection based on the alleged execution by potential class members of
arbitration agreements with class action waivers. The following documents shail be produced:
All written complaints made to Defendant from July 5, 2012 to the present regarding
failure to pay wages for all time worked received from any of the following hourly employees:
1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to
clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to
changing out of their scrubs.
2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest
quarter hour for computation of wages.
3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call.
4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any
administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for YOUR failure to pay wages for
all time WORKED.
u
16RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26.
Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession.
Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and
setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to
have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
Any and all documents or files showing which employees were entitled to overtime
payment during the LIABILITY PERIOD. ’
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is well taken. The term
“employees” is far broader than any of the classes or subclasses described in paragraphs 23
to 46 of the FAC.
Defendant's objection based on CCP § § 2031.030(c)(1) is sustained. The phrase
“documents or files showing which employees were entitled to overtime payment" does not
describe each individual item, nor does it reasonably particularize each category of item. Further
it is doubtful that the broad range of documents responsive to this request would assist in .
establishing the elements of class certification. No further response is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 40:
Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any
administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for unpaid overtime wages for the
last ten years.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40.
Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession.
Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and
17setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to
have possession, custody, or control of that ttem or category of item, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING or RELATING to any internal complaints,
inquiries or comments for the last five (5) years from any current or former EMPLOYEE
regarding YOUR failure to provide MEAL PERIODS.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52,
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained, Defendant's other
objections are overruled for reasons set forth in the proposed recommended rulings on
Request Nos. 9 and 19. The following documents shall be produced:
All written internal complaints made to Defendant during the last 5 years regarding
failure to provide meal periods received from any of the following hourly employees:
1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to
clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to
changing out of their scrubs.
2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest
quarter hour for computation of wages.
3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call.
4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
i
Wt
18REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 53:
Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any
administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for failure to authorize or permit
MEAL PERIODS or pay MEAL PERIOD premium wages.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53,
Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession.
Defendant has agreed to supptement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and
setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to
have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
Any and all on-duty MEAL PERIOD agreements PLAINTIFF signed.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54.
Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession.
Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and
setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to
have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56:
A sample of each and every on-duty MEAL PERIOD agreement used during the
LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other
objections are overruled. The following documents shall be produced:
Samples of all agreements providing for on-duty meal periods used by Doctor's Hospital
of Manteca, Inc., from July 5, 2012, signed by any of the following hourly employees:
19Q
1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to
clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to
changing out of their scrubs.
2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest
quarter hour for computation of wages.
3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call.
4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58:
Any and all documents that in any manner relate, reflect or refer to any internal
complaints, inquiries or comments from any EMPLOYEE during the LIABILITY PERIOD for
YOUR failure to provide all required MEAL PERIODS or pay MEAL PERIOD premium wages.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58,
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other
objections are overruled for reasons set forth in the proposed recommended rulings on
Request Nos. 9 and 19. The following documents shall be produced:
All written internal complaints made to Defendant from July 5, 2012 to the present
regarding failure to provide meal periods or pay meal period premium wages received from
any of the following hourly employees:
1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to
20clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to
changing out of their scrubs.
2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest
quarter hour for computation of wages.
3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call.
4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting the number of times that DEFENDANT paid premium wages
to the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed meal breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does
not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of
item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)1). Further, the number of times premium wages were
paid, even if this number ts limited to the number of times premium wages were paid to the
classes described in the FAC, would not be of assistance in proving numerosity, an
ascertainable class, common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the
classes, or that Lyle can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v.
Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4™ at 326. No further response is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount of premium wages that DEFENDANT paid
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed meal breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD,
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does
not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of
21item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)(1). Further, the amount of premium wages were paid,
even if this number is limited to the premium wages paid to the classes described in the
FAC, would not be of assistance in proving numerosity, an ascertainable class, common
questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the classes, or that Lyle can
adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34
Cal.4” at 326. Last, it appears that the total premium wages paid would be relevant, if at all,
only on the issue of the aggregate damages suffered by the class, which is prohibited
merits-based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S. at 177-178. No
further response is required.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75:
Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING or RELATING to any internal complaints,
inquiries or comments for the last five (5) years from any current or former EMPLOYEE
regarding YOUR failure to provide REST PERIODS.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other
objections are overruled for reasons set forth in the proposed recommended rulings on
Request Nos. 9 and 19. The following documents shall be produced:
All written internal complaints made to Defendant during the last 5 years regarding
failure to provide rest periods received from any of the following hourly employees:
1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to
clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to
changing out of their scrubs.
