Preview
BY FAX
Come IY DA A BR WN
NN NY YP S| Bee ee ee
Joseph Antonelli, Esq. (Bar No. 137039)
JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com
Janelle Carey, Esq. (Bar No. 201570)
JCarney@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
ORINAL_
Cr
SUP, PERIOR COUNT.
2HBDEC 20 PH o:
ROG 'NQUE Le
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,
v.
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
:
3
1
Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys
Dept. 10C
CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF JANELLE
CARNEY JN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX
AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Date: December 28, 2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 10C
Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Trial Date: June 10, 2019
fs
CLARK
\
DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF |
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUECoN DAH Fw DN
I, Janelle Carney, declare:
1. Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of
California. I am counsel for the plaintiff herein and I have personal knowledge of the facts
herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. On or about September 28, 2018, my office served a Notice of Videotaped
Deposition of Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Person(s) Most Qualified Re:
Wage Scales, Schedules, and Other Precertification Topics on Defendants Doctors Hospital of
Manteca, Inc. and Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Tenet Healthcare Corporation’s
Person(s) Most Qualified. Defendants served objections to said deposition notices on October
12, 2018. Thereafter, on October 15, 2018, I followed up with Defendant’s counsel, Jose
Macias, via e-mail, requesting available dates for deposition, to which I received no response.
I sent another follow-up e-mail on October 23, 2018. Defendant’s counsel, Jose Macias, sent
an email on November 1, 2018, requesting an extension to respond to discovery and separately
noted that he was available the following week to meet and confer regarding scheduling the
depositions. I responded to his email on November 2 2018 and informed him I was available
to talk the following week on Tuesday concerning the deposition schedule. Defendant’s
counsel, Shannon Boyce, sent me an email on November 6, 2018, that she was available to talk
on November 7, 2018. I spoke to Ms, Boyce on November 7, 2018, and she informed me that
she was going to discuss with her client and get dates for the deposition. To date, I have not
heard back from Defendant’s counsel concerning setting a date for the depositions. I have sent
a follow-up email dated December 10, 2018. True and correct copies of written meet and
confer correspondence with Defendant’s counsel regarding scheduling depositions are attached
collectively hereto as Exhibit 1.
3. My office served separate Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two on
Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. (“Manteca” and Tenet Healthcare Corporation,
on September 28, 2018. Defendants served their responses on or about November 2, 2018 and
2
DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE
TRIALom YN A HW BF BN
BRN YN NN DN DS Se Be Be Be ee ee
S22 RRB NH SF S'S HAIDA BB YW HE GS
did not produce any responsive documents. Thereafter, I sent a meet and confer letter on
November 20, 2018 with a deadline to respond of November 26, 2018. Ms. Boyce responded
to the email/letter on November 29, 2018, saying that she was reviewing the letter and would
respond, I have sent two follow-up emails dated December 5, 2018 and December 10, 2018,
both times reiterating that time is of the essence. Defendant’s counsel, Shannon Boyce, finally
sent a response letter dated December 17, 2018 (almost a full month later). Defendant has still
not produced documents responsive to the aforementioned Requests for Production of
Documents with regard to Manteca. True and correct copies of the meet and confer letter and
follow-up email correspondence are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
4, As demonstrated by Ms. Boyce’s Declaration (RJN 1), Plaintiff filed two
motions to compel in May 2017. An order for a discovery referee was entered the same month.
The decisions on these motions did not come for over 10 months. To claim Plaintiff has not
been diligent belies the record in this case.
5. My office along with and Defendant’s counsel, Shannon Boyce and Elizabeth
Staggs-Wilson have been involved in a similar litigation for over six (6) years in Woods v. JFK
Memorial Hospital, et al., Riverside Superior Court Case No. INC 205209. In that matter,
Defendant requested and received over five (5) months to oppose a class certification motion
dealing with one facility. I anticipate a similar request in the herein matter.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed trig:20" day of December 2018, at Chino Hills,
California.
suq|Carney,
‘ttorngy for Plaintiff Reginald Lyle
3
DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF |"
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE
TRIALExhibit 1Jerin Wilkinson
From: Janelle Carney
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:53 PM
To; ‘Jose Macias Jr,'
Ce: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.’; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner; Joseph Lavi’; ‘David DeRubertis
(david@derubertislaw.com)’; ‘Vincent Granberry’; ‘Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs'
Subject: RE: Lyle v. Manteca/Tenet
Importance: High
Mr. Macias,
lam following up with you regarding the below email. It is imperative that we solidify dates for these noticed
depositions so that they are completed by the end of the year. Given the fast approaching trial date, time is of the
essence.
Janelle
Janelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
website: www.antonellilaw.com
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
4Carney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.
From: Janelle Carney
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:16 AM
To: Jose Macias Jr.
Cc: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.' ; Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner
; ‘Joseph Lavi‘ ; ‘David DeRubertis (david@derubertislaw.com)'
; 'Vincent Granberry'
Subject: Lyle v. Manteca/Tenet
Importance: High
Mr. Macias,Receipt of the Manteca/Tenet objections to the deposition notices are hereby acknowledged. Please let me know what
dates the witnesses are available as soon as possible. As you know the trial in this matter is set and plaintiff needs to
complete these depositions prior to filing a motion for class certification, thus time is of the essence.
Janelle
Janelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
website: www.antonellilaw.com
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.Jerin Wilkinson
From: Boyce, Shannon R.
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 8:32 AM
To: Janelle Carney
Ce: Macias, Jose; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: Re: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's
Discovery Responses and Deposition Scheduling
Thank you. I'll call you at 11:30
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov
6, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Janelle Carney wrote:
Yes | am available tomorrow after your call. Should we say 11:30?
Hope your child feels better.
Janelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
website: www.antonellilaw.com
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee {or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the
message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please
advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.
From: Boyce, Shannon R.
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:02 PM
To: Janelle Carney ; Macias, Jose
Cc: Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery
Responses and Deposition Scheduling
Janelle — I’ve been called to pick up a sick kid from school. Do you have time to discuss tomorrow
morning? | have a call from 9:30 to 10:30, but can be available after.
