Preview
BY FAX
wo oN A Hw BW nN
BRR RRERERE ES SBR RAARESBE HS
ORIGINAL:
UPERY OF C
Oy D
Joseph Antonelli, (Bar No. 137039) EC 20 PH
Tanonelliantoneli tas. com ROSE JU
Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570)
JCarney@antonellilaw.com
LAW ICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91 709
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
Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the gencral public
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
imi i Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys
others similarly situated, Dept. 10C phrey:
Plaintiff, } CLASS ACTION
y. } REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF |
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM
THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO
CONTINUE TRIAL
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC;
SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET Date: December 28, 2018
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET Time: 9:00 a.m.
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; Dept.: 10C
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Trial Date: June 10, 2019
Defendants
Ae
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE
TRIALCm NAH Bw HN
RNY SF Be Be ee ee eB eB
BRRRESRRESESGeSEWTRAAREEHRLS
TO THE COURT HEREIN AND ALL PARTIES APPEARING HEREIN AND THEIR.
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Plaintiff, in support of her Reply in Support of Motion to Deem the Matter Complex and
to Continue Trial, requests that this court take judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence
Code §§ 451, 452(d), and 453 of the following:
A. IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
RECORDS OF THE COURT:
Evidence Code§452(d) provides that the court shall take judicial notice of “records of
(1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record in the United States or of any state of the
United States.”
DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY
I, Janelle Carney, declare that:
Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and a partner at
the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, attorney of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge
of the matters set forth herein and would and could testify thereto if called as a witness herein.
The following documents are true and correct copies of documents Plaintiff seeks this
court to take judicial notice of.
1. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Shannon R. Boyce in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20" day of December 2018, at Chino Hills,
California.
Janelle Carney, Declar:
1
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE
TRIALExhibit 128
UTTER NENDELGON, B.C.
2549.CanlayPatk Eset
Shi
Los Angatoa, CA $0D87.3107
"3108530300
Facsimile:
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C,
633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213.443.4300
213.443.4299
JOSE MACIAS, JR., Bar No. 265033
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
' 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
» San Jose, CA 95113.2303
Telephone: 408.998.4150
» Facsimile: 408.288.5686
Attorneys for Defendants
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF: MANTECA, INC,;
AUXILIARY ‘OF‘DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION: TENET HEALTH
INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.
‘| BLIZABETH'STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160
‘SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041
RECEIVED
NOV 04 2018
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
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
CLASS ACTION
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE
ELIZABETH HUMPHREYS, DEPT. 22
DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date: November 14, 2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Filed: July 5, 2016
June 10, 2019
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS’ OPPOSITION TO PLF'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT28
UMTLER MErmELSoNL B.C,
‘9 Cantuy Peck Ezal
sath ar |
ns Angee, CA 90007.3107
‘aséaca08
hw
Cem AIH
I, SHANNON R. BOYCE, declare:
1, Tam an attomey licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of California, I
am a Shareholder at the law firm of Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation, and am counsel
of record for Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, (erroneously named herein
as DRS. HOSP OF MANTECA INC. and SP OF MANTECA, INC.); AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION (erroneously named herein
as TENET HEALTH); and TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (“Defendants”) in
the above-referenced matter, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as
a witness, could competently testify thereto,
2. I make this declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
3 Since the inception of this action, the parties have exchanged a substantial volume of
written discovery, including, for example, hundreds of pages of policy documentation, the
production of detailed class lists, and the production of time record data, all specific to Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc. After seven months of delay, which necessitated the filing of a motion to
compel his deposition, Plaintiff Reginald Lyle finally appeared for deposition in March 2018.
Thereafter, Plaintiff took Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable
deposition in April 2018.
4, During his deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged that Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc,
was the only Tenet facility at which he worked during the class period, Notably, Plaintiff worked
solely within the surgical department and was not a union employee, unlike hundreds of other
putative class members he purports to represent. A true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts of
Plaintiff's deposition and the deposition of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Person Most
Knowledgeable is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. All discovery and depositions conducted to date have been limited solely to Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc.
2. Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
DECLARATION OF SHANNOW R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS? OPPOSITION TO PLI*S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT= ae
Bw NM
28
URTLER MENDELSON, PC.
2049 Centr Park Ea
‘5h Foor
os Angeles, CA $0067.3107
‘3105890009,
oC 0 em I NOH BF YW WD
6. On or about May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents,
Set One, and a second Motion to Compel Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Further
Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One. Both of these Motions were ultimately
referred to Discovery Referee Joseph H. Fagundes for review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 639(a)(5) by this Court on May 22, 2017, On December 13, 2017, this Court reappointed J. |
Anthony Abbott to act as Discovery Referee to determine Plaintiff's pending motions to compel.
7. Both of Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery resulted in Discovery Referee J.
Anthony Abbot limiting pre-certification discovery to Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc,
Notably, Plaintiff did not request a formal hearing or file a writ to dispute the Orders issued by Mr.
Abbott with respect to Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories,
Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Nor did Plaintiff seek to amend his
Complaint to broaden the scope of the putative class beyond that which the Discovery Referee
clearly and unambiguously defined in his Orders,
8 Mr. Abbott provided Notices of Entry of Judgment or Order on both rulings on March
29, 2018. Based on Mr, Abbott’s Orders, Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. produced
discovery responses in accordance with the Orders, including detailed class lists and time record data
which required significant amount of time and expense. A true and correct copy of the Notices of
Entry of Judgment or Order are attached hereto-as Exhibits B and C,
9. The Discovery Referee’s Orders clearly defined the scope of this litigation to just
Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. Accordingly, in reliance on Plaintiff's assertion that he needed an
additional two months’ time to conduct pre-certification discovery (ostensibly including time to get a
motion on file and prepare for trial should the motion be granted), Defendants stipulated to a sixty-
day trial continuance. A true and correct copy of the parties’ stipulation is attached hereto as
Exhibit D.
3. Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
~ DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS’ OPPOSITION TO PLF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT28
UTTLER MENDELSON, PC,
‘W9CeriuyPokEnd |
‘Sh Foor
osArgetes,CA 90087407
‘s105s0008
10. On May 11, 2018, in granting the Parties stipulation, this Court rather than just
providing sixty days, continued the trial date to June 10, 2019 — an entire year from the original trial
date, A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
i In stipulating to a brief trial continuance, Defendants expected that Plaintiff would
move swiftly in concluding his pre-certification discovery and filing a motion for class certification.
