Preview
ClV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number, and address!:
J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975)
Mayall Hurley
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207
‘TELEPHONE NO.: 209-477-3833,
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): jabbott@mayallaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): DISCOVERY REFEREE
FAX NO, (Options):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STOCKTON
STREET ADDRESS: 180 E. WEBER AVENUE
MAILING ADDRESS: 180 E, WEBER AVENUE
CITY AND ZIP CODE: STOCKTON 95202
BRANCH NAME: STOCKTON
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL
F Sear USE ONLY
SUPERIER COURT-STOCK IGN
BiG APR -2 PH 4: 06
ROSA JJNOUEIRS. wendy
bg
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
OR ORDER
(Check one): [2] unumitepcasE [_] LIMITED CASE
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
CASE NUMBER:
STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 03/14/2018
2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date; 03/29/2018
J. ANTHONY ABBOTT >
Lh
(TYPEQRPRINTNAMEOF [| ATTORNEY [| PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
7 NS GIGNATURE)
Page 4 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of Califomia
(CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010]
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
‘winw,courtnfo.ca.gov"ti
vw
CIV-130
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. CASE NUMBER:
STK-CV-UCE-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 took
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 Co deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, fallawing this business's usual practices,
with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
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 320
| 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 » PR
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) a perottie OF DECLARANT)
Page 2 of 2
(Cl¥-130 [New January 4, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN FOR COURT USE ONLY
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
Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al.
CASE NUMBER:
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; 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,
By: Melinda Ruiz, Deputy Clerk
Vincent C. Granberry Elizabeth Staggs Wilson
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 633 West Sth Street - 63rd Floor
Beverly Hills CA 90211 Los Angeles CA 90071
J. Anthony Abbott
Discovery Referee
2453 Grand Canal Blvd.
Stockton, CA 95207
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILoC Oo oa N OD oO RB WN B=
NNN NY B BoB Be ew ew Bo aw ow ow
BN BRRBBRBRBBSERASaRS RE
J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975)
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
jabbott@mayallaw.com
-| DISCOVERY REFEREE
dt
14 208
Figg so} enemas
ROSA JUNQUEINO, CLERK
MELINDA RUIZ °°
DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC.; SP OF MANTECA, INC.; TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.;
TENET HEALTH; and DOES ‘to 100,
Inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523
Assigned to Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys; Dept
10C
DISCOVERY REFEREE'S RECOMMENDED
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; ORDER
Submission Date: December 22, 2017
Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Trial Date: June 4, 2018
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 Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on defendant Doctor's Hospital of
Manteca, Inc., (Defendant) on October 19, 2016.
i
i
io ON OD HO PB Ww NY
N NM NY NY @ Bo sw 2 a an an an a
NBRRBRRNR SSeS AAA RS KAS
N
oo
i
FACTS
Plaintiff's initial complaint was filed July 5, 2016, as a class action. Plaintiffs 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. The Eighth Cause of Action is based on the Labor Code Private Attorney
Generals Act of 2004 (hereinafter PAGA). Labor Code § 2698 et. seq. Plaintiff served Special
Interrogatories, Set One, on November 8, 2016. After at least two extensions, responses were
served February 9, 2017. On March 25, 2017, Plaintiffs 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 tespond 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. There was no further substantive
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).
The initial Proposed Recommended Ruling was issued January 24, 2018. Thereafter,
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 Amended Proposed Recommended Ruling was transmitted to the attorneys for
Plaintiff and Defendant by electronic mail on February 13, 2018, and also served by first class
mail on that date. No request for hearing before the referee was received within 5 court days.
i.
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 certifiedclass, who were under control 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 time
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 certifiedclass, 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 ina day, 40 hours in a week, or were
working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that
time.
C. MISSED MEAL PERIOD CLASS
33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts long
enough to entitle them fo 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 tequired rest periods. Specifically, ifthe 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 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
at least three and one-half (3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive Tequired 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).
AGE. 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 initiat
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 timeoe NN OW OH BF WO NY &
Ny NM MY NY HR Be Be Ba Bw a aw nw on
BN 8B R&R SBR BF SesABaaeSBR2SB
period.
IV.
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=
N @O MO BF WN
provide a third rest period of ten net minutes.
Vv.
PERTINENT DEFINED TERMS IN PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
The following defined terms are pertinent to a discussion of the interrogatories and
responses in dispute:
“DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR": as used herein shall mean Defendant
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
"LIABILITY PERIOD": as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of
verification of these responses.
“PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS": means all non-exempt employees who performed
work-related services for DEFENDANT in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD
including any and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff
agencies.
“EMPLOYEES”: Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term is not defined in the
interrogatories. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean hourly non-exempt
employees of DEFENDANT.
“REST PERIOD": Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term is not defined in the
interrogatories. 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).
"MEAL PERIOD": This capitalized term is not defined in the interrogatories set forth in
plaintiff's Separate Statement. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean the
meal periods described in Labor Code § 512(a) and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(11).
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 itis
impracticable to bring them all before the court ... .". Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court
(2004) 34 Cal.4" 349, 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. Ibid. “The ‘community of interest’ requirement embodies threeoa N O oO RF OW MY =
MN NY NY 2B Be ow Bo ew ew ew aw an oe
BNB RE BBSRBSESRSARSBRSAS
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.” /bid.