2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest
quarter hour for computation of wages.
223. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call.
4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time
from July 5, 2012 to the.present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76:
Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any
administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for failure to authorize or permit
REST PERIODS or pay REST PERIOD premium wages.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76.
Defendant has responded that following a difigent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession,
Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and
setting forth'the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to
have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting the number of times that DEFENDANT paid premium wages
to the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed REST breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does
not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of
item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)(1). Further, the number of times premium wages were
paid, even if this number is limited to the number of times premium wages were paid to the
classes described in the FAC, would not be of assistance in proving numerosity, an
ascertainable class, common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the
classes, or that Lyle can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v.
Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4" at 326. No further response is required.
i
23REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount of premium wages that DEFENDANT paid
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed REST breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD,
RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81.
Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does
not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of
item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)
Preview
eee ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY fiName. State Bar number. and address): J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) [Mayall Hurley 2453 Grand Canai Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207 ‘TELEPHONE NO: 209-477-3833 FAXNO. (Optional: IRTUSE ONLY SUPERIOR CEURT- STOCKTON QWIGAPR <2 PH 4: 06 CIV-130 q RESA- {RO. E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): jabbott@mayallaw.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): DISCOVERY REFEREE ey: SUPERIOR GOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STOCKTON ceruT yt STREET ADDRESS: 180 E. WEBER AVENUE MAILING ADDRESS: 180 E, WEBER AVENUE GTY AND ZIPCODE: STOCKTON 95202 BRANCH NAME: STOCKTON PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: OR ORDER STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523 (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE. =—- [__] LIMITED CASE {Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 41, Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 03/19/2018 2, Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: 03/29/2018 J. ANTHONY ABBOTT > / (TYPEORPRINTNAMEOF [_] ATTORNEY [___] PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) / V7 (GIGNATURE) Page 1of2 Farm eve Open e Winn SOATO AGT tiga aural ot xt NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERClV-130 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1. lam atleast 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing tock place, and my residence or business address is (specify): 2. | served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. [] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a. on (date): 03/29/2018 b. from (city and state): STOCKTON, CA 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c, Name of person served: ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON Street address: 633 WEST 5TH STREET 63RD FL Street address: City: LOS ANGELES City: State and zip code: CA 90071 State and zip code: b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served: VINCENT C. GRANBERRY Street address: 8889 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 200 Street address: City: BEVERLY HILLS City: State and zip code: CA 90211 State and zip code: [1] names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached 32 . I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 03/29/2018 MEGAN COOPER > Tr Oe (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) @ (GIGNATURE OF DEGEARANT) Page 2of2 (CIV-130 (New January 4, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN STREET ADDRESS: 180 E Weber Avenue MAILING ADDRESS: 180 E Weber Avenue CITY AND ZIP CODE: Stockton, CA 95202 BRANCH NAME: Superior Court San Joaquin FOR COURT USE ONLY Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al. CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL CASE NUMBER: STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523 | certify that | am not a party to this cause. | certify that a true copy of Discovery Referee's Recommended Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Furhter Responses to Requests for Production of Documents; Order was mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated below. The mailing and this certification occurred at Stockton, California, on 03/19/2018. Vincent C. Granberry 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills CA 90211 By: Melinda Ruiz, Deputy Clerk Elizabeth Staggs Wilson 633 West 5th Street - 63rd Floor Los Angeles CA 90071 J. Anthony Abbott Discovery Referee 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 2" floor Stockton, CA 95207 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL, 19 20 J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) MAR 8. 2453 Grand Cana! Boulevard Filed wcpet Stockton, CA 95207 ROSA JURGUERRO, CLERK Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 jabbott@mayallaw.com By Raz i oo DEPUTY DISCOVERY REFEREE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, ) Case No. STK-CV-UQE-2016-0006523 ) Assigned to Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys; Dept ) 10C Plaintiff, } ) DISCOVERY REFEREE’S RECOMMENDED vs. ) RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ) COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF ) DOCUMENTS; ORDER MANTECA; DRS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, _ ) INC.; SP OF MANTECA, INC.; TENET ) HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET ) HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; ) TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1to 100, ) Inclusive, ) ) ) Submission Date: December 22, 2017 Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Trial Date: June 4, 2018 Defendants. 