12, Plaintiff's proposed amendment would require expansive additional discovery.
Indeed, Plaintiff has already served written discovery seeking documentation from each of the
additional twenty-seven facilities listed in his proposed amendment. Plaintiff's expansive requests
for production include, but are not limited to, requests for (i) new hire/orientation materials at each
of the twenty-seven facilities; (i!) wage scales at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (iii) employee
surveys at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (iv) management hierarchy charts at each of the
twenty-seven facilities; (v) documents referring or relating to staffing at each of the twenty-seven
facilities; (vi) documents referring or relating to employment policies at each of the twenty-seven
facilities on such topics as timekeeping, overtime, rounding, on-call, and workweeks, A true and
correct copy of Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, to Doctors Hospital of
Manteca, Inc, and Tenet Healthcare Corporation are attached hereto as Exhibits F and G.
13, Plaintiff has also served two notices of depositions of the Persons Most Qualified of
Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corporation. These deposition
notices include twenty-four separate categories of testimony far reaching in nature, including topics
such as @ policies, practices, and procedures regarding employee work schedules at each of the
newly identified twenty-seven facilities; (ii) policies, practices, and procedures regarding the
recruitment of hourly employees at each of the newly identified twenty-seven facilities; (iii)
identification of individual management employees at each of the newly identified twenty-seven
faéilities; and (iv) policies and practices at each of the newly identified twenty-seven facilities with
4, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS’ OPPOSITION TO PLF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT28
Soe
Boa
Loudrgen CA Sepe7 107
uogsaoae
wm aw DAH B® WN
FIRMWIDE;139514597.2 052845.1344.
° “DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE-IN SUPPORT: OF: “DEFST OPPOSITION TO. PLF'S MOTION FOR
u
regard to timekeeping, workweeks, overtime, paying or calculating pay, rounding, and on-call work.
True and correct copies of these deposition notices are attached hereto as Exhibits H and L
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California and the
United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 31st day of October, 2018, in Los; As
5. Case No, STK-CV- UOE-2016-6523
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT:EXHIBIT ASUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintif£,
vs.
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC,; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP
OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA
INC; TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH
INTEGRATED SERVICES,
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive,
Defendants.
INC.;
REPORTED
JOHN M.
CSR NO.
JOB NO.
912S51LMF
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
>
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. STK-CV-UOE-
2016-6523
DEPOSITION OF REGINALD LYLE
BY:
Los Angeles, California
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
TAXTER
3579,
RPRSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of
VS.
-himself and othera similarly.
Situated,
Plaintife£,
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF. MANTECA,
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP
OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA
INC;
‘TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH
INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.7
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to
100,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
inclusive,
Defendants.
Deposition of REGINALD LYLE,
Plaintif££, taken, on behalé of
Defendants at 2049 Century ‘Park East,
Sixth Floor, Los Angeles, “California,
commencing at 10:07 a.m. on
Wednesday, March 21,- 2018, ‘before
John M. Taxter, CSR No. 3579, RPR, a
Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
for the County of Los Angeles, State
of California.
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
NO. STK-CV-UOE-
2016-652324
25
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
BY: VINCENT C. GRANBERRY
Attorney at Law
8889 West Olympic Boulevard
Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
310.432.0000
FOR 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; AND
DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE:
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
BY: SHANNON R. BOYCE
Attorney at Law
‘2049 Century Park East
Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
310.553.0308
VIDEOGRAPHER:
JON SEIDEL
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.
real estate.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. BOYCE:
Q And have you gotten any type of degree or
certification specific to that?
A Yes.
MR. GRANBERRY: Again, you can answer "yes"
or "no." You may answer "yes" or "no.#
THE WITNESS: Yea.
BY MS. BOYCE:
Q And what have you obtained in that regard?
A A California real estate salesperson's
license.
Q Not a broker?
A Not.
Q Do you have any type of certification or
license specific to your role as a surgical tech?
A No.
Qa Prior to working at: ‘the -- at Doctors
Q
&
Maxim Healthcare ‘Services,
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
10:25:21
10:25:21
10:25:22
10:25:24
10:25:26
10:25:26
10:25:28
10:25:29
10:25:29
10:25:29
10:25:32
10:25:35
10:25:44
10:25:45
10:25:48
10:25:51
10:25:55
10:26:08
10:26:12
10:26:21
10:26:24
10:26:31
10:26:34
10:26:39
2524
25
2
REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC..
And for u_do:
Let's sea; I think it was around. "2000" --
‘around 2075 to. 2017.
When did yow start performing work as a
traveling surgical tech through Maxim Healthcare
Services at.San Joaquin County Hospital?
Okay. My prior qu estion was what you -~
where you. worked. prior to starting at Doctors
Hospital of Manteca.
came to: Doctors Hospital of Manteca! where were you
working? Does: ‘that make sense?
A
> bp & bb
Yes.
Okay. ‘An id_wh eré were you working?
Emanuel pital .
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC, - 800.540.0681
10:26:44
10:26:46
10:26:50
10:27:00
10:27:14
10:27:18
10:27:21
10:27:24
10:27:27
10:27:32
10:27:36
10:27:39
10:27:42
10:27:45
20:27:48
10:27:51
10:27:52
10:27:54
10:27:57
10:28:00
10:28:01
10:28:02
10:28:05
10:28:06
2624
25
REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC,
my knowleddé, between 2003: -
2 Were you a full-time surgical technician
there: the entire time?.
Zes.
You weren't a traveler?
& No.
Q Were you per diem at any. spoint?
A No.
Q And why did you leaye your. employment’ at.
Emanuel Medical ‘Genter?
Mis GRANBERRY: obiectfon. itis private.
: departures or reasons ‘for. separatioa:
‘are private...
go I'm going toi instruct _you.not to answer.
before -- where else had you provided services.a5 a
surgical ‘technician. prior 1
‘Hospital iof-Manteda?