Thx.
Shannon Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder
310.712.7304 direct 310.699.7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax sboyce@littler.com
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 | littler.com
Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide
From: Janelle Carney [mailto:jcarney@antonelliiaw.com
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 8:25 AM
To: Macias, Jose
Cc: Boyce, Shannon R.; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery
Responses and Deposition Scheduling
Jose,
Sorry | was out of the office yesterday after our office lunch. | am normally amenable to extensions on
discovery but | do think 3 weeks is excessive given the deadlines in this case. | am willing to extend your
deadline by a week.
As you know I have been trying to obtain dates for the PMQ deposition since receiving the objections
(see emails dated 10/ 15 and 10/23) and this is the first response | have received from you about
scheduling those. | am not available on Monday but can speak anytime on Tuesday after 10, Please let
me know what time works.
Janelle
Janelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
website: www.antonellilaw.com
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the
message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please
advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.
From: Macias, Jose
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:24 PM
To: Janelle Carney
Ce: Boyce, Shannon R.
Subject: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery
Responses and Deposition Scheduling
Good afternoon Janelle,
lam writing to request a three week extension on Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s
(“DHM”) responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Special
Interrogatories, Set Two. Currently, DHM’s responses are due tomorrow but we would ask until
Tuesday, November the 27th to provide our responses. Given that they are due tomorrow, can you
please get back today us as soon as possible?Separately we are available to meet and confer on deposition scheduling Monday or Tuesday of next
week. Please let us know what times work on your end.
Thank you,
Jose
Jose Macias Jr., Attorney At Law
408.795.3488 direct JMacias@littler.com
50 West San Fernando Street, 7th Floor | San Jose, CA 95113-2434
| littler.com
Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s}.
Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient}, please contact the sender by reply email and delete
all copies of this message.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide
through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete
all copies of this message.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide
through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a
number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.Jerin Wilkinson
From: Janelle Carney
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:05 PM
To: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.’; Kimberly Ligh; ‘Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs’; 'Macias, Jose’
Ce: Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Importance: High
Shannon,
Following up again. Our deadline to compel is fast approaching. ] need to know if you intend to supplement or respond
to the meet and confer letter dated November 20" or if | should just plan on filing the motion. Please advise.
Also where do we stand with the PMQ depositions. Last we spoke, on November 7", you were going to get available
dates and let me know your client’s position on the Tenet Healthcare notice. Plaintiff needs to move forward with these
depositions or a motion to compel such, so let me know where we stand. ,
Janelle
Janelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
website: www.antonellila
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee},you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.
From: Janelle Carney
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 4:19 PM
To: 'Boyce, Shannon R.' ; Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Stages
; Macias, Jose
Cc: Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Shannon,
Following up on your client's position with regard to the meet and confer correspondence. Please advise when you
expect to send as time is of the essence.
JanelleJanelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: 1Carney@antonellilaw.com
web: www.antonellilaw.com
vileged, Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much,
From: Boyce, Shannon R.
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:34 PM
To: Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs ; Macias, Jose
Ce: Janelle Carney ; Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Janelle —] have been out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday, so my apologies for the delay in responding to your
meet and confer correspondence. I’m currently reviewing the letter and should be able to respond early next week.
Thank you.
Shannon Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder
310.712.7304 direct 310.699,7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax sboyce@littler.com
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Littler {littler.com
Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide
From: Kimberly Ligh [mailto:kligh@antonellilaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Boyce, Shannon R,; Macias, Jose
Ce: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v, Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Dear Counsel:
Attached please find Ms. Carney’s letter of today’s date that is also being sent via U.S. Mail.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Kimberly Ligh
Legal AssistantLAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E, Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025
Tel: (909) 393-0223
Fax; (909) 393-0471
E-Mail: kligh@antonellilaw.com
Web: www.antonellilaw.com
Note: Please reply all if there are people on the cc of this email so that everyone can see your response, thank
you.
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is
intended only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail, Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
contents of this message or that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request
a hard-copy version from the sender.
Thank you very much.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a
number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.Exhibit 2LAW OFFICE OF
JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 PIPELINE AVENUE, SUITE E, SECOND FLOOR
CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91709
JOSEPH ANTONELLI ‘ef 909.393.0323 fax 909.393.0071 JANELLE CARNEY
Jantonelli@antoneliilaw.com www,antonellilaw.com jearney@antonellilaw.com
November 20, 2018
VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL
Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson,
Shannon R. Boyce
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Re: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., et al,
Dear Counsel:
‘The purpose of this letter is to meet and confer with you to see if we can work out the issues
with your client Tenet Healthcare Corporation’s (“Tenct”) and Doctors Hospital of Manteca’s
(“Manteca”) discovery responses that Plaintiff believes to be insufficient or noncompliant without
the need for involving the discovery referee. Our office is in receipt of Tenet and Manteca’s
responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (RFPDs) and the Special
Interrogatories, Set Two (SPROGs). Our office did not receive POSs attached with Tenet’s
Responses to said discovery, so it is unclear if said responses are timely. Further, Manteca’s
responses had no verifications. Please provide such accordingly.
Tenet’s Responses
However, as an initial and significant matter, because Tenet’s responses to the RFPDs do
not provide a single document, and your responses to the SPROGs do not provide a single answer
to a question, your responses are lacking, and Plaintiff requests supplemental responses
accordingly, or Plaintiff will be forced to file a motion to compel with the discovery Teferee, as
plaintiff has a broad right to discovery, which is to be construed liberally. Williams v. Superior
Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 538 (2017); Yelp Inc. v, Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. Sth 1, 15 (2017).
Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.220, responses to
interrogatories must be as complete and straightforward as reasonably available to the responding
party. Further, responses must not be evasive or incomplete. Cal, Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.
However, Tenet’s objections that the RFPDs and SPROGs are vague, ambiguous, and
confusing deliberately misconstrue the requests, when the requested documentation and
information is expressly evident. As such, these objections are “unreasonable, evasive, lacking in
legal merit and without justification.” Clement v. Alegre, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1284 (2009).
