Preview
BY FAX
Joseph Antonelli, Esq. (Bar No, 137039)
JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com
Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570)
antonellilaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Tel.; (909) 393-0223 / Fax: (909) 393-0471
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Tel.: (310) 432-0000/ Fax: (310) 432-0001
David M. deRubertis (SBN 208709)
THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue ’
Studio City, California 91604 ~
Telephone: (818) 761-2322
Facsimile: (818) 761-2323
e-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com
ORIGINAL.
FILED
LUPERIOR COURT = STOCKTS*
INGHOY 16 AKIO: 38
ROSA JUNQUEIRO. CLERK
Attorneys for Plaintiff-and all others similarly situated and the general public
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP}
OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH
INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET
HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys
Dept. 10C
CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C.
GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO
CONTINUE TRIAL
Hearing Information:
Date: 12/28/13,
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 10C
Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Trial Date: June 10, 2019
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
127
28
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY
I, Vincent C. Granberry, declare as follows:
1, That I am an attorney at law duly authorized to practice law before all of the State and
Federal District courts of the State of California. I am an associate at the Law Firm of Lavi &
Ebrahimian, LLP and one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE (“Plaintiff”) in
this case. I.am familiar with the files, pleadings, and facts in this case and could and would
competently testify to the following facts on the basis of my own personal knowledge or
information and belief. [ am submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Deem
the Matter Complex and to Continue Trial.
2. On July 5, 2016, our office, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed the initial Complaint in this
matter as a putative wage and hour class action alleging the following claims against Defendants
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH
(“Defendants”): 1) Failure to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked at Minimum Wage in Violation of
Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197; 2) Failure to Pay Wages for Overtime Hours Worked at the
Overtime Rate in Violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1194; 3) Failure to Authorize or Permit
Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7; 4) Failure to Authorize or Permit
Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code section 226.7; 5) Failure to Provide Complete and
Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code section 226; 6) Failure to Timely Pay All
Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment in Violation of
Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; and 7) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business
and Professions Code section 17200.
3. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, as a matter of right, adding
an Eighth Cause of Action for Civil Penalties Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, ef seg.
4. On or around October 19, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs FAC.
5. Following the case management conference, on or around November 8, 2016, Plaintiff
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL,
2propounded Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Defendants DOCTOR’S
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL, OF MANTECA,
INC.; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and TENANT HEALTH INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC.
6. The Special Interrogatories propounded on all Defendants encompassed four gencral
categories of information: 1) the total number of current and former putative class members during
the class period, which information is relevant to establishing “numerosity,” i.e. that this class is so
numerous that joinder of all members individually would be impracticable, and that individual
lawsuits would be uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for the
wage and hour case at hand; 2) the names and contact information of putative class members and
percipient witnesses; 3) the average rate of pay for putative class members, number of workwecks,
number of shifts over 10 hours, number of shifts over 12 hours, amount of premium wages paid,
and related policies and procedures in effect during the class period. By these interrogatories,
Plaintiff sought basic data enabling Plaintiff to establish the size of employees claims and to
calculate damages if Plaintiffs Counsel determined that it is in the best interests of the class to
attempt to settle the matter or to mediate the matter looking toward settlement (¢.g., number of
workweeks, average number of hours worked, average amount of overtime worked). This
information was also related the “ascertainability” requirement of class action cases. Specifically,
Plaintiff was entitled to this information to “ascertain the existence of a certifiable class, ¢.g., to
establish the size of employees’ claims which is relevant to demonstrate that individual lawsuits
would be uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for this type of
wage and hour class action, and whether there was a mechanism to tell which class members will
ultimately fall in the class definition; and 4) information relating to any payroll companies
Defendant used, any waivers obtained by Defendants, information related to Defendants’ former
employees, including whether they were terminated or quit, and whether they were paid all wages
due and owing to them upon their separation, and the identity of Defendants’Sperson(s) most
knowledgeable regarding Plaintiffs claims in the FAC and Defendants’ defenses thereto.