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 (9" Circuit 1985) 767 F.2d 1416, 1424, citing Doninger v.
Pacific Northwest Bell, inc. (9" Circuit 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, 1313.
With respect to the PAGA-based cause of action, the California Supreme Court has
recently affirmed that, at least with respect to interrogatories, there is no requirement that a
plaintiff make a threshold showing of good cause to be entitled to answers to questions within
the scope of discovery established by the pleadings. See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3
Cal.5" §31, 550-551. The opinion also reiterated that a court exercising discretion in deciding
whether to grant or deny discovery should, where possible, “impose partial limitations rather
than outright denial of discovery.” Jd. at 559, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961)
56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384.
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 Deciaration: Overruled.2. 43 of the Declaration: Overruled.
3. J] 4 of the Declaration: Overruled.
4. 95 of the Declaration: Overruled.
5. 96 of the Declaration: Overruled.
6. 7 of the Declaration: Overruled.
7. 48 of the Declaration: Sustained.
8. 7 9 of the Declaration: Sustained.
9. 10 of the Declaration: Sustained.
Vill.
RECOMMENDED RULINGS ON DISPUTED INTERROGATORIES
In ruling on the individual interrogatories presented by the motion, the text of the
interrogatory 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 proposed ruling.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Please state the total number of YOUR former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during
the LIABILITY PERIOD. ((DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR" as used herein shall mean
Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; "LIABILITY PERIOD" as used
herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of. verification of these responses.
“WORKED” as used herein shall mean the time during which any person, as defined by
California Labor Code section 18, was subject to YOUR control and YOU engaged, suffered
or permitted that person to work, whether or not YOU required the person to do so.
“PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS” means all non-exempt employees who performed work-
related services for DEFENDANT in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any
and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff agencies.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1
10Defendant objects that the interrogatory is, among other things, overbroad and unduly
burdensome. Plaintiff responds this interrogatory Is certification-based because it seeks to
establish “numerosity." See Hendershot v. Ready to Rolf Transportation, Inc. (2014) 228
Cal.App.4" 1213, 1222. :
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Defendant's objection that the interrogatory is overbroad is well taken. The
interrogatory is temporally overbroad, in that it posits a LIABILITY PERIOD of five years prior
to the filing of the original complaint on July 5, 2016. The longest limitations period of any of
the causes of action set forth in the FAC is four years. Business & Professions Code §
17208. The limitations period for non-payment of minimum wages or overtime is 3 years.
CCP § 338; Labor Code § 1194.2. The limitations period for failure to provide meal periods
or rest period is 3 years. CCP § 338; Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40
Cal.4" 1094, 1114. The limitations period for failure to provide accurate wage statements is
1. year. Labor Code § 226; CCP § 340(a); The limitations period for failure to pay wages
timely at separation is 3 years. Labor Code § 203(b); Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.
(2010) 50 Cal.4" 1389, 1401.
The interrogatory is also overbroad in its description of the PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS, which incorporates the LIABILITY PERIOD as part of the definition. As shown in
section Ill above, none of the classes or subclasses described in paragraphs 23 to 46 of the
FAC is described as broadly as “all non-exempt employees who performed work-related
services for DEFENDANT in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any and all
employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff agencies.”
Defendant has not submitted any evidence supporting its assertion that preparing an
answer to this interrogatory would be burdensome, and burden afone--that answering the
interrogatory 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
14Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Here, however, requiring an answer would not simply
be burdensome, but unjust, because the answer, a single number, as Plaintiff points out,
would have no evidentiary value whatsoever to establish the number of potential members of
any individual class described in the FAC. ibid. Pre-certification discovery is only justified if
Plaintiff meets his burden of showing that the discovery in issue is likely to produce
substantiation of one or more of the requirements for class certification. See Mantolete v.
Bolger, supra 767 F.2d at 1424; Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., supra, 564 F.2d at
1313. Because the answer to interrogatory 1, no matter what the number, would not
constitute substantiation of the “numerosity” requirement for certification of any individual
class or subclass, there is no justification for compelling an answer to the interrogatory as
phrased. bid.
Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5" 531, 559. teaches that where possible
discovery should be limited rather than denied. This interragatory would be proper if it were
modified to request only the numbers of employees properly described in the class
allegations of the FAC. For this to be the case the liability period must be reduced to July 5,
2012 to the present. In accordance with the definition of DEFENDANT, the only employees
who must be included in the count are former employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca,
Inc. The characteristics of the non-derivative classes are 1) employees who were required to
don or doff scrubs off the clock, 2) employees whose time was rounded, 3) employees who
were on call, and 4) employees who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. A further answer
limited to these classes is required. For the counts to be meaningful on the issue of
numerosity, the answers shall provide the number of employees falling into each of the
following categories:
1. _ Former 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.
122. Former 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. Former 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, Former 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.