For instance, it is obvious that Defendant knows that a bank account is (Interrogatory No. 125)
and what the words “identify” “own, operate, and manage” mean, even if there are no definitions
(Interrogatory 129),November 20, 2018
Pg.2
As such, your responses are both incomplete and evasive, and require supplementation.
The following are further issues that need to be addressed in your supplemental responses:
Plaintiff's class is defined, in his First Amended Complaint, in a “precise, objective, and
presently ascertainable” manner. The classes are set out in Section V of the First Amended
Complaint, in separate sections, in clear and precise language. Plaintiff, as a surgical technician
who has the injuries common to each class listed, does have standing to represent those classes.
Simply because Defendant claims he does not, and claims that the language is not precise, does
not make it so, and does not mean Defendant does not need to answer discovery requests as they
pertain to Plaintiff and/or the class,
Tenet objects, in essence, that Plaintiff cannot propound discovery that requests
information related to class members. As you know, Plaintiff has alleged a joint employer theory
of recovery and is entitled to pre-certification discovery in that regard. However, it is noted that
Tenet, while making this objection, does not even provide responses as they relate to Plaintiff only.
Defendant Tenet cannot refuse to respond to discovery as a named Defendant in this action.
Plaintiff is Not Asking for Merits: DiscoVery—SPROGs and RFPDs
Tenet objects on the basis that Plaintiff's requests are merits discovery, however as you
know sometimes there is some overlap with pre-certification and merits discovery. Plaintiff has
also alleged a PAGA claim and said discovery is related to those claims as well. As such, your
failure to respond on “merits” objection is not well taken, especially in light of the fact that a trial
date is fast approaching. Plaintiff’s allegation that Tenet is a joint employer with all the facilities
and all putative class members requires discovery responses accordingly. Plaintiff is clearly asking
for documents and information that are directed at such joint employer allegations. Therefore,
Tenet’s objections have no merit, much less allow Tenet to evade written responses to this relevant
discovery.
Electronically Stored Information—RFPDs
Your office initially indicates a willingness to meet and confer regarding electronic
discovery. However, your office then objects on the grounds that the information is not reasonably
accessible and is an undue burden and expense. Plaintiff is requesting only five specific groups of
documents within a concise and specified time period. It can easily be reasoned that Tenet, a large
corporation, has those documents accessible with relative ease. As such, these requests are not
overbroad or unduly burdensome,
Further, it is noted that sending these documents over a .pdf form, through email or through
a secure file share, is much less of a burden and expense on Defendant than printing and mailing
all the documents requested, Therefore, Defendant’s objections are wholly unfounded. If
Defendant knows of'a less expensive or more convenient source to obtain the information, please
inform our office immediately.
Tenet also objects that the likely burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely
benefits; however, this is not up to the Defendant, this is for the court to decide, upon the motionNovember 20, 2018
Pg. 3
for a protective order, Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020, Since Tenet has not sought such, further
responses are required.
Relevance—SPROGs and RFPDs
Tenet cites boilerplate objections to nearly every discovery request, and objections as to
relevance is one of those boilerplate objections. This is not proper in discovery, nor is it up to
Defendant to decide what discovery is or is not relevant to Plaintiff's claims.
The wage scales are relevant to the extent Defendant has any Labor Code § 514 defense.
Employee satisfaction and market surveys are relevant on issues of survey evidence, control, and
working conditions, all part of Plaintiff's joint employer allegations. Job descriptions also go to
Plaintiff's claims that Tenet controls the hours, wages, or working conditions. See Martinez v.
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35.
Interrogatories No, 121-122 are relevant, as Plaintiff needs to know when each facility and
its hourly employees fal! within the statute of limitations of this case, based on the joint employer
theory.
It is relevant that Plaintiff know who the corporate officers are at the facilities, including
Manteca, to determine whether Tenet controls the hours, wages, or working conditions of hourly
employees.
Interrogatories No, 125-127 are relevant as Plaintiff needs to know how Tenet’s other
hospitals are related to each other and how they work together. Similarly, it is necessary to know
if there are other facilities operated by Defendant Tenet as Plaintiff has alleged joint employer
allegations.
The on-call or standby policy sought is highly relevant to any purported defense. The
staffing plans, identifying how Defendant staffed dedicated relief personnel, and policies regarding
employee work schedules are relevant, as they would show when meal periods and rest periods
could be given and still maintain state-mandated ratios. These discovery requests are not harassing.
Identifying the dedicated people assigned to relieve other employees for all their breaks, and
identifying their work schedules is relevant to Plaintiff's certification motion and ultimately trial
on the merits.
Information about recruiters is relevant to show whether Tenet hires and sets the wages of
employees at its facilities, Compensation analyst/director information is relevant to demonstrate
Defendant Tenet’s control over the hours and/or wages of the employees.
Attorney-Client Privilege/Atiorney Work Product
Tenet objects under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product, however, Tenet
does not provide a privilege log as is required. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240. Because of this,
Plaintiff does not know how the documents and answers Plaintiff is requesting could possibly be
protected under privilege or work product claims.
For instance, an on-call policy is not attorney-client privilege, assuming all employees have
access to such. To the extent Defendant maintains any privilege objection, please produce a
privilege log.November 20, 2018
Pg.4
Privacy of Non-Parti¢s, Trade Secrets
It is recognized that Defendant claims some answers are confidential, private, or trade
secrets, While Plaintiff does not agree with these objections, Plaintiff is willing to stipulate to a
protective order, where these documents will be marked confidential and not be shared, and be
filed under seal, if they are filed. Again, policy documents and the like are not protected given that
employees have access to such.
However, it is not confidential whether you report revenues and/or profits in your public
filings, as they are public filings, and Defendant must answer this request.
Mante esponses fo SPROGs
To the extent Manteca’s objections are the same as Tenet’s objections, in the preliminary
statement and in each response to Plaintiff's SPROG and REPD, please refer to the above
statements as to why the objections have no merit.