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. ~- 800.540.0681
10:28:08
10:28:12
10:28:15
10:28:17
10:28:23
10:26:29
10:28:30
10:28:33
10:28:36
10:28:40
10:28:42
10:28:45
10:26:51
10:28:52
10:28:55
10:28:58
10:28:59
10:29:02
10:29:04
10:29:05
10:29:11
10:29:13
27a
REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.
Algo, Mercy Hospital; Dominican campus, ‘in
Merced, California,
Q Okay, And for what peri lod of time’ wera you
Ehere?
aA Around 1'993 to 2002,
Q Okay. ‘Anywhere else that you've provided
zvices as a. sur ech, of th: Me
Hospital. and Emanuel Medical. Center?.
A Yes.
Q Where?’
A Doctors Hospital of Modesto, California.
Q And was that inthe 1995 time frame?
A I_don't recall.
Q What's your best estimate as t6 when Tt is
you _believe_you may have provided. services. there?
aA oe. iu.
A
A
‘Did. you provide ‘services -as a traveler
‘Hospital of Mantesa?,
No.
‘Did you provide sczvices as -- on a
Yes.
i did you. pro r=
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
10:29:17
10:29:24
10:29:32
10:29:35
10:29:37
10:29:50
10:29:52
10:29:55
10:30:00
10:30:01
10:30:02
10:30:08
10:30:11
10:30:16
10:30:18
10:30:29
10:30:32
10:30:36
10:30:39
10:30:40
10:30:42
10:30:44
10:30:47
10:30:51
28REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.
Services?.
A of
Pulock, California.
Q And_for what. p eriod-of time did you provide
Services there! on a pexr-dien basis?
A i-don"t recall.
2 Anywhere e1s6?
A Mes.
Q Where else?
A The Tower Surgical Center in Tulock,
California.
Q And for What period Sf tine! vas that?
A don't regal,
MR. GRANBERRY':
hospital?
“THE WITNESS +:
Tulock,
‘BY i
Q
Towar Surgery. Center -on anything othér than a.
Pper-diem basis?
A No,
2 Wate ‘you staff dt any ‘tire?
A To the best’ o
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
10:30:53
10:30:53
10:30:59
10:31:00
10:31:02
10:31:05
10:31:06
10:31:08
10:31:09
10:31:14
10:31:18
10:31:20
10:31:27
10:31:28
10:31:28
10:31:41
10:31:52
10:31:52
10:31:54
10:31:56
10:31:57
10:32:02
10:32:04
29REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.
Q Do you know the circumstances under which
any other employee reviewed or signed an arbitration
agreement?
MR. GRANBERRY: Same.
Go for it.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MS. BOYCE:
Q Did anybody ever tell you that you could
not be employed by the hospital, if you would not
agree to participate in the fair treatment process?
A I don't recall,
Q You have no memory of that?
A No.
Q "No," you -- you do not have a memory of
anybody ever telling you that you could not remain
employed, if you had not agreed to abide by the fair
treatment process?
A That's correct.
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
16:48:55
16:48:57
16:49:00
16:49:01
16:49:03
16:49:04
16:49:06
16:49:08
16:49:16
16:49:20
16:49:29
16:49:32
16:49:33
16:49:36
16:49:40
26:49:42
16:49:43
16:49:46
16:49:47
16:49:48
16:49:50
16:49:52
16:49:53
293REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.
THE WITNESS: I donit know,
BOYCE:
Q So you have. no idea ‘what collective
bargaining agreement provisions might apply to other
employees at the. hosp ital?
‘MR. GRANBERRY: (Same objection,
You-can answer.
_ THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY.MS. BOYCE:
MR. GRANBERRY: Et's a legal conclusion.
THE. WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. BOYCE
2
represent union employees. in this matter?
ME. _GRANBERRY? Same objectYon.
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
16:49:54
16:49:55
16:49:58
16:50:02
16:50:04
16:50:04
16:50:06
16:50:07
16:50:12
16:50:13
16:50:15
16:50:18
16:50:20
16:50:23
16:50:27
16:50:30
16:50:32
16:50:33
16:50:35
16:50:37
16:50:39
16:50:40
294REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018
LYLE VS. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTEGA, INC.
MR. :GRANBERRY; It's been’ asked and.
answered,
Xou_may answer again,
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS, BOYCE:
Q . Within your surgical department do you have
any knowledge as to whether or not any employee was .
union?
A Yes.
Q What knowledge do you have?
A To the best’ of my knowledge, it was
verbally relayed to me by two employees that they
were represented by a union.
Q Who told you that?
A Two employees that work in the cs
department.
Q What's CS?
A Sterile processing. They process the
inatruments.
Q Do they work within the surgical
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
16:50:45
16:50:49
16:50:50
16:50:52
16:50:54
16:50:56
16:50:57
16:50:58
16:50:59
16:50:59
16:51:00
16:51:02
16:51:04
16:51:13
16:51:16
16:51:19
16:51:23
16:51:25
16:51:29
16:51:33
16:51:33
16:51:36
16:51:37
16:51:42
295REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, John M. Taxter, CSR No. 3579, RPR, a
Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of
California, do hereby certify:
That prior to being examined the witness
named in the foregoing proceedings was by me duly
sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth;
That said proceedings were taken by me in
shorthand at the time and piace herein named and
were thereafter transcribed into typewriting under
my direction, said transcript being a true and
correct transcription of my shorthand notes.
I further certify that I have no interest
in the outcome of this action,
April 5, 2018
JOHN M. TAXTER
CSR NO. 3579, RPR
LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681
355Traci Holzer _ April 18, 2018
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs. CASE NO. STK~CV-
UOE-2016-0006523
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.
DEPOSITION OF TRACI HOLZER, PMK
TAKEN ON
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2018
Sandra Mitchell
C,S.R. 12553
Job No. 202065
Network Deposition Services, Inc. networkdepo.com #*866-NET-DEPOTraci Holzer
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
CASE NO, STK-CVv-
UOE-2016~0006523
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 .
DEPOSITION OF TRACI HOLZER, PMK, taken on behalf
of the Plaintiffs, at 8889 West Olympic Boulevard,
Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California, commencing at
10:21 a.m., Wednesday, April 18, 2018, before Sandra
Mitchell, C.S.R. 12553, pursuant to Notice.