Defendant's argument that Lyle cannot represent the majority of the employees and
former employees purported classes who signed arbitration agreements with class action
waivers is properly made in opposition to a motion for class certification, not in opposition to
discovery. Establishing the merits of plaintiff's case is not a threshold requirement to conduct
discovery in class actions or PAGA cases. /d. at 558. Even if this were not true, Ms. Holzer’s
declaration testimony attesting to the contents and effect of such agreements, no exemplar
of which is attached to the declaration, is inadmissible hearsay. The same is true of her
recital and characterization of defendant's rounding policy.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please state the total number of YOUR current PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2
For reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 1,
further responses are required setting forth the numbers of the following categories of
employees:
1. Current 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.
13oN OD
2. Current 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. Current 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. Current 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.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Please IDENTIFY each of YOUR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the LIABILITY
PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Contact information for potential class members or potentially aggrieved employees is
discoverable. Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5" 531, 538, 547-548. Defendant has
not shown that disclosure of such information would violate the potential class members’
reasonable expectations of privacy, or would violate a serious privacy interest. /d., at 552-
555. For reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 1, the
following answers are required:
1. The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed 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. The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose
work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages.
143. The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were
on call.
4, The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who
worked shifts over 10 hours in length.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Please state the average rate of pay far YOUR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during
the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4
No further answer is required. The information sought by this interrogatory would not
be of assistance in substantiating the elements of numerosity, an ascertainable class,
predominant common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the class, or that
Lyle is a representative who can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v.
Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4" at 326. Further, it appears that the average rate of pay of the
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS 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 Elsen v.
Carlisle & Jacquelin, (1974)417 U.S. 156, 177-178.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Please state the total number of workweeks WORKED by YOUR hourly non-exempt
employees during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5
No further answer is required. The total number of workweeks WORKED by “hourly
non-exempt employees" has little or no evidentiary value in substantiating the requirements for
certification of any such classes or subclasses. Further, it appears that the total number of
workweeks worked by hourly non-exempt employees would be relevant, if at all, only on the
15issue 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.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
State the name, address, and telephone number of any and all payroll companies
which you used in relation to hourly non-exempt employees in the State of California during
the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25
Defendant's objections are overruled. The identity of the payroll company for the entire
LIABILITY PERIOD was stated to be Dell Payroll Processing. A further answer is required
stating the address and telephone number of this company.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
If YOU contend YOU provided PLAINTIFF all MEAL PERIODS due to PLAINTIFF
during the LIABILITY PERIOD, please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR
contention.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59
Defendant answered in part “[djefendant does not contend that it provided putative
class members, including Plaintiff, with all required meal periods.” Having denied making the
contention which is the predicate for identifying documents, no such identification is required.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:
Describe all DEFENDANT'S attendance policies in effect at any time during the
LIABILITY PERIOD for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in the State of California.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65
A further answer is required, but only as to attendance policies applicable to employees
counted or identified in answer to interrogatories 1, 2, or 3.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66:
Please IDENTIFY each and every EMPLOYEE that waived their 1% MEAL PERIOD
during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
16RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66
No further answer is required. The allegation forming the basis for the Meal Period
Class is “[djefendants 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.”
FAC, 1 33, emphasis supplied. Hence, the Meal Period class, as it pertains to the first meal
period, is limited to those hourly non-exempt employees who were not permitted a 30 minute
meal period because they had to don their scrubs prior to returning to duty. The interrogatory
requests information on a much broader group of employees. Further, the interrogatory is
vague and ambiguous, as Defendant contends, in that it is not clear whether it calls for
employees who waived the first meal period completely for all or certain periods of their
employment, or simply waived their first meal period on any occasion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67:
Please state the dates each hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEE waived a 1° MEAL
PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 66.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68:
Please identify the number of occasions that MEAL PERIOD premium wages were
paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 18* MEAL PERIODS during the
LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 66.
fi
17a
o ann @
10
"1
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69:
Please state the amount of MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly
non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 1st MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 66. Further, it appears that the total premium wages paid to hourly
non-exempt employees 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.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70:
Please identify the number of shifts between 10.1 and 11 hours that YOUR hourly
non-exempt EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70
No further answer is required. Assuming arguendo the number of shifts worked by a
particular class or subclass of between 10.1 and 11 hours during an applicable limitations
period would have some relevance to prove a requirement for certification of one or more
classes defined in the FAC, the total number such shifts worked by all hourly non-exempt
employees would have no evidentiary value as to any individual class or subclass.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71:
Please identify the number of shifts between 11.1 and 12 hours that YOUR hourly
non-exempt EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 70.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 72:
Please identify the number of shifts over 12.1 hours that YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
18RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 72
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 70.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73:
Please identify the number of 2™ meal breaks that YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES have taken when their worked shifts was between 10.1 and 11 hours during
the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 70. The purpose of this interrogatory appears to be to enable
plaintiff to calculate, in combination with the answer to interrogatory 70, the number of such
shifts where a meal break was not taken. The answer, even if produced, would be of no
relevance because defendant's obligation was to provide duty free meal breaks, not ensure
they were actually taken. See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4®
1004, 1040-1041. Further, such relevance as the number of meal breaks not taken appears
to have relates to the aggregate damages of the Meal Period class, which is prohibited merits-
based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S. at 177-178.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74:
Please identify the number of 2nd meal breaks that YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES have taken when their worked shifts was between 14.1 and 12 hours during
the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory Nos. 70 and 73.