Importantly, this information was also relevant to the “commonality” requirement that Plaintiff will
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
3: se ob. . Wy.
be required to establish in order to maintain this case as a class action. “S
7. In the Requests for Production of Documents Plaintiff propounded on all Defendants
encompassed three general categories of information: 1) production of documents (including, but
not limited to pay and punch data) related to putative class members. By these requests, Plaintiff
sought not only the identity of putative class members and percipient witnesses, but also basic data
enabling Plaintiff to establish the size of employees claims and to calculate damages if Plaintiffs
Counsel determines that it is in the best interests of the class to attempt to settle the matter or to
mediate the matter looking toward settlement (e.g., number of workweeks, average number of
hours worked, average amount of overtime worked). This information is also related the bot the
“numerosity” and “ascertainability” requirements of class action cases. Specifically, Plaintiff was
entitled to this information to “ascertain the existence of a certifiable class, ¢.g., to establish the size
of employees’ claims which is relevant to demonstrate that individual lawsuits would be
u wey.
uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for this type of wage and
hour class action, and whether there is a mechanism to tell which class members will ultimately fall
in the class definition; 2) production of documents regarding putative class members’ complaints to
Defendants concerning the allegations in the FAC as well as basic average rate of pay for putative
class members, number of workweeks, number of shifts over 10 hours, number of shifts over 12
hours, amount of premium wages paid, and related policies and procedures in effect during the
class period; and 3) Employee Handbooks and Handbook supplements.
8. On February 9, 2017, following extensions granted by Plaintiff, Defendants served
Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One.
Only Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. served substantive responses and
responsive documents. Defendants AUXILIARY OF DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC.; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and TENANT HEALTH. INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC. served only objections devoid of substantive responses and/or documents
responsive to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production.
9. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff deemed the substantive responses served Defendant
DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., (“Defendant Doctor’s Hospital”) the only
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
427
28
Defendant who actually served responses as opposed to blanket, boilerplate objections, inadequate
and I sent Defendant Doctor’s Hospital a detailed, 18 page meet and confer letter categorically
outlining the reasons why its responses were inadequate and that it failed to provide Plaintiff a
verification to these sets of discovery.
10. Thereafter, on March 29,-2017, Defendant Doctor’s Hospital agreed to respond to
Plaintiffs March 27, 2017 meet and confer letter and/or supplemental responses and responsive
documents by April 14, 2017 and extend Plaintiffs Motion to Compel deadline to May 5, 2017.
11. Despite the foregoing representation, as of April 26, 2017, Plaintiff had received neither
a response to his March 27, 2017 meet and confer letter nor supplemental responses and responsive
documents from Defendant Doctor’s Hospital. Accordingly, I sent an email to Defendant Doctor’s
Hospital’s counsel advising that if Plaintiff was not in possession of either a response to my March
27, 2017 meet and confer letter nor supplemental responses and responsive documents from
Defendant Doctor’s Hospital by the end of that week [April 28, 2017] that Plaintiff would be
required to file a motion to compel this information because of fast-approaching trial date.
12, Defendant's counsel never responded to my April 26, 2017 email. Despite having
numerous opportunities and deadlines to provide substantive responses since the discovery was
served approximately six months prior. ~. wi
13. Accordingly, on or around May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Defendant
DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’s Further Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of
Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant DOCTOR’S
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. opposed.
14. On May 22, 2017, the Court issued an order appointing a discovery referee, Joseph H.
Fagundes, to review, heard, and determine all pending and future discovery motions.
15. On September 26, 2017, 1 emailed Mr. Fagundes the Court’s order appointing him
discovery referee along with copies of the pending Motions to Compel, Defendant’s Oppositions,
and Plaintiffs Replies and requesting a hearing date. I also caused hard copies to be sent to Mr.
Fagundes via U.S. Mail.
16. Because the Parties had not received a response from Mr. Fagundes, on October 5, 2017,
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C, GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
5I sent Mr, Fagundes an email following up on the September 26, 2017 email referenced above.
17, , On October 5, 2017, Mr. Fagundes sent an email stating that he had been contacted by an
individual with a potential claim against Defendant unrelated to the instant case. In that email, Mr.
Fagundes expressed that the potential matter was wholly unrelated and would in no way affect his
judgment in this matter, but he needed to inform counsel so they could choose whether to proceed
with him as discovery referee or find a different referee.