April 18, 2018
Network Deposition Services, Inc, © networkdepo.com-© 866-NETDEPOTraci Holzer - April 18, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs, REGINALD LYLE, ET AL.:
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
BY: JOSEPH LAVI, ESQ. ‘
8889 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211
(310) 432-0000
E-MAIL: JLAVI@LELAWFIRM .COM
For the Defendants, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, ET AL.:
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
BY: SHANNON R, BOYCE, ESQ.
2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, 5TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(310) 712-7304
E-MAIL: SBOYCE@LITTLER.COM
‘Network Deposition Services, Inc, ¢ networkdepo.com © 866-NET-DEPOTraci Holzer - _ April 18, 2018
A When you say "time cards" --
Q Let me rephrase because you guys are
electronic; right?
A Right.
Q So time punch history?
A Yes.
Q So Manteca has maintained the time punch
history of its employees since July 2012 to present;
right?
A Yes.
Q It's’ my tinderstanding ‘that some of the
employees at Manteca are union efiployees; tight?
A Yes.
Q Do you know the number -- let's backtrack.
Do you know the average number of the nonexempt
employees at Manteca right now?
MS. BOYCE: Objection. Vague. Whether union
or not, just total number?
BY MR. LAVI:
Q Total number of nonexempt employees, ballpark?
A Okay. I'm not comfortable giving a ballpark on
that.
Q Okay. Is it more than 200 employees?
A Yes.
Q Is it more than 500 employees?
31
Network Deposition Services, Inc, # networkdepo.com @ 866-NET-DEPO24
25
‘Traci Holzer . _ April 18, 2018
A No,
Q Is it more than 300 employees?
A I'm not sure.
Q Somewhere between 200 to 500 nonexempt
employees; right?
A Yes.
Q Do: you_ know the, percentag e@_of the nonexempt
‘employees that dre ‘union versus nonunion employees?
A ‘Percentage, tio.
‘Do you. know. _numberwise?,
‘Approximately:
Q What's your estimate?
A
145.
145 are union employees?
2
A ‘Corred fe
A Correct...
Q Okay. That's a precise number.
Has the number of the nonexempt employees been
consistent within the last five years?
MS. BOYCE: Objection. Vague.
BY MR, LAVI:
Q Actually, let me backtrack.
Since July 2012 to. present, has the number of
Network Deposition Services, Inc, © networkdepo.com ¢ 866-NET-DEPO
i
i2
3
24
25
Traci Holzer _
ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES }
I, Sandra Mitchell, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, License No. 12553, for the State of California,
do hereby certify:
That, prior to being examined, the witness
named in the foregoing deposition, to wit, TRACI HOLZER,
was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth;
That said deposition was taken down by me
in shorthand at the time and place therein named and
thereafter reduced to computer-aided transcription
under my direction.
That the foregoing transcript, as typed, is a
true record of the said proceedings.
I further certify that I am not interested
in the event of the action.
Witness my hand this 29th day of April, 2018.
SANDRA MITCHELL, C.S.R. No. 12553
ee ‘ . April 18, 2018
1 [scare OF CALIFORNIA )
253
Network Deposition Services, Iic.’6 networkdepo.com #' 866-NET-DEPO.EXHIBIT BCIV-130,
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT. ley tNama, Stata far number, and addressh, FOR COURT USE ONLY
J. Anthony Abbott (SBN E 33975) +
‘Mayall Hurley
2453 Grand Canat Boulevard
Stockton, CA 96207
TELEPHONE NO: 209-477-3833 PAXNO, (Options!)
EAMAIL ADCRESS (Options): Jabbott@mayellaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR avemes: DISCOVERY REFEREE -
‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STOCKTON ‘ .
staeeranoness: 480 E, WEBER AVENUB
MAUNG ADORESS: 180 E, WEBER AVENUE
erryakoxPecoe STOCKTON 96202
BRANGHNAME: STOCKTON
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL.
| DEFENCANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (CASE RUMSI
OR ORDER STK-CV-UOE-2016-0008523
(Check one): (2) unuimtencase [_] LiwiTeo case
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was.
exceaded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. Aludgment, decree, or order was enterdd In this actfon on (date): 03/14/2018
2, Acopy of the Judgment, decree, or order Is attached to this notice,
pate: 03/28/2018
J, ANTHONY ABBOTT b
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
Pagnt of?
eum Apprcvtd fr Optosl Use ~ won courihla.cagev
ae NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERPLAL REGINALD LYLE, ET AL, ~ | San
PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: Fi |), STK-CV-UOE-2018-0008523
DEFENDANTRESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ETAL |
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order MF you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must completa this proof of service.)
4. [am atleast 18 years old and not a party to thls action. [ sm a resident of ar employed In the county where the mailing took
placa, and my residence or business address Is (spacily):
2. | served a copy of the Notice af Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it In a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepald and (check one):
a [7] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b, [4] placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for malling, following this business's usual practices,
with which | am readily faraillar, On the same day correspondence {a placed for collaction and malling, It !s
deposited In the ordinary caurse of business with the United States Postal Service.
3. The Notice of Eniry of Judgment or Order was malied:
a, on (date); 03/29/2018
b. from (elly and stale): STOCKTON, CA
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: c, Name of parson served:
ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON
Street address: 633 WEST 5TH STREET 63RD FL Street address:
City: LOS ANGELES Gily:
State and zip cade: CA 90071 State and zip code:
b,
Name of parson served: d, Name of person served:
VINCENT C. GRANBERRY %
Street address: 8589 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 200 Streat address:
Clty: BEVERLY HILLS City:
Stale and zip code: CA 90211 State and zip code:
[1 names and addresses of additional pereons served ara attached, (You may use form POS-030(P),)
5. Number of pages attached 92.
\ declare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the Stata of California that the foragolng Is true and correct.