In regards to Special Interrogatory No. 125, Manteca answers an interrogatory for on-call
policies by indicating it does not have a written on call policy that applies to all employees, and
that certain departments may have on-call service, voluntary or involuntary. However, Manteca is
deliberately misconstruing the interrogatory, as Defendant must produce all on-call policies
regardless of department, Departmental on-call policies would be exactly what this interrogatory
seeks, but Manteca does not identify if such documents exist. Please provide supplemental
responses.
Similarly, “various collective bargaining agreements... have wage scales” does not
identify wage rates or wage grids, and “Defendant’s surgical department creates employee
schedules” does not identify staffing plans or employee schedules at all, and these responses are
deliberately vague and evasive, and must be supplemented (SPROG Nos. 126-127).
Manteca also deliberately misconstrues Interrogatories Nos, 128 and 129, answering who
is employed by YOU as a recruiter/compensation analyst/director for YOUR facility, saying that
no one is a recruiter at the hospital, but recruiters and compensation analysts/directors are available
to the hospital. This is obviously insufficient, and those recruiters and cormpensation analysts and
directors must be identified. Please supplemental these responses.
Similarly, simply because someone does not have the specific job title “dedicated relief
personnel,” does not mean Manteca is excused from identifying the people it clearly understands
from its response that Plaintiff is asking it to identify. [f there are employees who work as dedicated
relief employees, then the response must be supplemented.
Manteca'’s Responses to RFPDs .
Although Manteca agrees to provide further documentation, none is provided with its
responses. Further, there were no verifications served with Manteca’s responses. Specifically,
Plaintiff requires the responsive documents for RFPD Nos. 98-99 and 101-103.
RFPD No. 100 indicates Manteca is willing to meet and confer with regard to the discovery
documents Plaintiff secks. Plaintiff is seeking market survey, employee satisfaction surveys that
describe wages, hours, or working conditions, and would include who conducted such. Assuming
these are annual surveys, Plaintiff would agree to the actual survey forms, including the questionsNovember 20, 2018
Pg. 5
being asked; the final results of the surveys; and information about who conducted the surveys. If
you would like to discuss further, please let me know your availability the week of November 26,
2018,
Jn regards to RFPD No. 102, Plaintiff would be willing to compromise as follows: daily
staffing sheets or assignments for the months of January, May, August, and October for each year
of the relevant time period for each unit in the hospital that schedules dedicated relief employees
to brealc patient care employees for meal and rest periods,
We hope you see the wisdom in amicably resolving these discovery issues without the need
of involving the discovery referee. Please respond by November 26, 2018 with whether
Defendants Tenet and Manteca will reconsider their objections and provide responses
accordingly. If you would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to let us know and we will
arrange a telephone conversation accordingly. Given the schedule in this case, time is of the
essence to resolve such.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICE OF JPSEPH ANTONELLI
Janelle! Carne
Cid
cc: Jose Macias, Jr., Esq. (via email only)
Joseph Lavi, Esq, (via email only)
Vincent Granberry, Esq. (via email only)
David deRubertis, Esq. (via email only)Jerin Wilkinson
From: Boyce, Shannon R.
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:34 PM
To: Kimberly Ligh; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Macias, Jose
Ce: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Janelle —| have been out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday, so my apologies for the delay in responding to your
meet and confer correspondence. I’m currently reviewing the letter and should be able to respond early next week.
Thank you.
Shannon Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder
310.712.7304 direct 310.699.7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax _sboyce@littler.com
2049 Century Park East, Sth Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Littler | litter.com
Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide
From: Kimberly Ligh [mailto:kfigh@antoneltilaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Boyce, Shannon R.; Macias, Jose
Cc: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Dear Counsel:
Attached please find Ms. Carney’s letter of today’s date that is also being sent via U.S. Mail.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Kimberly Ligh
Legal Assistant
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E, Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025
Tel: (909) 393-0223
Fax: (909) 393-0471
E-Mail: kligh@antonellilaw.com
Web: www.antonellilaw.com
Note: Please reply all if there are people on the cc of this email so that everyone can see your response, thank
you.
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is
intended only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not
1disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
contents of this message or that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request
a hard-copy version from the sender.
Thank you very much.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a
number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.Jerin Wilkinson
SS
From: Janelle Carney
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:05 PM
To: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.’; Kimberly Ligh; ‘Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs’; 'Macias, Jose’
Cec: Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Importance: High
Shannon,
Following up again. Our deadline to compel is fast approaching. | need to know if you intend to supplement or respond
to the meet and confer letter dated November 20" or if { should just plan on filing the motion. Please advise.
Also where do we stand with the PMQ depositions. Last we spoke, on November 7", you were going to get available
dates and let me know your client’s position on the Tenet Healthcare notice. Plaintiff needs to move forward with these
depositions or a motion to compel such, so let me know where we stand.
Janelle
Janelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909,393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
website: www.antonellilaw.com
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.
From: Janelle Carney
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 4:19 PM
To: 'Boyce, Shannon R.' ; Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs
; Macias, Jose
Cc: Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Shannon,
Following up on your client's position with regard to the meet and confer correspondence. Please advise when you
expect to send as time is of the essence.
JanelleJanelle Carney
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELL!
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E
Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Phone: 909.393.0223
Fax: 909.393.0471
email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com
web ww.antonellilaw.com
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
J€arney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message.
Thank you very much.
From: Boyce, Shannon R.
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:34 PM
To: Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs ; Macias, Jose
Cc: Janelle Carney ; Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Janelle —1 have been out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday, so my apologies for the delay in responding to your
meet and confer correspondence. I’m currently reviewing the letter and should be able to respond early next week.
Thank you.