18. On October 12, 2017, Mr. Lavi, the partner in charge of this case, sent an email
informing Mr. Fagundes that Plaintiff had no issue with the fact that Mr. had ear ‘contacted by an
individual with a potential claim against Defendant.
19. On October 18, 2017, Defendant’s counsel sent an email informing Mr. Fagundes that
Defendant believed that the fact Mr. Fagundes was contacted by an individual with a potential
claim against Defendant represented a conflict in his ability to serve as a discovery referee and for
Mr. Fagundes to provide the next steps in obtaining a discovery referee.
20. On November 9, 2017, Mr. Joseph Lavi, the partner working on this case from Lavi &
Ebrahimian, LLP, sent Mr. Fagundes a follow up email asking him to inform the Court that he had
to recuse himself because Defendant believed that there is a conflict with him serving as discovery
referee and for the Court to assign a new referee, but the Parties never heard back Mr. Fagundes.
21. On November 29, 2017, I counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email proposing that
since there were still outstanding discovery issues, the Parties were without a discovery referee, and
there will need to be additional discovery after the referee’s ruling on Plaintiff Millions to Compel,
that the Parties stipulate to a trial continuance in order to allow sufficient time for completion of
written discovery followed by depositions. On December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2017, I sent
Defendant’s counsel two additional email following up on my November 29, 2017 proposal.
22. On December 6, 2017, Defendant’s counsel responded to my email stating that
Defendant was not amenable to a trial continuance in this matter.
23. Accordingly, on December 11, 2017, Plaintiff applied to the Court, ex parte, for an order
appointing a new discovery referee or, in the alternative, hearing Plaintiffs pending Motions to
Compel, and Continuing Trial and Trial-Related Deadlines. Defendants opposed.
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE
+ MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
6
wee24. On or around December 11, 2017, Plaintiffs ex parte application was granted and, on
December 14, 2017, the Court signed an order appointing John A. Abbott to serve as the discovery
referee in this matter and to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and to report
findings and make recommendations thereon.
25. In late December 2017, following the Court’s order appointing Mr. Abbott as the
discovery referee, the Parties transmitted to him Plaintiffs Motions to Compel and the supporting
documents, Defendant’s Opposition thereto, and Plaintiffs Reply along with the operative FAC.
26. In January 2018, Mr. Abbott asked that the Parties provide some additional clarification
regarding the issues contained.in Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. The Parties complied. ,
27. On January 30, 2018, Mr. Abbott requested that the Parties submit supplémental briefing
regarding the impact of Williams v. Superior Court on the pending Motions to Compel. The
briefing deadline was set, and subsequently extended, to February 8, 2018. The Parties both
submitted the requested supplemental briefing to Mr. Abbott by the February 8, 2018 deadline.
28. On or around February 22, 2018, Mr. Abbott issued and provided to the Court a
recommended ruling granting in part, and denying in part, Plaintiffs Motions to Compel.
29. On March 14, 2018, the Court, adopted the recommended ruling of the discovery referee
as its ruling and signed the corresponding order.
30. On March 21, 2018, Defendants took Plaintiffs Deposition.
31. On or around April 10, 2018, Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.
supplemented its responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production in
accordance with the Court’s March 14, 2018 order.
32. On April 11, 2018, the Partiés jointly stipulated to continue theifétbert designation
based on the continued trial date.
33. On April 12, 2018, the Parties jointly stipulated to continue to trial on the basis of the
above-described delays in this litigation, in order to permit Plaintiff additional time to prepare for
class certification, and in order for the Parties consider alternative dispute resolution.
34. On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, took the deposition of
Defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable, Traci Holzer, regarding Defendants’ policies, practices,
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL.
7is Nae as
and procedures regarding: 1) clocking in and out; 2) donning and doffing scrubs; 3) on-call time; 4)
calculation of hours worked; 5) calculation of compensation for hours works; 6) rounding/shaving;
7) first and second meal periods; 8) payment of meal period premium wages; 9) meal period
waivers; 10) third rest periods; 11) rest period premium wages; 12) tardiness; 13) wage statements;
and 14) payment of final wages.
35. On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Association of Counsel associating
the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli and The deRubertis Law Firm as Plaintiffs counsel is this
matter.