“
N
N
19oon @ oO BF Ww NY =
YN N NY NS NY Be BSB =e Ba Bae oa ew Ba a oe
BN BRE BBERBSESERTSEHERBSHKRBS
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
Please identify the number of 2" meal breaks that YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES have taken when their worked shifts was over 12.1 hours during the LIABILITY
PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special! Interrogatory Nos. 70 and 73.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 76:
Please identify the number of occasions that MEAL PERIOD premium wages were
paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 2" MEAL PERIODS during the
LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 76
No further answer is required. Assuming arguendo the number of occasions that meal
period premium wages were paid during an applicable limitations period would have some
relevance to prove a requirement for certification of one or more classes defined in the FAC,
the total number such payments to all hourly non-exempt employees would have no
evidentiary value as to any individual class or subclass.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 77:
Please state the amount of MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR
hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 2% MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY
PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 77
No further answer is required. Such relevance as the total amount of meal period
premium wages appears to have relates to the aggregate damages of the Meal Period class,
which Is prohibited merits-based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S.
at 177-178.
i
20SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 78:
Please IDENTIFY each and every EMPLOYEE that waived their 2™ MEAL PERIOD
during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 78
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 66. Further, the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, as
Defendant contends, in that it is not clear whether it calls for employees who waived the
second meal period completely for all or certain periods of their employment, or simply
waived their second meal period on any occasion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 79:
Please IDENTIFY the dates that YOUR EMPLOYEES waived their 2™ MEAL PERIOD
during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 79
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 66 and 78.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 80:
State the number of current non-exempt California employees YOU employ who have
worked 10 hours or more in a day during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 80
No further answer is required. The answer to Interrogatory 2 should provide this
information insofar as it is relevant.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 81:
State the number of former non-exempt California employees YOU employed during
the LIABILITY PERIOD who have worked 10 hours or more in a day during the LIABILITY
PERIOD.
if
i
21oer nt OD a fF O BD =
NPM NY HM RY NY @ Bo s&s ew oa a an aw aw oe
BNBaE BRR BSFSRSaRS RAS
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 84
No further answer fs required. The answer to Interrogatory 1 should provide this
information insofar as it is relevant.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 88:
If YOU contend YOU contend that PLAINTIFF received a REST PERIOD due to
PLAINTIFF each time PLAINTIFF qualified for a REST PERIOD during the LIABILITY
PERIOD, please state all facts which support YOUR contention.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 88
Defendant maintains its failure to answer subject to its objections was due to clerical
error, and that it does not contend all rest periods were provided. A further answer to this
interrogatory is required.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 95:
Please IDENTIFY the person(s) most knowledgeable about YOUR having provided
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS with all required REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY
PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 95
A further answer is required, but only as to provision of rest periods to employees
counted or identified in answer to interrogatories 1, 2, or 3.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 96:
Describe all DEFENDANT'S attendance policies in effect at any time during the
LIABILITY PERIOD for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in the State of California.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 96
Further answer is required, but only as to attendance policies applicable to employees
counted or identified in answer to interrogatories 1, 2, or 3.
i
u
i
22°oo NN DOD OH BF Ww NY =
BM Be Ba a a ae ew ew ow em
& F BBS 8S se Beara s2ea
26
27
28
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 97:
Please identify the number of occasions that REST PERIOD premium wages were
paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed REST PERIODS during the
LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 97
No further answer is required. Assuming arguendo the number of occasions that rest
period premium wages were paid during an applicable limitations period would have some
relevance to prove a requirement for certification of one or more classes defined in the FAC,
the total number such payments to all classes would have no evidentiary value as to any
individual class or subclass.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 98:
Please state the amount of premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES for missed REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 98
.No further answer is required. Such relevance as the total amount of meal period
premium wages appears to have relates to the aggregate damages of the Meal Period class,
which is prohibited merits-based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisie & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S.
at 177-178.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 106:
If YOU contend YOUR payments of final wages to each of YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES during the LIABILITY PERIOD complied with the California Labor Code time
requirements, please IDENTIFY each person with knowledge of any of the facts which
support YOUR contention.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 106
No further answer is required. Plaintiff contends this interrogatory merely asks for the
identity of a person most knowledgeable, but it does not in fact say this, and the call of the
question is much broader. As pleaded, Defendant's alleged failure to pay final wages when
23o OC NN DO FF Ww NY =
Seas a sa sa i
oo Nn OO TO FDO BW A GS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‘
due could have occurred as a result of non-payment of minimum wage, non-payment of
overtime, failure to pay premium wages for meal periods not provided, or failure to pay
premium wages for rest periods not provided. Across the four classes pleaded in the FAC, the
pertinent facts regarding each violation of or compliance with the waiting time law as to each
class member would be known, in the aggregate, by dozens if not hundreds of people, not
including those who calculated or processed final paychecks or supervised that activity. The
list of such persons, if it could be ascertained with any degree of reliability, would be of
minima! value in leading to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would impose a
disproportionate burden on defendant, taking into account the needs of the case. CCP §
2019.030(a).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 107:
If YOU contend YOUR payments of final wages to each of YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES during the LIABILITY PERIOD complied with the time requirements set forth in
the California Labor Code for payments of final wages, please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS
which support YOUR contention.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 107
No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on
Special Interrogatory No. 106.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 108:
Please state the amount of premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt
EMPLOYEES for missed REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 108
This interragatory is identical to interrogatory 98. No further answer is required, for
teasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special! Interrogatory No. 98.