Shannen Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder
310.712.7304 direct 310.699.7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax sboyce@iittler.com
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Littler |littler.com
Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide
From: Kimberly Ligh [mailto:kligh@antonellilaw.com’
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Boyce, Shannon R.; Macias, Jose
Cc: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner
Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al
Dear Counsel:
Attached please find Ms. Carney’s letter of today’s date that is also being sent via U.S. Mail.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Kimberly Ligh
Legal AssistantLAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E, Second Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025
Tel: (909) 393-0223
Fax: (909) 393-0471
E-Mail: kligh@antonellilaw.com
Web: www.antonellilaw.com
Note: Please reply all if there are people on the cc of this email so that everyone can see your response, thank
you.
This message {including any attachments) may contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is
intended only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
contents of this message or that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request
a hard-copy version from the sender.
Thank you very much,
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a
number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.
Preview
BY FAX Come IY DA A BR WN NN NY YP S| Bee ee ee Joseph Antonelli, Esq. (Bar No. 137039) JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com Janelle Carey, Esq. (Bar No. 201570) JCarney@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 ORINAL_ Cr SUP, PERIOR COUNT. 2HBDEC 20 PH o: ROG 'NQUE Le 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, v. 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 : 3 1 Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys Dept. 10C CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY JN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL Date: December 28, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 10C Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Trial Date: June 10, 2019 fs CLARK \ DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF | PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUECoN DAH Fw DN I, Janelle Carney, declare: 1. Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of California. I am counsel for the plaintiff herein and I have personal knowledge of the facts herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On or about September 28, 2018, my office served a Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Person(s) Most Qualified Re: Wage Scales, Schedules, and Other Precertification Topics on Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. and Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Tenet Healthcare Corporation’s Person(s) Most Qualified. Defendants served objections to said deposition notices on October 12, 2018. Thereafter, on October 15, 2018, I followed up with Defendant’s counsel, Jose Macias, via e-mail, requesting available dates for deposition, to which I received no response. I sent another follow-up e-mail on October 23, 2018. Defendant’s counsel, Jose Macias, sent an email on November 1, 2018, requesting an extension to respond to discovery and separately noted that he was available the following week to meet and confer regarding scheduling the depositions. I responded to his email on November 2 2018 and informed him I was available to talk the following week on Tuesday concerning the deposition schedule. Defendant’s counsel, Shannon Boyce, sent me an email on November 6, 2018, that she was available to talk on November 7, 2018. I spoke to Ms, Boyce on November 7, 2018, and she informed me that she was going to discuss with her client and get dates for the deposition. To date, I have not heard back from Defendant’s counsel concerning setting a date for the depositions. I have sent a follow-up email dated December 10, 2018. True and correct copies of written meet and confer correspondence with Defendant’s counsel regarding scheduling depositions are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. My office served separate Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two on Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. (“Manteca” and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, on September 28, 2018. Defendants served their responses on or about November 2, 2018 and 2 DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIALom YN A HW BF BN BRN YN NN DN DS Se Be Be Be ee ee S22 RRB NH SF S'S HAIDA BB YW HE GS did not produce any responsive documents. Thereafter, I sent a meet and confer letter on November 20, 2018 with a deadline to respond of November 26, 2018. Ms. Boyce responded to the email/letter on November 29, 2018, saying that she was reviewing the letter and would respond, I have sent two follow-up emails dated December 5, 2018 and December 10, 2018, both times reiterating that time is of the essence. Defendant’s counsel, Shannon Boyce, finally sent a response letter dated December 17, 2018 (almost a full month later). Defendant has still not produced documents responsive to the aforementioned Requests for Production of Documents with regard to Manteca. True and correct copies of the meet and confer letter and follow-up email correspondence are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 4, As demonstrated by Ms. Boyce’s Declaration (RJN 1), Plaintiff filed two motions to compel in May 2017. An order for a discovery referee was entered the same month. The decisions on these motions did not come for over 10 months. To claim Plaintiff has not been diligent belies the record in this case. 5. My office along with and Defendant’s counsel, Shannon Boyce and Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson have been involved in a similar litigation for over six (6) years in Woods v. JFK Memorial Hospital, et al., Riverside Superior Court Case No. INC 205209. In that matter, Defendant requested and received over five (5) months to oppose a class certification motion dealing with one facility. I anticipate a similar request in the herein matter. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed trig:20" day of December 2018, at Chino Hills, California. suq|Carney, ‘ttorngy for Plaintiff Reginald Lyle 3 DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF |" PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIALExhibit 1Jerin Wilkinson From: Janelle Carney Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:53 PM To; ‘Jose Macias Jr,' Ce: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.’; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner; Joseph Lavi’; ‘David DeRubertis (david@derubertislaw.com)’; ‘Vincent Granberry’; ‘Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs' Subject: RE: Lyle v. Manteca/Tenet Importance: High Mr. Macias, lam following up with you regarding the below email. It is imperative that we solidify dates for these noticed depositions so that they are completed by the end of the year. Given the fast approaching trial date, time is of the essence. Janelle Janelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com website: www.antonellilaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail 4Carney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. From: Janelle Carney Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:16 AM To: Jose Macias Jr. Cc: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.' ; Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner ; ‘Joseph Lavi‘ ; ‘David DeRubertis (david@derubertislaw.com)' ; 'Vincent Granberry' Subject: Lyle v. Manteca/Tenet Importance: High Mr. Macias,Receipt of the Manteca/Tenet objections to the deposition notices are hereby acknowledged. Please let me know what dates the witnesses are available as soon as possible. As you know the trial in this matter is set and plaintiff needs to complete these depositions prior to filing a motion for class certification, thus time is of the essence. Janelle Janelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com website: www.antonellilaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much.Jerin Wilkinson From: Boyce, Shannon R. Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 8:32 AM To: Janelle Carney Ce: Macias, Jose; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: Re: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery Responses and Deposition Scheduling Thank you. I'll call you at 11:30 Sent from my iPhone On Nov 6, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Janelle Carney wrote: Yes | am available tomorrow after your call. Should we say 11:30? Hope your child feels better. Janelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com website: www.antonellilaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee {or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. From: Boyce, Shannon R. Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:02 PM To: Janelle Carney ; Macias, Jose Cc: Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery Responses and Deposition Scheduling Janelle — I’ve been called to pick up a sick kid from school. Do you have time to discuss tomorrow morning? | have a call from 9:30 to 10:30, but can be available after. Thx. Shannon Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder 310.712.7304 direct 310.699.7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax sboyce@littler.com 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 | littler.com Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide From: Janelle Carney [mailto:jcarney@antonelliiaw.com Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 8:25 AM To: Macias, Jose Cc: Boyce, Shannon R.; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery Responses and Deposition Scheduling Jose, Sorry | was out of the office yesterday after our office lunch. | am normally amenable to extensions on discovery but | do think 3 weeks is excessive given the deadlines in this case. | am willing to extend your deadline by a week. As you know I have been trying to obtain dates for the PMQ deposition since receiving the objections (see emails dated 10/ 15 and 10/23) and this is the first response | have received from you about scheduling those. | am not available on Monday but can speak anytime on Tuesday after 10, Please let me know what time works. Janelle Janelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com website: www.antonellilaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. From: Macias, Jose Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:24 PM To: Janelle Carney Ce: Boyce, Shannon R. Subject: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca: Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca's Discovery Responses and Deposition Scheduling Good afternoon Janelle, lam writing to request a three week extension on Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s (“DHM”) responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Currently, DHM’s responses are due tomorrow but we would ask until Tuesday, November the 27th to provide our responses. Given that they are due tomorrow, can you please get back today us as soon as possible?Separately we are available to meet and confer on deposition scheduling Monday or Tuesday of next week. Please let us know what times work on your end. Thank you, Jose Jose Macias Jr., Attorney At Law 408.795.3488 direct JMacias@littler.com 50 West San Fernando Street, 7th Floor | San Jose, CA 95113-2434 | littler.com Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s}. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient}, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.Jerin Wilkinson From: Janelle Carney Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:05 PM To: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.’; Kimberly Ligh; ‘Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs’; 'Macias, Jose’ Ce: Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Importance: High Shannon, Following up again. Our deadline to compel is fast approaching. ] need to know if you intend to supplement or respond to the meet and confer letter dated November 20" or if | should just plan on filing the motion. Please advise. Also where do we stand with the PMQ depositions. Last we spoke, on November 7", you were going to get available dates and let me know your client’s position on the Tenet Healthcare notice. Plaintiff needs to move forward with these depositions or a motion to compel such, so let me know where we stand. , Janelle Janelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com website: www.antonellila This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee},you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. From: Janelle Carney Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 4:19 PM To: 'Boyce, Shannon R.' ; Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Stages ; Macias, Jose Cc: Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Shannon, Following up on your client's position with regard to the meet and confer correspondence. Please advise when you expect to send as time is of the essence. JanelleJanelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: 1Carney@antonellilaw.com web: www.antonellilaw.com vileged, Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much, From: Boyce, Shannon R. Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:34 PM To: Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs ; Macias, Jose Ce: Janelle Carney ; Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Janelle —] have been out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday, so my apologies for the delay in responding to your meet and confer correspondence. I’m currently reviewing the letter and should be able to respond early next week. Thank you. Shannon Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder 310.712.7304 direct 310.699,7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax sboyce@littler.com 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Littler {littler.com Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide From: Kimberly Ligh [mailto:kligh@antonellilaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:09 AM To: Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Boyce, Shannon R,; Macias, Jose Ce: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v, Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Dear Counsel: Attached please find Ms. Carney’s letter of today’s date that is also being sent via U.S. Mail. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Kimberly Ligh Legal AssistantLAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E, Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Tel: (909) 393-0223 Fax; (909) 393-0471 E-Mail: kligh@antonellilaw.com Web: www.antonellilaw.com Note: Please reply all if there are people on the cc of this email so that everyone can see your response, thank you. This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail, Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message or that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version from the sender. Thank you very much. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.Exhibit 2LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 PIPELINE AVENUE, SUITE E, SECOND FLOOR CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91709 JOSEPH ANTONELLI ‘ef 909.393.0323 fax 909.393.0071 JANELLE CARNEY Jantonelli@antoneliilaw.com www,antonellilaw.com jearney@antonellilaw.com November 20, 2018 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson, Shannon R. Boyce LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Re: Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., et al, Dear Counsel: ‘The purpose of this letter is to meet and confer with you to see if we can work out the issues with your client Tenet Healthcare Corporation’s (“Tenct”) and Doctors Hospital of Manteca’s (“Manteca”) discovery responses that Plaintiff believes to be insufficient or noncompliant without the need for involving the discovery referee. Our office is in receipt of Tenet and Manteca’s responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (RFPDs) and the Special Interrogatories, Set Two (SPROGs). Our office did not receive POSs attached with Tenet’s Responses to said discovery, so it is unclear if said responses are timely. Further, Manteca’s responses had no verifications. Please provide such accordingly. Tenet’s Responses However, as an initial and significant matter, because Tenet’s responses to the RFPDs do not provide a single document, and your responses to the SPROGs do not provide a single answer to a question, your responses are lacking, and Plaintiff requests supplemental responses accordingly, or Plaintiff will be forced to file a motion to compel with the discovery Teferee, as plaintiff has a broad right to discovery, which is to be construed liberally. Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 538 (2017); Yelp Inc. v, Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. Sth 1, 15 (2017). Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.220, responses to interrogatories must be as complete and straightforward as reasonably available to the responding party. Further, responses must not be evasive or incomplete. Cal, Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300. However, Tenet’s objections that the RFPDs and SPROGs are vague, ambiguous, and confusing deliberately misconstrue the requests, when the requested documentation and information is expressly evident. As such, these objections are “unreasonable, evasive, lacking in legal merit and without justification.” Clement v. Alegre, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1284 (2009). For instance, it is obvious that Defendant knows that a bank account is (Interrogatory No. 125) and what the words “identify” “own, operate, and manage” mean, even if there are no definitions (Interrogatory 129),November 20, 2018 Pg.2 As such, your responses are both incomplete and evasive, and require supplementation. The following are further issues that need to be addressed in your supplemental responses: Plaintiff's class is defined, in his First Amended Complaint, in a “precise, objective, and presently ascertainable” manner. The classes are set out in Section V of the First Amended Complaint, in separate sections, in clear and precise language. Plaintiff, as a surgical technician who has the injuries common to each class listed, does have standing to represent those classes. Simply because Defendant claims he does not, and claims that the language is not precise, does not make it so, and does not mean Defendant does not need to answer discovery requests as they pertain to Plaintiff and/or the class, Tenet objects, in essence, that Plaintiff cannot propound discovery that requests information related to class members. As you know, Plaintiff has alleged a joint employer theory of recovery and is entitled to pre-certification discovery in that regard. However, it is noted that Tenet, while making this objection, does not even provide responses as they relate to Plaintiff only. Defendant Tenet cannot refuse to respond to discovery as a named Defendant in this action. Plaintiff is Not Asking for Merits: DiscoVery—SPROGs and RFPDs Tenet objects on the basis that Plaintiff's requests are merits discovery, however as you know sometimes there is some overlap with pre-certification and merits discovery. Plaintiff has also alleged a PAGA claim and said discovery is related to those claims as well. As such, your failure to respond on “merits” objection is not well taken, especially in light of the fact that a trial date is fast approaching. Plaintiff’s allegation that Tenet is a joint employer with all the facilities and all putative class members requires discovery responses accordingly. Plaintiff is clearly asking for documents and information that are directed at such joint employer allegations. Therefore, Tenet’s objections have no merit, much less allow Tenet to evade written responses to this relevant discovery. Electronically Stored Information—RFPDs Your office initially indicates a willingness to meet and confer regarding electronic discovery. However, your office then objects on the grounds that the information is not reasonably accessible and is an undue burden and expense. Plaintiff is requesting only five specific groups of documents within a concise and specified time period. It can easily be reasoned that Tenet, a large corporation, has those documents accessible with relative ease. As such, these requests are not overbroad or unduly burdensome, Further, it is noted that sending these documents over a .pdf form, through email or through a secure file share, is much less of a burden and expense on Defendant than printing and mailing all the documents requested, Therefore, Defendant’s objections are wholly unfounded. If Defendant knows of'a less expensive or more convenient source to obtain the information, please inform our office immediately. Tenet also objects that the likely burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefits; however, this is not up to the Defendant, this is for the court to decide, upon the motionNovember 20, 2018 Pg. 3 for a protective order, Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020, Since Tenet has not sought such, further responses are required. Relevance—SPROGs and RFPDs Tenet cites boilerplate objections to nearly every discovery request, and objections as to relevance is one of those boilerplate objections. This is not proper in discovery, nor is it up to Defendant to decide what discovery is or is not relevant to Plaintiff's claims. The wage scales are relevant to the extent Defendant has any Labor Code § 514 defense. Employee satisfaction and market surveys are relevant on issues of survey evidence, control, and working conditions, all part of Plaintiff's joint employer allegations. Job descriptions also go to Plaintiff's claims that Tenet controls the hours, wages, or working conditions. See Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35. Interrogatories No, 121-122 are relevant, as Plaintiff needs to know when each facility and its hourly employees fal! within the statute of limitations of this case, based on the joint employer theory. It is relevant that Plaintiff know who the corporate officers are at the facilities, including Manteca, to determine whether Tenet controls the hours, wages, or working conditions of hourly employees. Interrogatories No, 125-127 are relevant as Plaintiff needs to know how Tenet’s other hospitals are related to each other and how they work together. Similarly, it is necessary to know if there are other facilities operated by Defendant Tenet as Plaintiff has alleged joint employer allegations. The on-call or standby policy sought is highly relevant to any purported defense. The staffing plans, identifying how Defendant staffed dedicated relief personnel, and policies regarding employee work schedules are relevant, as they would show when meal periods and rest periods could be given and still maintain state-mandated ratios. These discovery requests are not harassing. Identifying the dedicated people assigned to relieve other employees for all their breaks, and identifying their work schedules is relevant to Plaintiff's certification motion and ultimately trial on the merits. Information about recruiters is relevant to show whether Tenet hires and sets the wages of employees at its facilities, Compensation analyst/director information is relevant to demonstrate Defendant Tenet’s control over the hours and/or wages of the employees. Attorney-Client Privilege/Atiorney Work Product Tenet objects under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product, however, Tenet does not provide a privilege log as is required. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240. Because of this, Plaintiff does not know how the documents and answers Plaintiff is requesting could possibly be protected under privilege or work product claims. For instance, an on-call policy is not attorney-client privilege, assuming all employees have access to such. To the extent Defendant maintains any privilege objection, please produce a privilege log.November 20, 2018 Pg.4 Privacy of Non-Parti¢s, Trade Secrets It is recognized that Defendant claims some answers are confidential, private, or trade secrets, While Plaintiff does not agree with these objections, Plaintiff is willing to stipulate to a protective order, where these documents will be marked confidential and not be shared, and be filed under seal, if they are filed. Again, policy documents and the like are not protected given that employees have access to such. However, it is not confidential whether you report revenues and/or profits in your public filings, as they are public filings, and Defendant must answer this request. Mante esponses fo SPROGs To the extent Manteca’s objections are the same as Tenet’s objections, in the preliminary statement and in each response to Plaintiff's SPROG and REPD, please refer to the above statements as to why the objections have no merit. In regards to Special Interrogatory No. 125, Manteca answers an interrogatory for on-call policies by indicating it does not have a written on call policy that applies to all employees, and that certain departments may have on-call service, voluntary or involuntary. However, Manteca is deliberately misconstruing the interrogatory, as Defendant must produce all on-call policies regardless of department, Departmental on-call policies would be exactly what this interrogatory seeks, but Manteca does not identify if such documents exist. Please provide supplemental responses. Similarly, “various collective bargaining agreements... have wage scales” does not identify wage rates or wage grids, and “Defendant’s surgical department creates employee schedules” does