Date: 03/29/2018
MEGAN COOPER
(TYP 2 OA PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT)
Pega 20t2
“can Re dwar FEN] “NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER4
J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) aR 1 4208
1) 2489 Grand Canal Boulevard FIR eta
| Stockton, CA 95207 A JUNQUEIRO, CLERR:
21 Telephone: (209) 477-3883 ROSA JUNQUEIRO, CLERK: |
| Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 .. MBUNDA RUZ’
ai
Jabbott@mayallaw.com aye
4 = : . ~ DEPUTY
| DISCOVERY REFEREE
5
6)
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9}. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
10) REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-0008528
. others simitarly situated, Assigned to Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys; Dept
Wf 10C
12 Plaintiff,
| DISCOVERY REFEREE'S RECOMMENDED
434 RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
! COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
44:{ DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; INTERROGATORIES; ORDER
15 | MANTECA; DRS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,.. Submission Date: December 22, 2017
‘|. INC; SP OF MANTECA, ING; TENET
16 | HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.;
17 | TENET HEALTH; and DOES ‘to 100,
Action Filed: July 5, 2016
TratDate: June 4, 2018
)
)
)
)
)
)
J AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF =}
)
)
)
)
)
)
Inclusive,
18
tol Defendants,
1
20
at. OVERVIEW
22 By order filed December 14, 2017, the undersigned was ‘appointed as Discovery
23] Referee. Plaintiff Reginald Lyle (Plaintiff or Lyle) moves to compel further responses to
24] enumerated Special Interrogatorlas, Set One, served on defendant Doctor's Hospital of
25 |. Manteca, Inc., (Defendant) on October 19, 2016.So en Oane Oo nw
NM NM NY se ea ew ea an nw aw
BNSF ESB SSESERASAZS SRB
I
FACTS
Plaintiff's initlal complaint was filed July §, 2016, as a class action, Plaintiff's operative
pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed July 25, 2016, setting forth eight causes of
action arising from so-called “wage and hour” viclatlons allegedly committed by, among others,
Defendant. The Eighth Cause of Action Is based. on the Labor Code Private Attomey
Generals Act of 2004 (hereinafter PAGA). Labor Cade § 2698 ef, seq. Plaintiff served Special
Interrogatories, Set One, on November 8, 2016, After at least two extensions, responses were
served February’ 9, 2017. On March 25, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel Vincent Granberry, Esq,
sought, and was later granted, an extension of time fo file a motion to compel further
responses to April 21, 2017. He suggested a timeline whereby he would send his "meet and
confer’ letter by March 27, and the defense would respond by April 3, 2017. The meet and
confer letter dated March 27, 2017 followed. Defense counsel Shannon Boyce, Esq.,
suggested a reply date of April 14, and extended the time for fillng a motion to compel to May
5, 2017. On Aptil 26, 2017, no responsive letter having been received, Mr. Granberry advised
if no response to the meet and confer letter of March 27, 2017, or amended responses were
recelved by April 28, a motlon to compel would be filed. There was no further substantive
| correspondence prior to the filing of the motion on May 5, 2017. Defendant does not contend
that the instant motion is untimely or that It should be denled for fallure to comply with CCP §§
2030.300(b).
The initial Proposed Recommended Ruling was issued January 24, 2018, Thereafter,
at the request of the referee, the partles submitted supplemental briefs on the effact of
Willams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531, which had not been published at the time
Plaintiffs reply was filed. These briefs were submitted February 8, 2018. Defendant also
submitted an unsolicited Request For Judicial Notica, which Is denled as untimely.The Amended Proposed Recommended Rullng was transmitted to the attorneys for
Plaintiff and Defendant by electronic mall on February 13, 2018, and also served by first class.
mall on that date. No request for hearing before the referee was recelved within 5 court days.
Ih, .
‘THE:CLASS: ALLEGATIONS -OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
The class allegations of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) pertinent to this discovery
dispute are the following; the numbered subparagraphs below are paragraphs quoted from the
FAC:
A. UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE CLASS
23. In thls case, Defendants employed a pollcy, practice, and/or procedure
whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15
| minutes prior to tha start of thelr shift In order to change into scrubs prior to clocking In for
their shift. Similarly, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock ‘out of thelr shifts prior to changing out of
their scrubs.
24, — In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby
they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours
worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
wages for that time.
26. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be
“on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time, During “on-call" time Plaintitf's and
similarly situated employees’ activitles were so restricted that belng “on-call” prevented them
from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time.
46A. Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class: Ajl current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants In California at any time within the four years prior to the
filing of the Initial complaint In this action and through the date notice Is mailed to a certifiedoun @ HA RF WO NY
BoM Ny Ny YP me a Be ew ew a ew Bw oe
BRS RE BBR ES SeEAS AES BBS
class, who were under contro! of Defendants during time prior to and after to a work period,
whose dally hours worked were rounded down or shaved down to the nearest quarter of an
hour and/or who were required to be “on-call” and Defendants did not pay wages for that time
at the legal minimum wage rate. ,
B. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES CLASS
27. As described above, Defendants’ pollctes, practices, and procedures require
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don and doff thelr scrubs off the clock, round
down or shave down employees daily hours down to the nearest quarter hour, and require
that an employees to remain “on-call” without belng compensated for that time. The
foregoing resulted In time each work day which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
were under control of Defendants but were not compensated.
29, Despite that Californla law requires employers to pay employees for all hours
worked and at a higher tate of pay when those hours fall during work periods in excess of 8
hours in 4 workday and 40 hours in a workweek; Defendants would fail to pay employees
wages for the time it took to don and doff their scrubs, for the time each workday that
employees’ were hot compensated for due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure
of rounding down or shaving down employees’ dally hours down to the nearest quarter hour,
and requiring that an employees remain “on-call” without baing compensated for that time
1 |which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants, To the
| extent the employees had already worked 8 hours In the day and on workweeks they had
already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the employees should have been pald overtime for
| this unpaid time. This resulted in non-exempt employees working time whlch should have
| been paid at the legal overtime rate, but was not pald any wages in violation of Labor Code
sections 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders.
46B. Unpaid Work Overtime Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the
fillng of the initial complaint In this actlon and through the date notice is malled to a certified
. _. 4 _.| class, who were under contro! of Defendants during time prior to a work period and on
workdays they had already worked in excess of 8 hours In a day, 40 hours In a week, or were
working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that
time.
C. MISSED MEAL PERIOD CLASS
33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays In shifts long
enough to entitle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Desplte
the fact that California law requires employers to authorize or permit an uninterrupted, duty-
free first meal period of not less than 30 minutes prior to thelr sixth hour of work when they
10] worked shifts more than five hours in length and a second, duty-free meal period of not jess
1
12
13
than 30 minutes when they worked shifts over 10 hours in length, Defendants routinely falled
to authorize or permit first meal periods of not less than 30 minutes because Defendants
would require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don their scrubs prior to conclusion
14] of thelr first meal periods and falled to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether
15
when employees worked shifts of more than 10 hours.