N
i
i
24SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 109:
As to each former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER whose employment by DEFENDANT
ended at any time during the LIABILITY PERIOD, please state the EMPLOYEE's last date of
work for DEFENDANT.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 109
Further answer is required, but only as to employees identified in answer to Special
Interrogatory No. 3.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 110:
As to each EMPLOYEE whose employment by DEFENDANT ended at any time ,
Preview
ClV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number, and address!: J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) Mayall Hurley 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207 ‘TELEPHONE NO.: 209-477-3833, E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): jabbott@mayallaw.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): DISCOVERY REFEREE FAX NO, (Options): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STOCKTON STREET ADDRESS: 180 E. WEBER AVENUE MAILING ADDRESS: 180 E, WEBER AVENUE CITY AND ZIP CODE: STOCKTON 95202 BRANCH NAME: STOCKTON PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL F Sear USE ONLY SUPERIER COURT-STOCK IGN BiG APR -2 PH 4: 06 ROSA JJNOUEIRS. wendy bg NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (Check one): [2] unumitepcasE [_] LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) CASE NUMBER: STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523 TO ALL PARTIES : 1. Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): 03/14/2018 2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date; 03/29/2018 J. ANTHONY ABBOTT > Lh (TYPEQRPRINTNAMEOF [| ATTORNEY [| PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) 7 NS GIGNATURE) Page 4 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of Califomia (CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER ‘winw,courtnfo.ca.gov"ti vw CIV-130 PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: STK-CV-UCE-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 took 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 Co deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, fallawing this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is 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 320 | 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 » PR (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) a perottie OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of 2 (Cl¥-130 [New January 4, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN FOR COURT USE ONLY 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 Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al. CASE NUMBER: CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; 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, By: Melinda Ruiz, Deputy Clerk Vincent C. Granberry Elizabeth Staggs Wilson 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 633 West Sth Street - 63rd Floor Beverly Hills CA 90211 Los Angeles CA 90071 J. Anthony Abbott Discovery Referee 2453 Grand Canal Blvd. Stockton, CA 95207 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILoC Oo oa N OD oO RB WN B= NNN NY B BoB Be ew ew Bo aw ow ow BN BRRBBRBRBBSERASaRS RE J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 jabbott@mayallaw.com -| DISCOVERY REFEREE dt 14 208 Figg so} enemas ROSA JUNQUEINO, CLERK MELINDA RUIZ °° DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; SP OF MANTECA, INC.; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH; and DOES ‘to 100, Inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2016-0006523 Assigned to Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys; Dept 10C DISCOVERY REFEREE'S RECOMMENDED RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; ORDER Submission Date: December 22, 2017 Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Trial Date: June 4, 2018 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 Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on defendant Doctor's Hospital of Manteca, Inc., (Defendant) on October 19, 2016. i i io ON OD HO PB Ww NY N NM NY NY @ Bo sw 2 a an an an a NBRRBRRNR SSeS AAA RS KAS N oo i FACTS Plaintiff's initial complaint was filed July 5, 2016, as a class action. Plaintiffs 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. The Eighth Cause of Action is based on the Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004 (hereinafter PAGA). Labor Code § 2698 et. seq. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on November 8, 2016. After at least two extensions, responses were served February 9, 2017. On March 25, 2017, Plaintiffs 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 tespond 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. There was no further substantive 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). The initial Proposed Recommended Ruling was issued January 24, 2018. Thereafter, 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 Amended Proposed Recommended Ruling was transmitted to the attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendant by electronic mail on February 13, 2018, and also served by first class mail on that date. No request for hearing before the referee was received within 5 court days. i. 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 certifiedclass, who were under control 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 time 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 certifiedclass, 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 ina day, 40 hours in a week, or were working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that time. C. MISSED MEAL PERIOD CLASS 33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts long enough to entitle them fo 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 tequired rest periods. Specifically, ifthe 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 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 at least three and one-half (3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive Tequired 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). AGE. 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 initiat 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 timeoe NN OW OH BF WO NY & Ny NM MY NY HR Be Be Ba Bw a aw nw on BN 8B R&R SBR BF SesABaaeSBR2SB period. IV. 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= N @O MO BF WN provide a third rest period of ten net minutes. Vv. PERTINENT DEFINED TERMS IN PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES The following defined terms are pertinent to a discussion of the interrogatories and responses in dispute: “DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR": as used herein shall mean Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; "LIABILITY PERIOD": as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of verification of these responses. “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS": means all non-exempt employees who performed work-related services for DEFENDANT in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff agencies. “EMPLOYEES”: Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term is not defined in the interrogatories. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean hourly non-exempt employees of DEFENDANT. “REST PERIOD": Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term is not defined in the interrogatories. 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). "MEAL PERIOD": This capitalized term is not defined in the interrogatories set forth in plaintiff's Separate Statement. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean the meal periods described in Labor Code § 512(a) and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(11). 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 itis impracticable to bring them all before the court ... .". Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4" 349, 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. Ibid. “The ‘community of interest’ requirement embodies threeoa N O oO RF OW MY = MN NY NY 2B Be ow Bo ew ew ew aw an oe BNB RE BBSRBSESRSARSBRSAS 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.” /bid. 