not identify staffing plans or employee schedules at all, and these responses are deliberately vague and evasive, and must be supplemented (SPROG Nos. 126-127). Manteca also deliberately misconstrues Interrogatories Nos, 128 and 129, answering who is employed by YOU as a recruiter/compensation analyst/director for YOUR facility, saying that no one is a recruiter at the hospital, but recruiters and compensation analysts/directors are available to the hospital. This is obviously insufficient, and those recruiters and cormpensation analysts and directors must be identified. Please supplemental these responses. Similarly, simply because someone does not have the specific job title “dedicated relief personnel,” does not mean Manteca is excused from identifying the people it clearly understands from its response that Plaintiff is asking it to identify. [f there are employees who work as dedicated relief employees, then the response must be supplemented. Manteca'’s Responses to RFPDs . Although Manteca agrees to provide further documentation, none is provided with its responses. Further, there were no verifications served with Manteca’s responses. Specifically, Plaintiff requires the responsive documents for RFPD Nos. 98-99 and 101-103. RFPD No. 100 indicates Manteca is willing to meet and confer with regard to the discovery documents Plaintiff secks. Plaintiff is seeking market survey, employee satisfaction surveys that describe wages, hours, or working conditions, and would include who conducted such. Assuming these are annual surveys, Plaintiff would agree to the actual survey forms, including the questionsNovember 20, 2018 Pg. 5 being asked; the final results of the surveys; and information about who conducted the surveys. If you would like to discuss further, please let me know your availability the week of November 26, 2018, Jn regards to RFPD No. 102, Plaintiff would be willing to compromise as follows: daily staffing sheets or assignments for the months of January, May, August, and October for each year of the relevant time period for each unit in the hospital that schedules dedicated relief employees to brealc patient care employees for meal and rest periods, We hope you see the wisdom in amicably resolving these discovery issues without the need of involving the discovery referee. Please respond by November 26, 2018 with whether Defendants Tenet and Manteca will reconsider their objections and provide responses accordingly. If you would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to let us know and we will arrange a telephone conversation accordingly. Given the schedule in this case, time is of the essence to resolve such. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF JPSEPH ANTONELLI Janelle! Carne Cid cc: Jose Macias, Jr., Esq. (via email only) Joseph Lavi, Esq, (via email only) Vincent Granberry, Esq. (via email only) David deRubertis, Esq. (via email only)Jerin Wilkinson From: Boyce, Shannon R. Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:34 PM To: Kimberly Ligh; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Macias, Jose Ce: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Janelle —| have been out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday, so my apologies for the delay in responding to your meet and confer correspondence. I’m currently reviewing the letter and should be able to respond early next week. Thank you. Shannon Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder 310.712.7304 direct 310.699.7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax _sboyce@littler.com 2049 Century Park East, Sth Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Littler | litter.com Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide From: Kimberly Ligh [mailto:kfigh@antoneltilaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:09 AM To: Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Boyce, Shannon R.; Macias, Jose Cc: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Dear Counsel: Attached please find Ms. Carney’s letter of today’s date that is also being sent via U.S. Mail. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Kimberly Ligh Legal Assistant LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E, Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Tel: (909) 393-0223 Fax: (909) 393-0471 E-Mail: kligh@antonellilaw.com Web: www.antonellilaw.com Note: Please reply all if there are people on the cc of this email so that everyone can see your response, thank you. This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not 1disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message or that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version from the sender. Thank you very much. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.Jerin Wilkinson SS From: Janelle Carney Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:05 PM To: ‘Boyce, Shannon R.’; Kimberly Ligh; ‘Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs’; 'Macias, Jose’ Cec: Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Importance: High Shannon, Following up again. Our deadline to compel is fast approaching. | need to know if you intend to supplement or respond to the meet and confer letter dated November 20" or if { should just plan on filing the motion. Please advise. Also where do we stand with the PMQ depositions. Last we spoke, on November 7", you were going to get available dates and let me know your client’s position on the Tenet Healthcare notice. Plaintiff needs to move forward with these depositions or a motion to compel such, so let me know where we stand. Janelle Janelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909,393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com website: www.antonellilaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail JCarney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. From: Janelle Carney Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 4:19 PM To: 'Boyce, Shannon R.' ; Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs ; Macias, Jose Cc: Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Shannon, Following up on your client's position with regard to the meet and confer correspondence. Please advise when you expect to send as time is of the essence. JanelleJanelle Carney LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELL! 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Phone: 909.393.0223 Fax: 909.393.0471 email: JCarney@antonellilaw.com web ww.antonellilaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail J€arney@antonellilaw.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. From: Boyce, Shannon R. Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:34 PM To: Kimberly Ligh ; Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs ; Macias, Jose Cc: Janelle Carney ; Joseph Antonelli ; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Janelle —1 have been out of the office for the Thanksgiving holiday, so my apologies for the delay in responding to your meet and confer correspondence. I’m currently reviewing the letter and should be able to respond early next week. Thank you. Shannen Boyce, Office Managing Shareholder 310.712.7304 direct 310.699.7349 mobile 310.553.5583 fax sboyce@iittler.com 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Littler |littler.com Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide From: Kimberly Ligh [mailto:kligh@antonellilaw.com’ Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:09 AM To: Wilson, Elizabeth Staggs; Boyce, Shannon R.; Macias, Jose Cc: Janelle Carney; Joseph Antonelli; Lisa Kirschner Subject: RE: Discovery for Lyle v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca et al Dear Counsel: Attached please find Ms. Carney’s letter of today’s date that is also being sent via U.S. Mail. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Kimberly Ligh Legal AssistantLAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E, Second Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Tel: (909) 393-0223 Fax: (909) 393-0471 E-Mail: kligh@antonellilaw.com Web: www.antonellilaw.com Note: Please reply all if there are people on the cc of this email so that everyone can see your response, thank you. This message {including any attachments) may contain confidential or otherwise privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message or that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version from the sender. Thank you very much, This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Littler Mendelson, P.C. is part of the international legal practice Littler Global, which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.littler.com for more information.