46C. Meal Perlod Class: jl current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants in Callfornla at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the Initial
complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked
shifts of at least six hours yat Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal perlods of
not less than 30 minutes, and/or who worked shifts more than ten hours yet Defendants did
not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of
their eleventh hour of work. .
D. REST PERIOD CLASS
36. "Defendants often employed hourly employees, including the named Plaintiff
and all others similarly-situated, for shifts at least three and one-half (3.5) hours in length.
39. Defendants employed policies and procedures whlch ensured Plaintiff and
| similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, ifoe nN oa ep ow,
= 9
12
the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not
- authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest perlod of ten net minutes.
46D. Rest Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants In California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint in thls action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked
at least three and one-half (3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive required rest
Perlods of ten net minutes rest time for every four hours worked between three and one-half
and six hours, slx and ten hours, or ten and fourteen hours.
E, WAGE STATEMENT CLASS
43. Defendants falled to provide accurate wage and hour statements to Plaintiff
.and similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendants’ control for
uncompensated time and who did not receive the wages they eared (including minimum
-| Wages, overtime wages, as well as fallure to pay premium wages for missed meal and rest
‘ ' periods),
46. Wage Statement Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants In Callfornta at any time within the one year prlor to the fillng of the inltlal
{ complaint in this action and through the date notice Is mailed to a certified class who
received inaccurate or incomplete wage and hour statements,
F. WAITING TIME CLASS
45. Because Defendants falled to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees all thelr earned wages (Including minimum wages, overtime wages, and unpaid
meal and rest period premlum wages), Defendants falled to pay those employees timely after
each employee's termination and/or resignation.
46F. Waiting Time Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants In California at any time within the three years prior to the flling of the Initlal
complaint in thls action and through the date notice Is mailed to a certified class who did not
receive payment of all unpald wages upon separation of employment within the statutary time1 period,
lV.
THE .LLEGATIONS OF THE’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The PAGA-based allegations of the FAC, set forth In the at Cause of Action, track the
class action allegations. The pertinent portions are these:
109. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 4 through 88 of this complaint as if fully
alleged herein.
112. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage: In
oe nN OO a RON
thls case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and
| similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the
|| Start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking In for thelr shift. Similarly,
| Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly
| Situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of thelr scrubs,
113. In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure
whereby they rounded down or shaved down’Plaltitlif and similarly situated employees’ daily
hours worked to. the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees wages for that time.
114, Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff. and similarly situated employees to be
“on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. Durlng “on-call” time Plaintiff's and
similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” Prevented them
from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintift
and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time.
120. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for
workdays Defendants failed to provide required rest periods: Defendants employed
.Policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated amployees would not
) receive ail legally required rest periods, Specifically, if the employees worked shifts between
)10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed toprovide a third rest period of ten net minutes.
V.
PERTINENT DEFINED TERMS IN PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
The follwing defined terms are pertinent to a discussion of the Interrogatorles and
‘responses In dispute:
“DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR": as used herein shall mean Defendant
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
i
©1282 NO a Rw NW
"LIABILITY PERIOD": as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of
verification of these responses.
=
o
"PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS": means all non-exempt employees who performed
work-related services for DEFENDANT In California during the LIABILITY PERIOD
including any and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff
aoa
NOS
agencies.
13), “EMPLOYEES”: Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term Is not defined in the
14] Interrogatorles. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean hourly non-exempt
48 : employees of DEFENDANT.
i6 1 “REST PERIOD"; Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term is not defined In the
; interrogatories, Accardingly, this term shall be construed to mean the rest periods
a7]: described In Labor Code § 226.7 and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(12)(A).
18]: "MEAL PERIOD"; This capltallzed term Is not defined In the Interrogatories set forth In
| plaintiff's Separate Statement. Accordingly, thls term shall be construed to mean the
19 meal periods described in Labor Code § 512(a) and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(11).
20): Vi
at DISCUSSION
"Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions ‘when the question is one
‘ot a common or general Interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and itis
‘impracticable fo bring them all before the court ... ."_ Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court
(2004) 34 Cal.4” 319, 326, citation omitted. “The party seeking certification has the burden to
}establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of Interest
J among class members, /bld. “The ‘community of Interest’ requirement embodies three_P_
oo Oar OW Dr @
factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with clalms
or defenses typlcal of the class; and (3) class representatives wtio can adequately represent
the class.” /bid,
The right to conduct discovery on class certification Issues Is well established. See
Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4" 223, 232-233: Barthold v. Glendale Federal
Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4" 816, 836; Carabin! v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4" 239,
244, However, the court has the power to restrict discovery which is unduly burdensome and
expensive taking into account the needs of the case. CCP § 2019.030(a). Plaintiff bears the
burden of showing that the discovery In issue Is likely to produce substantlation of the class
allegations. Mantolete v. Bolger (gh Clreuit 1985) 767 F.2d 1416, 1424, citing Doninger v,
Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc. (9" Circuit 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, 1313.
With respect to the PAGA-based cause of action, the California Supreme Court has
recently affirmed that, at least with respect to Interragatorles, there is no requirement that a
plaintiff make a threshold showing of good cause to be entitled to answers to questions within
the scope of discovery established by the pleadings, See Williams v. Superior Court (201 7)3
Cal.5" 531, 550-651. The opinion also reiterated that a court exercising discretion in deciding
| whether to grant or deny discovery should, where possible, “impose partial limitations rather
than outright denial of discovery.” /d. at 559, cling Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1964)
56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384,
Vil.
'RULINGS-ON-PLAINTIFF!S*EVIDE N TIARY OBJECTIONS: |
Declarations in support of and in opposition to a motion must set forth admissible
evidence. See McLellan v. Mcl.ellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 359-360. An affidavit to be
used as evidence cannot be based on hearsay. Star Motor imports, Inc, v, Superlor Court
: (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 201, 204. Plaintiff has made objections to the declaration of Traci
Holzer submitted in opposttion ta the motion. These objections are ruled upon as follows:
4. {2 of the Declaration: Overruled.1 2. 4/3 of the Declaration: Overruled,
2 3. 74 of the Declaration: Overruled.