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 (9" Circuit 1985) 767 F.2d 1416, 1424, citing Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, inc. (9" Circuit 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, 1313. With respect to the PAGA-based cause of action, the California Supreme Court has recently affirmed that, at least with respect to interrogatories, there is no requirement that a plaintiff make a threshold showing of good cause to be entitled to answers to questions within the scope of discovery established by the pleadings. See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" §31, 550-551. The opinion also reiterated that a court exercising discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny discovery should, where possible, “impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.” Jd. at 559, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384. 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 Deciaration: Overruled.2. 43 of the Declaration: Overruled. 3. J] 4 of the Declaration: Overruled. 4. 95 of the Declaration: Overruled. 5. 96 of the Declaration: Overruled. 6. 7 of the Declaration: Overruled. 7. 48 of the Declaration: Sustained. 8. 7 9 of the Declaration: Sustained. 9. 10 of the Declaration: Sustained. Vill. RECOMMENDED RULINGS ON DISPUTED INTERROGATORIES In ruling on the individual interrogatories presented by the motion, the text of the interrogatory 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 proposed ruling. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Please state the total number of YOUR former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. ((DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR" as used herein shall mean Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; "LIABILITY PERIOD" as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of. verification of these responses. “WORKED” as used herein shall mean the time during which any person, as defined by California Labor Code section 18, was subject to YOUR control and YOU engaged, suffered or permitted that person to work, whether or not YOU required the person to do so. “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS” means all non-exempt employees who performed work- related services for DEFENDANT in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff agencies. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 10Defendant objects that the interrogatory is, among other things, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff responds this interrogatory Is certification-based because it seeks to establish “numerosity." See Hendershot v. Ready to Rolf Transportation, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4" 1213, 1222. : RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Defendant's objection that the interrogatory is overbroad is well taken. The interrogatory is temporally overbroad, in that it posits a LIABILITY PERIOD of five years prior to the filing of the original complaint on July 5, 2016. The longest limitations period of any of the causes of action set forth in the FAC is four years. Business & Professions Code § 17208. The limitations period for non-payment of minimum wages or overtime is 3 years. CCP § 338; Labor Code § 1194.2. The limitations period for failure to provide meal periods or rest period is 3 years. CCP § 338; Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4" 1094, 1114. The limitations period for failure to provide accurate wage statements is 1. year. Labor Code § 226; CCP § 340(a); The limitations period for failure to pay wages timely at separation is 3 years. Labor Code § 203(b); Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 50 Cal.4" 1389, 1401. The interrogatory is also overbroad in its description of the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS, which incorporates the LIABILITY PERIOD as part of the definition. As shown in section Ill above, none of the classes or subclasses described in paragraphs 23 to 46 of the FAC is described as broadly as “all non-exempt employees who performed work-related services for DEFENDANT in California during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff agencies.” Defendant has not submitted any evidence supporting its assertion that preparing an answer to this interrogatory would be burdensome, and burden afone--that answering the interrogatory 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 14Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Here, however, requiring an answer would not simply be burdensome, but unjust, because the answer, a single number, as Plaintiff points out, would have no evidentiary value whatsoever to establish the number of potential members of any individual class described in the FAC. ibid. Pre-certification discovery is only justified if Plaintiff meets his burden of showing that the discovery in issue is likely to produce substantiation of one or more of the requirements for class certification. See Mantolete v. Bolger, supra 767 F.2d at 1424; Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., supra, 564 F.2d at 1313. Because the answer to interrogatory 1, no matter what the number, would not constitute substantiation of the “numerosity” requirement for certification of any individual class or subclass, there is no justification for compelling an answer to the interrogatory as phrased. bid. Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5" 531, 559. teaches that where possible discovery should be limited rather than denied. This interragatory would be proper if it were modified to request only the numbers of employees properly described in the class allegations of the FAC. For this to be the case the liability period must be reduced to July 5, 2012 to the present. In accordance with the definition of DEFENDANT, the only employees who must be included in the count are former employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. The characteristics of the non-derivative classes are 1) employees who were required to don or doff scrubs off the clock, 2) employees whose time was rounded, 3) employees who were on call, and 4) employees who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. A further answer limited to these classes is required. For the counts to be meaningful on the issue of numerosity, the answers shall provide the number of employees falling into each of the following categories: 1. _ Former 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. 122. Former 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. Former 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, Former 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. Defendant's argument that Lyle cannot represent the majority of the employees and former employees purported classes who signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers is properly made in opposition to a motion for class certification, not in opposition to discovery. Establishing the merits of plaintiff's case is not a threshold requirement to conduct discovery in class actions or PAGA cases. /d. at 558. Even if this were not true, Ms. Holzer’s declaration testimony attesting to the contents and effect of such agreements, no exemplar of which is attached to the declaration, is inadmissible hearsay. The same is true of her recital and characterization of defendant's rounding policy. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state the total number of YOUR current PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2 For reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 1, further responses are required setting forth the numbers of the following categories of employees: 1. Current 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. 13oN OD 2. Current 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. Current 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. Current 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. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please IDENTIFY each of YOUR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Contact information for potential class members or potentially aggrieved employees is discoverable. Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5" 531, 538, 547-548. Defendant has not shown that disclosure of such information would violate the potential class members’ reasonable expectations of privacy, or would violate a serious privacy interest. /d., at 552- 555. For reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 1, the following answers are required: 1. The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed 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. The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, whose work hours were rounded to the nearest quarter hour for computation of wages. 143. The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who were on call. 4, The names addresses, and telephone numbers of employees of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., employed at any time from July 5, 2012 to the present, who worked shifts over 10 hours in length. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please state the average rate of pay far YOUR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4 No further answer is required. The information sought by this interrogatory would not be of assistance in substantiating the elements of numerosity, an ascertainable class, predominant common questions of law or fact, that Lyle has claims typical of the class, or that Lyle is a representative who can adequately represent the class. See Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4" at 326. Further, it appears that the average rate of pay of the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS 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 Elsen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, (1974)417 U.S. 156, 177-178. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state the total number of workweeks WORKED by YOUR hourly non-exempt employees during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 No further answer is required. The total number of workweeks WORKED by “hourly non-exempt employees" has little or no evidentiary value in substantiating the requirements for certification of any such classes or subclasses. Further, it appears that the total number of workweeks worked by hourly non-exempt employees would be relevant, if at all, only on the 15issue 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. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State the name, address, and telephone number of any and all payroll companies which you used in relation to hourly non-exempt employees in the State of California during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25 Defendant's objections are overruled. The identity of the payroll company for the entire LIABILITY PERIOD was stated to be Dell Payroll Processing. A further answer is required stating the address and telephone number of this company. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: If YOU contend YOU provided PLAINTIFF all MEAL PERIODS due to PLAINTIFF during the LIABILITY PERIOD, please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59 Defendant answered in part “[djefendant does not contend that it provided putative class members, including Plaintiff, with all required meal periods.” Having denied making the contention which is the predicate for identifying documents, no such identification is required. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Describe all DEFENDANT'S attendance policies in effect at any time during the LIABILITY PERIOD for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in the State of California. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65 A further answer is required, but only as to attendance policies applicable to employees counted or identified in answer to interrogatories 1, 2, or 3. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Please IDENTIFY each and every EMPLOYEE that waived their 1% MEAL PERIOD during the LIABILITY PERIOD. 16RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66 No further answer is required. The allegation forming the basis for the Meal Period Class is “[djefendants 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.” FAC, 1 33, emphasis supplied. Hence, the Meal Period class, as it pertains to the first meal period, is limited to those hourly non-exempt employees who were not permitted a 30 minute meal period because they had to don their scrubs prior to returning to duty. The interrogatory requests information on a much broader group of employees. Further, the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, as Defendant contends, in that it is not clear whether it calls for employees who waived the first meal period completely for all or certain periods of their employment, or simply waived their first meal period on any occasion. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67: Please state the dates each hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEE waived a 1° MEAL PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 66. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68: Please identify the number of occasions that MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 18* MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 66. fi 17a o ann @ 10 "1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69: Please state the amount of MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 1st MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 66. Further, it appears that the total premium wages paid to hourly non-exempt employees 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. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Please identify the number of shifts between 10.1 and 11 hours that YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70 No further answer is required. Assuming arguendo the number of shifts worked by a particular class or subclass of between 10.1 and 11 hours during an applicable limitations period would have some relevance to prove a requirement for certification of one or more classes defined in the FAC, the total number such shifts worked by all hourly non-exempt employees would have no evidentiary value as to any individual class or subclass. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71: Please identify the number of shifts between 11.1 and 12 hours that YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 70. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 72: Please identify the number of shifts over 12.1 hours that YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES WORKED during the LIABILITY PERIOD. 18RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 72 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 70. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73: Please identify the number of 2™ meal breaks that YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES have taken when their worked shifts was between 10.1 and 11 hours during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 70. The purpose of this interrogatory appears to be to enable plaintiff to calculate, in combination with the answer to interrogatory 70, the number of such shifts where a meal break was not taken. The answer, even if produced, would be of no relevance because defendant's obligation was to provide duty free meal breaks, not ensure they were actually taken. See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4® 1004, 1040-1041. Further, such relevance as the number of meal breaks not taken appears to have relates to the aggregate damages of the Meal Period class, which is prohibited merits- based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S. at 177-178. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74: Please identify the number of 2nd meal breaks that YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES have taken when their worked shifts was between 14.1 and 12 hours during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory Nos. 70 and 73. “ N N 19oon @ oO BF Ww NY = YN N NY NS NY Be BSB =e Ba Bae oa ew Ba a oe BN BRE BBERBSESERTSEHERBSHKRBS SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75: Please identify the number of 2" meal breaks that YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES have taken when their worked shifts was over 12.1 hours during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special! Interrogatory Nos. 70 and 73. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 76: Please identify the number of occasions that MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 2" MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 76 No further answer is required. Assuming arguendo the number of occasions that meal period premium wages were paid during an applicable limitations period would have some relevance to prove a requirement for certification of one or more classes defined in the FAC, the total number such payments to all hourly non-exempt employees would have no evidentiary value as to any individual class or subclass. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 77: Please state the amount of MEAL PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed 2% MEAL PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 77 No further answer is required. Such relevance as the total amount of meal period premium wages appears to have relates to the aggregate damages of the Meal Period class, which Is prohibited merits-based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S. at 177-178. i 20SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 78: Please IDENTIFY each and every EMPLOYEE that waived their 2™ MEAL PERIOD during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 78 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 66. Further, the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, as Defendant contends, in that it is not clear whether it calls for employees who waived the second meal period completely for all or certain periods of their employment, or simply waived their second meal period on any occasion. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 79: Please IDENTIFY the dates that YOUR EMPLOYEES waived their 2™ MEAL PERIOD during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 79 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 66 and 78. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 80: State the number of current non-exempt California employees YOU employ who have worked 10 hours or more in a day during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 80 No further answer is required. The answer to Interrogatory 2 should provide this information insofar as it is relevant. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 81: State the number of former non-exempt California employees YOU employed during the LIABILITY PERIOD who have worked 10 hours or more in a day during the LIABILITY PERIOD. if i 21oer nt OD a fF O BD = NPM NY HM RY NY @ Bo s&s ew oa a an aw aw oe BNBaE BRR BSFSRSaRS RAS RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 84 No further answer fs required. The answer to Interrogatory 1 should provide this information insofar as it is relevant. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 88: If YOU contend YOU contend that PLAINTIFF received a REST PERIOD due to PLAINTIFF each time PLAINTIFF qualified for a REST PERIOD during the LIABILITY PERIOD, please state all facts which support YOUR contention. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 88 Defendant maintains its failure to answer subject to its objections was due to clerical error, and that it does not contend all rest periods were provided. A further answer to this interrogatory is required. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 95: Please IDENTIFY the person(s) most knowledgeable about YOUR having provided PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS with all required REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 95 A further answer is required, but only as to provision of rest periods to employees counted or identified in answer to interrogatories 1, 2, or 3. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 96: Describe all DEFENDANT'S attendance policies in effect at any time during the LIABILITY PERIOD for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in the State of California. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 96 Further answer is required, but only as to attendance policies applicable to employees counted or identified in answer to interrogatories 1, 2, or 3. i u i 22°oo NN DOD OH BF Ww NY = BM Be Ba a a ae ew ew ow em & F BBS 8S se Beara s2ea 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 97: Please identify the number of occasions that REST PERIOD premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 97 No further answer is required. Assuming arguendo the number of occasions that rest period premium wages were paid during an applicable limitations period would have some relevance to prove a requirement for certification of one or more classes defined in the FAC, the total number such payments to all classes would have no evidentiary value as to any individual class or subclass. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 98: Please state the amount of premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 98 .No further answer is required. Such relevance as the total amount of meal period premium wages appears to have relates to the aggregate damages of the Meal Period class, which is prohibited merits-based discovery. See Eisen v. Carlisie & Jacquelin, supra, 417 U.S. at 177-178. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 106: If YOU contend YOUR payments of final wages to each of YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES during the LIABILITY PERIOD complied with the California Labor Code time requirements, please IDENTIFY each person with knowledge of any of the facts which support YOUR contention. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 106 No further answer is required. Plaintiff contends this interrogatory merely asks for the identity of a person most knowledgeable, but it does not in fact say this, and the call of the question is much broader. As pleaded, Defendant's alleged failure to pay final wages when 23o OC NN DO FF Ww NY = Seas a sa sa i oo Nn OO TO FDO BW A GS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘ due could have occurred as a result of non-payment of minimum wage, non-payment of overtime, failure to pay premium wages for meal periods not provided, or failure to pay premium wages for rest periods not provided. Across the four classes pleaded in the FAC, the pertinent facts regarding each violation of or compliance with the waiting time law as to each class member would be known, in the aggregate, by dozens if not hundreds of people, not including those who calculated or processed final paychecks or supervised that activity. The list of such persons, if it could be ascertained with any degree of reliability, would be of minima! value in leading to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would impose a disproportionate burden on defendant, taking into account the needs of the case. CCP § 2019.030(a). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 107: If YOU contend YOUR payments of final wages to each of YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES during the LIABILITY PERIOD complied with the time requirements set forth in the California Labor Code for payments of final wages, please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 107 No further answer is required, for reasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special Interrogatory No. 106. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 108: Please state the amount of premium wages were paid to YOUR hourly non-exempt EMPLOYEES for missed REST PERIODS during the LIABILITY PERIOD. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 108 This interragatory is identical to interrogatory 98. No further answer is required, for teasons set forth in the Recommended Ruling on Special! Interrogatory No. 98. N i i 24SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 109: As to each former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER whose employment by DEFENDANT ended at any time during the LIABILITY PERIOD, please state the EMPLOYEE's last date of work for DEFENDANT. RECOMMENDED RULING ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 109 Further answer is required, but only as to employees identified in answer to Special Interrogatory No. 3. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 110: As to each EMPLOYEE whose employment by DEFENDANT ended at any time ,