1. OVERVIEW By order filed December 14, 2017, the undersigned was appointed as Discovery Referee. Plaintiff Reginald Lyle (Plaintiff or Lyle) moves to compel further responses to enumerated Requests For Production Of Documents, Set One, served on defendant Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc., (Defendant) on November 8, 2016. i i iI. FACTS Plaintiffs’ initial complaint was filed July 5, 2016, as a class action. Plaintiff's operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed July 25, 2016, setting forth eight causes of action arising from so-called “wage and hour” violations allegedly committed by, among others, Defendant. Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on November 8, 2016. After at least two extensions, responses were served February 9, 2017. On March 25, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel Vincent Granberry, Esq. sought, and was later granted, an extension of time to file a motion to compel further responses to April 21, 2017. He suggested a timeline whereby he would send his “meet and confer” letter by March 27, and the defense would respond by April 3, 2017. The meet and confer letter dated March 27, 2017 followed. Defense counsel Shannon Boyce, Esq., suggested a reply date of April 14, and extended the time for filing a motion to compel to May 5, 2017. On April 26, 2017, no responsive letter having been received, Mr. Granberry advised if no response to the meet and confer letter of March 27, 2017, or amended responses were received by April 28, a motion to compel would be filed. . Ms. Boyce responded by e-mail on April 28, 2017, that she had been out of the office, and would respond further in detail the following week. There was no further correspondence prior to the filing of the motion on May 5, 2017. Defendant does not contend that the instant motion is untimely or that it should be denied for failure to comply with CCP §§ 2030.300(b). , At the request of the referee, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on the effect of Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531, which had not been published at the time plaintiffs reply was filed. These briefs were submitted February 8, 2018. Defendant also submitted an unsolicited Request For Judicial Notice, which is denied as untimely. The Proposed Recommended Ruling was served February 20, 2018. No request for hearing was received from either side during the ensuing 5 court days. Accordingly, this Recommended Ruling and Order are submitted to the court./ Ml. THE CLASS ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The class allegations of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) pertinent to this discovery dispute are the following; the numbered subparagraphs below are paragraphs quoted from the FAC: A. UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE CLASS 23. In this case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift. Similarly, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 24, In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees wages for that time. 25. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be “on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. During “on-call” time Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” prevented them from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time. 46A. Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class: All current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class, who were under contro! of Defendants during time prior to and after to a work period, whose daily hours worked were rounded down or shaved down to the nearest quarter of an hour and/or who were required to be “on-call” and Defendants did not pay wages for that timea at the legal minimum wage rate. B. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES CLASS 27. As described above, Defendants’ policies, practices, and Procedures require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don and doff their scrubs off the clock, round down or shave down employees daily hours down to the nearest quarter hour, and require that an employees to remain “on-call” without being compensated for that time. The foregoing resulted in time each work day which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants but were not compensated. 29. Despite that California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked and at a higher rate of pay when those hours fall during work periods in excess of 8 hours in a workday and 40 hours in a workweek; Defendants would fail to pay employees wages for the time it took to don and doff their scrubs, for the time each workday that employees’ were not compensated for due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure of rounding down or shaving down employees’ daily hours down to the nearest quarter hour, and requiring that an employees remain “on-call” without being compensated for that time which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under contro! of Defendants. To the extent the employees had already worked 8 hours in the day and on workweeks they had already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the employees should have been paid overtime for this unpaid time. This resulted in non-exempt employees working time which should have been paid at the legal overtime rate, but was not paid any wages in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders. 46B. Unpaid Work Overtime Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class, who were under control of Defendants during time prior to a work period and on workdays they had already worked in excess of 8 hours in a day, 40 hours in a week, or were working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not Pay wages for thattime. C. MISSED MEAL PERIOD CLASS 33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts long enough to entitle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Despite the fact that California law requires employers to authorize or permit an uninterrupted, duty- free first meal period of not less than 30 minutes prior to their sixth hour of work when they worked shifts more than five hours in length and a second, duty-free meal period of not less than 30 minutes when they worked shifts over 10 hours in length, Defendants routinely failed to authorize or permit first meal periods of not less than 30 minutes because Defendants would require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don their scrubs prior to conclusion of their first meal periods and failed to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether when employees worked shifts of more than 10 hours. 46C. Meal Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through ‘the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked shifts of at least six hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes, and/or who worked shifts more than ten hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of their eleventh hour of work. D. REST PERIOD CLASS 36. Defendants often employed hourly employees, including the named Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated, for shifts at least three and one-half (3.5) hours in length. 