3 4. [5 of the Declaration: Overruled,
4 5. 6 of the Declaration: Overruled,
5 6. 97 of the Declaration: Overruled.
6}: 7. {8 of the Declaration: Sustained.
77 8. 99 of the Declaration: Sustained.
at 9. J 10 of the Declaration: Sustained.
a VII.
a
‘RECOMMENDED RULINGS ON_DISPUTED INTERROGATORIES
In ruling on the individual interrogatories presented by the motion, the text of the
a
12 | interrogatory will be set forth, followed by a brief synopsis of the positions of the parties if
13, | appropriate, and finally the ruling as to. whether a further response Is required with a statement
14 ,oF the reasons for the 'e Proposed ruling.
16} Please state the t total number 1 of YOUR former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during
47) ‘the LIABILITY PERIOD. ((DEFENDANT", "YOU", arid "YOUR" as used herein shall mean
18! Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; "LIABILITY PERIOD" as used
19 ‘herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of verification of these responses,
20 |."WORKED" as used herein shall mean the time during which any person, as defined by
21 | California Labor Code section 18
Preview
BY FAX wo oN A Hw BW nN BRR RRERERE ES SBR RAARESBE HS ORIGINAL: UPERY OF C Oy D Joseph Antonelli, (Bar No. 137039) EC 20 PH Tanonelliantoneli tas. com ROSE JU Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570) JCarney@antonellilaw.com LAW ICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor Chino Hills, CA 91 709 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 Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the gencral public SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 imi i Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys others similarly situated, Dept. 10C phrey: Plaintiff, } CLASS ACTION y. } REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF | PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET Date: December 28, 2018 HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET Time: 9:00 a.m. HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; Dept.: 10C TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Trial Date: June 10, 2019 Defendants Ae REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIALCm NAH Bw HN RNY SF Be Be ee ee eB eB BRRRESRRESESGeSEWTRAAREEHRLS TO THE COURT HEREIN AND ALL PARTIES APPEARING HEREIN AND THEIR. ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff, in support of her Reply in Support of Motion to Deem the Matter Complex and to Continue Trial, requests that this court take judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 451, 452(d), and 453 of the following: A. IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RECORDS OF THE COURT: Evidence Code§452(d) provides that the court shall take judicial notice of “records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record in the United States or of any state of the United States.” DECLARATION OF JANELLE CARNEY I, Janelle Carney, declare that: Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and a partner at the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, attorney of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and would and could testify thereto if called as a witness herein. The following documents are true and correct copies of documents Plaintiff seeks this court to take judicial notice of. 1. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Shannon R. Boyce in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20" day of December 2018, at Chino Hills, California. Janelle Carney, Declar: 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTER COMPLEX AND TO CONTINUE TRIALExhibit 128 UTTER NENDELGON, B.C. 2549.CanlayPatk Eset Shi Los Angatoa, CA $0D87.3107 "3108530300 Facsimile: LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C, 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 213.443.4299 JOSE MACIAS, JR., Bar No. 265033 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. ' 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor » San Jose, CA 95113.2303 Telephone: 408.998.4150 » Facsimile: 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF: MANTECA, INC,; AUXILIARY ‘OF‘DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION: TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. ‘| BLIZABETH'STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160 ‘SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 RECEIVED NOV 04 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH 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 CLASS ACTION ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE ELIZABETH HUMPHREYS, DEPT. 22 DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: November 14, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Filed: July 5, 2016 June 10, 2019 Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS’ OPPOSITION TO PLF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT28 UMTLER MErmELSoNL B.C, ‘9 Cantuy Peck Ezal sath ar | ns Angee, CA 90007.3107 ‘aséaca08 hw Cem AIH I, SHANNON R. BOYCE, declare: 1, Tam an attomey licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of California, I am a Shareholder at the law firm of Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation, and am counsel of record for Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, (erroneously named herein as DRS. HOSP OF MANTECA INC. and SP OF MANTECA, INC.); AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION (erroneously named herein as TENET HEALTH); and TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could competently testify thereto, 2. I make this declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. 3 Since the inception of this action, the parties have exchanged a substantial volume of written discovery, including, for example, hundreds of pages of policy documentation, the production of detailed class lists, and the production of time record data, all specific to Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. After seven months of delay, which necessitated the filing of a motion to compel his deposition, Plaintiff Reginald Lyle finally appeared for deposition in March 2018. Thereafter, Plaintiff took Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable deposition in April 2018. 4, During his deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged that Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc, was the only Tenet facility at which he worked during the class period, Notably, Plaintiff worked solely within the surgical department and was not a union employee, unlike hundreds of other putative class members he purports to represent. A true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts of Plaintiff's deposition and the deposition of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. All discovery and depositions conducted to date have been limited solely to Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. 2. Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 DECLARATION OF SHANNOW R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS? OPPOSITION TO PLI*S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT= ae Bw NM 28 URTLER MENDELSON, PC. 2049 Centr Park Ea ‘5h Foor os Angeles, CA $0067.3107 ‘3105890009, oC 0 em I NOH BF YW WD 6. On or about May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and a second Motion to Compel Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.’s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One. Both of these Motions were ultimately referred to Discovery Referee Joseph H. Fagundes for review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 639(a)(5) by this Court on May 22, 2017, On December 13, 2017, this Court reappointed J. | Anthony Abbott to act as Discovery Referee to determine Plaintiff's pending motions to compel. 