36. On September 28, 2018 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Defendants’ counsel a proposed
Stipulation and File a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and a draft SAC for their
consideration. Currently, there is a Motion for Leave to Amend set for hearing on November 16,
2018 at 9:00 a.m. h yh wwe
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of November 2018 at Beverly Hills, California 90211.
Chuuh-t, ula
Vincent C. Granberny’ ]
h igi “
DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE
MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
8
Preview
BY FAX Joseph Antonelli, Esq. (Bar No, 137039) JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570) antonellilaw.com LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Tel.; (909) 393-0223 / Fax: (909) 393-0471 Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776) Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483) LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Tel.: (310) 432-0000/ Fax: (310) 432-0001 David M. deRubertis (SBN 208709) THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue ’ Studio City, California 91604 ~ Telephone: (818) 761-2322 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 e-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com ORIGINAL. FILED LUPERIOR COURT = STOCKTS* INGHOY 16 AKIO: 38 ROSA JUNQUEIRO. CLERK Attorneys for Plaintiff-and all others similarly situated and the general public SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Vv. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP} OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys Dept. 10C CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL Hearing Information: Date: 12/28/13, Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 10C Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Trial Date: June 10, 2019 DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL 127 28 DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY I, Vincent C. Granberry, declare as follows: 1, That I am an attorney at law duly authorized to practice law before all of the State and Federal District courts of the State of California. I am an associate at the Law Firm of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP and one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE (“Plaintiff”) in this case. I.am familiar with the files, pleadings, and facts in this case and could and would competently testify to the following facts on the basis of my own personal knowledge or information and belief. [ am submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Deem the Matter Complex and to Continue Trial. 2. On July 5, 2016, our office, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed the initial Complaint in this matter as a putative wage and hour class action alleging the following claims against Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH (“Defendants”): 1) Failure to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked at Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197; 2) Failure to Pay Wages for Overtime Hours Worked at the Overtime Rate in Violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1194; 3) Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7; 4) Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code section 226.7; 5) Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code section 226; 6) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; and 7) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. 3. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, as a matter of right, adding an Eighth Cause of Action for Civil Penalties Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code section 2698, ef seg. 4. On or around October 19, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs FAC. 5. Following the case management conference, on or around November 8, 2016, Plaintiff DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL, 2propounded Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Defendants DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL, OF MANTECA, INC.; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and TENANT HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. 6. The Special Interrogatories propounded on all Defendants encompassed four gencral categories of information: 1) the total number of current and former putative class members during the class period, which information is relevant to establishing “numerosity,” i.e. that this class is so numerous that joinder of all members individually would be impracticable, and that individual lawsuits would be uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for the wage and hour case at hand; 2) the names and contact information of putative class members and percipient witnesses; 3) the average rate of pay for putative class members, number of workwecks, number of shifts over 10 hours, number of shifts over 12 hours, amount of premium wages paid, and related policies and procedures in effect during the class period. By these interrogatories, Plaintiff sought basic data enabling Plaintiff to establish the size of employees claims and to calculate damages if Plaintiffs Counsel determined that it is in the best interests of the class to attempt to settle the matter or to mediate the matter looking toward settlement (¢.g., number of workweeks, average number of hours worked, average amount of overtime worked). This information was also related the “ascertainability” requirement of class action cases. Specifically, Plaintiff was entitled to this information to “ascertain the existence of a certifiable class, ¢.g., to establish the size of employees’ claims which is relevant to demonstrate that individual lawsuits would be uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for this type of wage and hour class action, and whether there was a mechanism to tell which class members will ultimately fall in the class definition; and 