39. Defendants employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, if the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest period of ten net minutes. 46D. Rest Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed byoN @ 10 Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked at least three and one-half (3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive required rest periods of ten net minutes rest time for every four hours worked between three and one-half and six hours, six and ten hours, or ten and fourteen hours. E. WAGE STATEMENT CLASS 43. Defendants failed to provide accurate wage and hour statements to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendants’ control for uncompensated time and who did not receive the wages they earned (including minimum wages, overtime wages, as well as failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and rest periods). 46E, Wage Statement Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the one year prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who received inaccurate or incomplete wage and hour statements. F. WAITING TIME CLASS 45. Because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all their earned wages (including minimum wages, overtime wages, and unpaid meal and rest period premium wages), Defendants failed to pay those employees timely after each employee's termination and/or resignation. 46F. Waiting Time Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the three years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who did not receive payment of all unpaid wages upon separation of employment within the statutory time period. i iIV. THE PAGA ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The PAGA-based allegations of the FAC, set forth in the 8" Cause of Action, track the class action allegations. The pertinent portions are these: 109. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 88 of this complaint as if fully alleged herein. 112. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage: In this case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift. Similarly, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 113. In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees wages for that time. 114. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be “on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. During “on-call” time Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” prevented them from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time. 120. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for workdays Defendants failed to provide required rest periods: Defendants employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, if the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest period of ten net minutes.Vv. PERTINENT DEFINED TERMS IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION The following defined terms are pertinent to a discussion of the requests for production and responses in dispute: Wt Wt It i “DEFENDANT,” shall mean the DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC named in this lawsuit, together with any representatives, affiliates, EMPLOYEES, agents or assigns, and any representatives or persons acting or authorized to act on their behalf. “YOU" or “YOUR refers to DEFENDANT and its agents, EMPLOYEES, representatives, attorneys, and anyone acting on its behalf. "LIABILITY PERIOD": as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2012, to present. “EMPLOYEE” or “EMPLOYEES”: any person DEFENDANT engaged, suffered or permitted to work, or over whom DEFENDANT exercised contro! of that person's wages, hours, or working conditions, in the State of California, as defined in the applicable wage order promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission. “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS”: hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES employed ‘ by DEFENDANT from July 5, 2012 to present. "MEAL PERIOD": means a period of not !ess than 30 uninterrupted duty-free minutes for each five hours WORKED. “PERTAINING and RELATING”: means evidencing, memorializing, referring, constituting, containing, discussing, describing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, mentioning, stating, or otherwise relating to in any way, in whole or in part, the subject matter referred to in this request. “REST PERIOD": This capitalized term is not defined in the requests for production. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean the rest periods described in Labor Code § 226.7 and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(12)(A).Vi. DISCUSSION "Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions ‘when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court ... .". Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4" 319, 326, citation omitted. “The party seeking certification has the burden to establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among class members. /bid. “The ‘community of interest’ requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” Ibid. The right to conduct discovery on class certification issues is well established. See Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4" 223, 232-233; Barthold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4" 816, 836; Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4” 239, 244, However, the court has the power to restrict discovery which is unduly burdensome and expensive taking into account the needs of the case. CCP § 2019.030(a). Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the discovery in issue is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Mantolete v. Bolger cg" Circuit 1985) 767 F.2d 1416, 1424, citing Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc. (9" Circuit 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, 1313. ‘On the other hand, failure to allow precertification discovery where it is necessary to determine the existence of a class is an abuse of discretion. Kamm v. California City Development Co. (9"" Circuit 1975) 509 F.2d 205, 210. As shown below, many of the requests for production are objectionable, primarily due to the overbroad definitions incorporated into the requests, and the consequent failure of the requests to describe specifically each item requested or to “reasonably particularize each category of item." CCP § 2031.030(c)(1). However, the policy in California for at least the last 57 years is that courts, where possible, “should impose partial limitations rather than outrightdenial of discovery.