4) information relating to any payroll companies Defendant used, any waivers obtained by Defendants, information related to Defendants’ former employees, including whether they were terminated or quit, and whether they were paid all wages due and owing to them upon their separation, and the identity of Defendants’Sperson(s) most knowledgeable regarding Plaintiffs claims in the FAC and Defendants’ defenses thereto. Importantly, this information was also relevant to the “commonality” requirement that Plaintiff will DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL 3: se ob. . Wy. be required to establish in order to maintain this case as a class action. “S 7. In the Requests for Production of Documents Plaintiff propounded on all Defendants encompassed three general categories of information: 1) production of documents (including, but not limited to pay and punch data) related to putative class members. By these requests, Plaintiff sought not only the identity of putative class members and percipient witnesses, but also basic data enabling Plaintiff to establish the size of employees claims and to calculate damages if Plaintiffs Counsel determines that it is in the best interests of the class to attempt to settle the matter or to mediate the matter looking toward settlement (e.g., number of workweeks, average number of hours worked, average amount of overtime worked). This information is also related the bot the “numerosity” and “ascertainability” requirements of class action cases. Specifically, Plaintiff was entitled to this information to “ascertain the existence of a certifiable class, ¢.g., to establish the size of employees’ claims which is relevant to demonstrate that individual lawsuits would be u wey. uneconomical and that the class action device is particularly appropriate for this type of wage and hour class action, and whether there is a mechanism to tell which class members will ultimately fall in the class definition; 2) production of documents regarding putative class members’ complaints to Defendants concerning the allegations in the FAC as well as basic average rate of pay for putative class members, number of workweeks, number of shifts over 10 hours, number of shifts over 12 hours, amount of premium wages paid, and related policies and procedures in effect during the class period; and 3) Employee Handbooks and Handbook supplements. 8. On February 9, 2017, following extensions granted by Plaintiff, Defendants served Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One. Only Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. served substantive responses and responsive documents. Defendants AUXILIARY OF DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and TENANT HEALTH. INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. served only objections devoid of substantive responses and/or documents responsive to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production. 9. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff deemed the substantive responses served Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., (“Defendant Doctor’s Hospital”) the only DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL 427 28 Defendant who actually served responses as opposed to blanket, boilerplate objections, inadequate and I sent Defendant Doctor’s Hospital a detailed, 18 page meet and confer letter categorically outlining the reasons why its responses were inadequate and that it failed to provide Plaintiff a verification to these sets of discovery. 10. Thereafter, on March 29,-2017, Defendant Doctor’s Hospital agreed to respond to Plaintiffs March 27, 2017 meet and confer letter and/or supplemental responses and responsive documents by April 14, 2017 and extend Plaintiffs Motion to Compel deadline to May 5, 2017. 11. Despite the foregoing representation, as of April 26, 2017, Plaintiff had received neither a response to his March 27, 2017 meet and confer letter nor supplemental responses and responsive documents from Defendant Doctor’s Hospital. Accordingly, I sent an email to Defendant Doctor’s Hospital’s counsel advising that if Plaintiff was not in possession of either a response to my March 27, 2017 meet and confer letter nor supplemental responses and responsive documents from Defendant Doctor’s Hospital by the end of that week [April 28, 2017] that Plaintiff would be required to file a motion to compel this information because of fast-approaching trial date. 12, Defendant's counsel never responded to my April 26, 2017 email. Despite having numerous opportunities and deadlines to provide substantive responses since the discovery was served approximately six months prior. ~. wi 13. Accordingly, on or around May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.’s Further Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. opposed. 14. On May 22, 2017, the Court issued an order appointing a discovery referee, Joseph H. Fagundes, to review, heard, and determine all pending and future discovery motions. 15. On September 26, 2017, 1 emailed Mr. Fagundes the Court’s order appointing him discovery referee along with copies of the pending Motions to Compel, Defendant’s Oppositions, and Plaintiffs Replies and requesting a hearing date. I also caused hard copies to be sent to Mr. Fagundes via U.S. Mail. 16. Because the Parties had not received a response from Mr. Fagundes, on October 5, 2017, DECLARATION OF VINCENT C, GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL 5I sent Mr, Fagundes an email following up on the September 26, 2017 email referenced above. 17, , On October 5, 2017, Mr. Fagundes sent an email stating that he had been contacted by an individual with a potential claim against Defendant unrelated to the instant case. In that email, Mr. Fagundes expressed that the potential matter was wholly unrelated and would in no way affect his judgment in this matter, but he needed to inform counsel so they could choose whether to proceed with him as discovery referee or find a different referee. 