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531, 559, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384. Accordingly, certain requests have been limited instead of denying them in their entirety. Vil. RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Declarations in support of and in opposition to a motion must set forth admissible evidence. See McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 359-360. An affidavit to be used as evidence cannot be based on hearsay. Star Motor Imports, inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 201, 204. Plaintiff has made objections to the declaration of Traci Holzer submitted in opposition to the motion. These objections are ruled upon as follows: 1. § 2 of the Declaration: Overruled. 2. 13 of the Declaration: Overruled. 3. J 4 of the Declaration: Overruled. 4. 75 of the Declaration: Overruled. 5. 96 of the Declaration: Overruled. 6. {7 of the Declaration: Overruled. 7. 98 of the Declaration: Sustained. 8. {9 of the Declaration: Sustained. 9. {| 10 of the Declaration: Sustained. Vil. RECOMMENDED RULINGS ON DISPUTED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION In ruling on the requests for production presented by the motion, the text of the request will be set forth, followed by a brief synopsis of the positions of the parties if appropriate, and finally the ruling as to whether a further response is required with a statement of the reasons for the reccommended ruling. i i 104 PD HO fF WN REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Any and all documents or files PERTAINING to calculations of PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS!’ wages during the LIABILITY PERIOD. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 Defendant objected to this request on, among other grounds, that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome, that it seeks to violate the privacy rights of third parties, and that it is improper merits-based discovery. Defendant stated it would produce plaintiff's wage statements. Plaintiff responded that defendant “indicated that it would produce responsive documents, but improperly and unilaterally limited those documents to documents relating or pertaining to Plaintiff. All responsive documents related to putative class members must be ‘produced.” Plaintiff is incorrect in his assertion that defendant indicated it would produce all responsive documents. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9. Defendant argues Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause justifying the discovery sought, citing Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1)and Kirkland v. Superior Court, (2002)95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98. This is true, but the standard is not high; all that is required is a fact specific showing of relevance, which is met here despite the request’s other flaws. /bid. Defendant also makes a perfunctory objection that the request is burdensome, which is overruled. Defendant has not submitted any evidence supporting its assertion that preparing a response to this request would be burdensome, and burden alone--that responding would require a large amount of work--is an insufficient ground to refuse to answer. See Weil & Brown, et. al. Cal. Prac, Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) § 8.1095 at p. 8F-47, citing West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Defendant's request in its supplemental brief that it be given the opportunity to fully brief the issue of burden is denied. The requirement that evidence showing burden be “4submitted with the opposition is not new. Ibid. All Papers opposing a motion must be timely filed. See CCP § 1005(b). Defendant's objection based on the privacy interests of other putative class members is also overruled. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., (1994) 7 Cal.4" 1, 35. An individual does have a protected privacy interest in his financial affairs, which would appear to include his employment related compensation. See Williams at 554; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc., v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4" 554, 561-562. However, defendant has not made a showing that the other putative class members have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding documents showing the manner in which their wages were calculated. Specifically, it appears unlikely that these other employees would want these documents withheld from a plaintiff seeking to prove wage and hour violations committed against them in order to collect damages and penalties on their behalf. See Williams at 554, Because this element is lacking, there is no need to conduct a balancing of interests to determine whether the discovery should be allowed. /d. at 555. However, if such balancing is required, the result should be to place limitations on such discovery to protect the privacy rights of the third parties, (such redactions or a Belaire notice, as opposed to an absolute prohibition. /bid. ‘Defendant’s objection that the request is prohibited merits-based discovery is overruled. Certain documents pertaining to calculation of wages, such as wage statements, could be used, for example, to show that overtime wages were uniformly but incorrectly calculated , within a given class or subclass, thereby helping plaintiff prove predominant common questions of law or fact. Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4" at 326. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is well taken. None of the classes or subclasses described in paragraphs 23 to 46 of the FAC is described as broadly as the defined term PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS--all “hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES employed 12by DEFENDANT from July 5, 2012 to present.” Plaintiffs Reply does not contest that he worked only for Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. Production of documents possessed by “affiliates” of Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc., which are included in the definition of “DEFENDANT,” is beyond the scope of the class allegations of the FAC. Whatever is the scope of documents described in this request, Producing all of them would necessarily include production of wage documents pertaining to persons who are neither potential class members nor aggrieved employees within the meaning of PAGA. Defendant's objection based on CCP § § 2031.030(c)(1) is sustained. The phrase “documents or files PERTAINING to calculations of PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS’ wages” does not describe each individual item, nor does it reasonably particularize each category of item. This ts particularly evident when the definitions of PERTAINING and PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS, and their internal defined terms, are incorporated into the request, producing the following: “Any and all documents or files evidencing, memarializing, referring, constituting, containing, discussing, describing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, mentioning, stating, or otherwise relating to in any way, in whole or in part, to calculations of [wages of] hourly non-exempt persons engaged, suffered or permitted to work, or over whom DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC named in this lawsuit, together with any representatives, affiliates, EMPLOYEES, agents or assigns, and any representatives or persons acting or authorized to act on their behalf exercised control of that person's wages, hours, or working conditions, in the State of California, as defined in the applicable wage order promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission, during the LIABILITY PERIOD.” It was this sort of request which was condemned as an “outrageous abuse of the discovery system" and “particularly obnoxious" in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 CalApp.4" 216, 221-223, Perhaps there are persons who, reading this description, can determine with some degree of reliability the particular category of documents requested. The referee cannot, and will not impute this ability to Defendant. There is no feasible way to limit this request. Accordingly, no further response Is required. i 13REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Time card data, in non-pdf text file format on a Compact Disc (cd-rom) and/or DVD which is accessible by Microsoft Office Excel and/or other similar software, for hourly, non- exempt employees in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD with names and first five digits of any social security numbers redacted. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10. The arguments of the parties are virtually identical to those presented regarding Request No. 9. For reasons set forth in the proposed recommended ruling regarding Request No. 9, Defendant's objections based on overbreadth and CCP § 2031 -030(c)(1) are sustained. Defendant's other objections are overruled. “Time card data,” which according to the ordinary meaning of the words used denotes when potential class members clocked in and out of their work days, is reasonably particular. This is not personal financial data, in that the records are of time worked, not wages earned. There is not a serious privacy interest in such information or a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the information; if the contrary is true redacting the names and first five digits of the social security numbers adequately protects this interest. This is not merits-based discovery, because only by comparing time card data with wage statements will Plaintiff be able to demonstrate that the violations he complains of are common across the classes described in the FAC. See Salgado v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175158, *22. Production of the requested documents for all “hourly non-exempt employees in California” is not warranted. To limit this discovery to subject matter relevant documents, production should be limited to time card data from July 5, 2012 to the present of hourly employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., who fall into any of the classes described in the FAC: 1. ‘Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to 14clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. Further, it is not necessary that the time card data for all such employees be produced to enable plaintiff to show predominant common questions of law or fact. Where any of the four potential classes described above consist of more than 50 persons, a blind sample of 25% of the time card data for such class may, at Defendant's option, be produced. If the data cannot be produced in the electronic format requested, Defendant should so state in its further response and produce the data in an alternative electronic format usable by Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Any and all daily punch-in and punch-out data and/or history of the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS, during the LIABILITY PERIOD on a Compact Dise (CD) and/or DVD which is accessible by Microsoft Office Excel and/or other similar software. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 11. The referee finds the term “daily punch-in and punch-out data and/or history" indistinguishable from “time card data.” The proposed recommended ruling ts identical to that for Request 10. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any internal complaints, inquiries or comments from any PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER regarding YOUR failure to pay wages during the LIABILITY PERIOD. 15RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other objections are overruled. Defendant's objections based on Lyle’s alleged benefitting from Defendant's time rounding policy goes to his standing, and a discovery motion is not the proper vehicle to litigate the merits of this issue. Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5" at 558-559, citing Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1,12. The same is true of Defendant's objection based on the alleged execution by potential class members of arbitration agreements with class action waivers. The following documents shail be produced: All written complaints made to Defendant from July 5, 2012 to the present regarding failure to pay wages for all time worked received from any of the following hourly employees: 1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for YOUR failure to pay wages for all time WORKED. u 16RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26. Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession. Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Any and all documents or files showing which employees were entitled to overtime payment during the LIABILITY PERIOD. ’ RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is well taken. The term “employees” is far broader than any of the classes or subclasses described in paragraphs 23 to 46 of the FAC. Defendant's objection based on CCP § § 2031.030(c)(1) is sustained. The phrase “documents or files showing which employees were entitled to overtime payment" does not describe each individual item, nor does it reasonably particularize each category of item. Further it is doubtful that the broad range of documents responsive to this request would assist in . establishing the elements of class certification. No further response is required. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 40: Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for unpaid overtime wages for the last ten years. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40. Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession. Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and 17setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of that ttem or category of item, if any. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING or RELATING to any internal complaints, inquiries or comments for the last five (5) years from any current or former EMPLOYEE regarding YOUR failure to provide MEAL PERIODS. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52, Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained, Defendant's other objections are overruled for reasons set forth in the proposed recommended rulings on Request Nos. 9 and 19. The following documents shall be produced: All written internal complaints made to Defendant during the last 5 years regarding failure to provide meal periods received from any of the following hourly employees: 1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. i Wt 18REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 53: Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for failure to authorize or permit MEAL PERIODS or pay MEAL PERIOD premium wages. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53, Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession. Defendant has agreed to supptement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Any and all on-duty MEAL PERIOD agreements PLAINTIFF signed. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54. Defendant has responded that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession. Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and setting forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: A sample of each and every on-duty MEAL PERIOD agreement used during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other objections are overruled. The following documents shall be produced: Samples of all agreements providing for on-duty meal periods used by Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc., from July 5, 2012, signed by any of the following hourly employees: 19Q 1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Any and all documents that in any manner relate, reflect or refer to any internal complaints, inquiries or comments from any EMPLOYEE during the LIABILITY PERIOD for YOUR failure to provide all required MEAL PERIODS or pay MEAL PERIOD premium wages. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58, Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other objections are overruled for reasons set forth in the proposed recommended rulings on Request Nos. 9 and 19. The following documents shall be produced: All written internal complaints made to Defendant from July 5, 2012 to the present regarding failure to provide meal periods or pay meal period premium wages received from any of the following hourly employees: 1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to 20clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 3. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: All DOCUMENTS reflecting the number of times that DEFENDANT paid premium wages to the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed meal breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)1). Further, the number of times premium wages were paid, even if this number ts limited to the number of times premium wages were paid to the classes described in the FAC, would not be of assistance in proving numerosity, an ascertainable class, common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the classes, or that Lyle can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4™ at 326. No further response is required. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: All DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount of premium wages that DEFENDANT paid PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed meal breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD, RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of 21item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)(1). Further, the amount of premium wages were paid, even if this number is limited to the premium wages paid to the classes described in the FAC, would not be of assistance in proving numerosity, an ascertainable class, common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the classes, or that Lyle can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4” at 326. Last, it appears that the total premium wages paid would be relevant, if at all, only on the issue of the aggregate damages suffered by the class, which is prohibited merits-based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S. at 177-178. No further response is required. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING or RELATING to any internal complaints, inquiries or comments for the last five (5) years from any current or former EMPLOYEE regarding YOUR failure to provide REST PERIODS. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. Defendant's other objections are overruled for reasons set forth in the proposed recommended rulings on Request Nos. 9 and 19. The following documents shall be produced: All written internal complaints made to Defendant during the last 5 years regarding failure to provide rest periods received from any of the following hourly employees: 1. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift, or were required to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 2. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 223. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4. Employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed in California at any time from July 5, 2012 to the.present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Any and all documents in any manner RELATING, reflecting or referring to any administrative or civil complaints or claims filed against YOU for failure to authorize or permit REST PERIODS or pay REST PERIOD premium wages. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76. Defendant has responded that following a difigent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have responsive documents in its custody, control, or possession, Defendant has agreed to supplement this response detailing why it is unable to comply and setting forth'the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item, if any. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: All DOCUMENTS reflecting the number of times that DEFENDANT paid premium wages to the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed REST breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)(1). Further, the number of times premium wages were paid, even if this number is limited to the number of times premium wages were paid to the classes described in the FAC, would not be of assistance in proving numerosity, an ascertainable class, common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the classes, or that Lyle can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4" at 326. No further response is required. i 23REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: All DOCUMENTS reflecting the amount of premium wages that DEFENDANT paid PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for missed REST breaks during the LIABILITY PERIOD, RECOMMENDED RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81. Defendant's objection that the request is overbroad is sustained. The request does not specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of item. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030(c)