18. On October 12, 2017, Mr. Lavi, the partner in charge of this case, sent an email informing Mr. Fagundes that Plaintiff had no issue with the fact that Mr. had ear ‘contacted by an individual with a potential claim against Defendant. 19. On October 18, 2017, Defendant’s counsel sent an email informing Mr. Fagundes that Defendant believed that the fact Mr. Fagundes was contacted by an individual with a potential claim against Defendant represented a conflict in his ability to serve as a discovery referee and for Mr. Fagundes to provide the next steps in obtaining a discovery referee. 20. On November 9, 2017, Mr. Joseph Lavi, the partner working on this case from Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, sent Mr. Fagundes a follow up email asking him to inform the Court that he had to recuse himself because Defendant believed that there is a conflict with him serving as discovery referee and for the Court to assign a new referee, but the Parties never heard back Mr. Fagundes. 21. On November 29, 2017, I counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email proposing that since there were still outstanding discovery issues, the Parties were without a discovery referee, and there will need to be additional discovery after the referee’s ruling on Plaintiff Millions to Compel, that the Parties stipulate to a trial continuance in order to allow sufficient time for completion of written discovery followed by depositions. On December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2017, I sent Defendant’s counsel two additional email following up on my November 29, 2017 proposal. 22. On December 6, 2017, Defendant’s counsel responded to my email stating that Defendant was not amenable to a trial continuance in this matter. 23. Accordingly, on December 11, 2017, Plaintiff applied to the Court, ex parte, for an order appointing a new discovery referee or, in the alternative, hearing Plaintiffs pending Motions to Compel, and Continuing Trial and Trial-Related Deadlines. Defendants opposed. DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE + MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL 6 wee24. On or around December 11, 2017, Plaintiffs ex parte application was granted and, on December 14, 2017, the Court signed an order appointing John A. Abbott to serve as the discovery referee in this matter and to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and to report findings and make recommendations thereon. 25. In late December 2017, following the Court’s order appointing Mr. Abbott as the discovery referee, the Parties transmitted to him Plaintiffs Motions to Compel and the supporting documents, Defendant’s Opposition thereto, and Plaintiffs Reply along with the operative FAC. 26. In January 2018, Mr. Abbott asked that the Parties provide some additional clarification regarding the issues contained.in Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. The Parties complied. , 27. On January 30, 2018, Mr. Abbott requested that the Parties submit supplémental briefing regarding the impact of Williams v. Superior Court on the pending Motions to Compel. The briefing deadline was set, and subsequently extended, to February 8, 2018. The Parties both submitted the requested supplemental briefing to Mr. Abbott by the February 8, 2018 deadline. 28. On or around February 22, 2018, Mr. Abbott issued and provided to the Court a recommended ruling granting in part, and denying in part, Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. 29. On March 14, 2018, the Court, adopted the recommended ruling of the discovery referee as its ruling and signed the corresponding order. 30. On March 21, 2018, Defendants took Plaintiffs Deposition. 31. On or around April 10, 2018, Defendant DOCTOR’S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. supplemented its responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production in accordance with the Court’s March 14, 2018 order. 32. On April 11, 2018, the Partiés jointly stipulated to continue theifétbert designation based on the continued trial date. 33. On April 12, 2018, the Parties jointly stipulated to continue to trial on the basis of the above-described delays in this litigation, in order to permit Plaintiff additional time to prepare for class certification, and in order for the Parties consider alternative dispute resolution. 34. On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, took the deposition of Defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable, Traci Holzer, regarding Defendants’ policies, practices, DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL. 7is Nae as and procedures regarding: 1) clocking in and out; 2) donning and doffing scrubs; 3) on-call time; 4) calculation of hours worked; 5) calculation of compensation for hours works; 6) rounding/shaving; 7) first and second meal periods; 8) payment of meal period premium wages; 9) meal period waivers; 10) third rest periods; 11) rest period premium wages; 12) tardiness; 13) wage statements; and 14) payment of final wages. 35. On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Association of Counsel associating the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli and The deRubertis Law Firm as Plaintiffs counsel is this matter. 36. On September 28, 2018 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Defendants’ counsel a proposed Stipulation and File a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and a draft SAC for their consideration. Currently, there is a Motion for Leave to Amend set for hearing on November 16, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. h yh wwe I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of November 2018 at Beverly Hills, California 90211. Chuuh-t, ula Vincent C. Granberny’ ] h igi “ DECLARATION OF VINCENT C. GRANBERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL 8