7. Both of Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery resulted in Discovery Referee J. Anthony Abbot limiting pre-certification discovery to Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc, Notably, Plaintiff did not request a formal hearing or file a writ to dispute the Orders issued by Mr. Abbott with respect to Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Nor did Plaintiff seek to amend his Complaint to broaden the scope of the putative class beyond that which the Discovery Referee clearly and unambiguously defined in his Orders, 8 Mr. Abbott provided Notices of Entry of Judgment or Order on both rulings on March 29, 2018. Based on Mr, Abbott’s Orders, Defendant Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. produced discovery responses in accordance with the Orders, including detailed class lists and time record data which required significant amount of time and expense. A true and correct copy of the Notices of Entry of Judgment or Order are attached hereto-as Exhibits B and C, 9. The Discovery Referee’s Orders clearly defined the scope of this litigation to just Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. Accordingly, in reliance on Plaintiff's assertion that he needed an additional two months’ time to conduct pre-certification discovery (ostensibly including time to get a motion on file and prepare for trial should the motion be granted), Defendants stipulated to a sixty- day trial continuance. A true and correct copy of the parties’ stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3. Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 ~ DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS’ OPPOSITION TO PLF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT28 UTTLER MENDELSON, PC, ‘W9CeriuyPokEnd | ‘Sh Foor osArgetes,CA 90087407 ‘s105s0008 10. On May 11, 2018, in granting the Parties stipulation, this Court rather than just providing sixty days, continued the trial date to June 10, 2019 — an entire year from the original trial date, A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order is attached hereto as Exhibit E. i In stipulating to a brief trial continuance, Defendants expected that Plaintiff would move swiftly in concluding his pre-certification discovery and filing a motion for class certification. 12, Plaintiff's proposed amendment would require expansive additional discovery. Indeed, Plaintiff has already served written discovery seeking documentation from each of the additional twenty-seven facilities listed in his proposed amendment. Plaintiff's expansive requests for production include, but are not limited to, requests for (i) new hire/orientation materials at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (i!) wage scales at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (iii) employee surveys at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (iv) management hierarchy charts at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (v) documents referring or relating to staffing at each of the twenty-seven facilities; (vi) documents referring or relating to employment policies at each of the twenty-seven facilities on such topics as timekeeping, overtime, rounding, on-call, and workweeks, A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, to Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc, and Tenet Healthcare Corporation are attached hereto as Exhibits F and G. 13, Plaintiff has also served two notices of depositions of the Persons Most Qualified of Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corporation. These deposition notices include twenty-four separate categories of testimony far reaching in nature, including topics such as @ policies, practices, and procedures regarding employee work schedules at each of the newly identified twenty-seven facilities; (ii) policies, practices, and procedures regarding the recruitment of hourly employees at each of the newly identified twenty-seven facilities; (iii) identification of individual management employees at each of the newly identified twenty-seven faéilities; and (iv) policies and practices at each of the newly identified twenty-seven facilities with 4, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFS’ OPPOSITION TO PLF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT28 Soe Boa Loudrgen CA Sepe7 107 uogsaoae wm aw DAH B® WN FIRMWIDE;139514597.2 052845.1344. ° “DECLARATION OF SHANNON R. BOYCE-IN SUPPORT: OF: “DEFST OPPOSITION TO. PLF'S MOTION FOR u regard to timekeeping, workweeks, overtime, paying or calculating pay, rounding, and on-call work. True and correct copies of these deposition notices are attached hereto as Exhibits H and L I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st day of October, 2018, in Los; As 5. Case No, STK-CV- UOE-2016-6523 LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT:EXHIBIT ASUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintif£, vs. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC,; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. INC.; REPORTED JOHN M. CSR NO. JOB NO. 912S51LMF ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) > ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. STK-CV-UOE- 2016-6523 DEPOSITION OF REGINALD LYLE BY: Los Angeles, California Wednesday, March 21, 2018 TAXTER 3579, RPRSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of VS. -himself and othera similarly. Situated, Plaintife£, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF. MANTECA, HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; ‘TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.7 TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) inclusive, Defendants. Deposition of REGINALD LYLE, Plaintif££, taken, on behalé of Defendants at 2049 Century ‘Park East, Sixth Floor, Los Angeles, “California, commencing at 10:07 a.m. on Wednesday, March 21,- 2018, ‘before John M. Taxter, CSR No. 3579, RPR, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 NO. STK-CV-UOE- 2016-652324 25 APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF: LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP BY: VINCENT C. GRANBERRY Attorney at Law 8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 310.432.0000 FOR 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; AND DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE: LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. BY: SHANNON R. BOYCE Attorney at Law ‘2049 Century Park East Sixth Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 310.553.0308 VIDEOGRAPHER: JON SEIDEL LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. real estate. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. BOYCE: Q And have you gotten any type of degree or certification specific to that? A Yes. MR. GRANBERRY: Again, you can answer "yes" or "no." You may answer "yes" or "no.# THE WITNESS: Yea. BY MS. BOYCE: Q And what have you obtained in that regard? A A California real estate salesperson's license. Q Not a broker? A Not. Q Do you have any type of certification or license specific to your role as a surgical tech? A No. Qa Prior to working at: ‘the -- at Doctors Q & Maxim Healthcare ‘Services, LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 10:25:21 10:25:21 10:25:22 10:25:24 10:25:26 10:25:26 10:25:28 10:25:29 10:25:29 10:25:29 10:25:32 10:25:35 10:25:44 10:25:45 10:25:48 10:25:51 10:25:55 10:26:08 10:26:12 10:26:21 10:26:24 10:26:31 10:26:34 10:26:39 2524 25 2 REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.. And for u_do: Let's sea; I think it was around. "2000" -- ‘around 2075 to. 2017. When did yow start performing work as a traveling surgical tech through Maxim Healthcare Services at.San Joaquin County Hospital? Okay. My prior qu estion was what you -~ where you. worked. prior to starting at Doctors Hospital of Manteca. came to: Doctors Hospital of Manteca! where were you working? Does: ‘that make sense? A > bp & bb Yes. Okay. ‘An id_wh eré were you working? Emanuel pital . LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC, - 800.540.0681 10:26:44 10:26:46 10:26:50 10:27:00 10:27:14 10:27:18 10:27:21 10:27:24 10:27:27 10:27:32 10:27:36 10:27:39 10:27:42 10:27:45 20:27:48 10:27:51 10:27:52 10:27:54 10:27:57 10:28:00 10:28:01 10:28:02 10:28:05 10:28:06 2624 25 REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, my knowleddé, between 2003: - 2 Were you a full-time surgical technician there: the entire time?. Zes. You weren't a traveler? & No. Q Were you per diem at any. spoint? A No. Q And why did you leaye your. employment’ at. Emanuel Medical ‘Genter? Mis GRANBERRY: obiectfon. itis private. : departures or reasons ‘for. separatioa: ‘are private... go I'm going toi instruct _you.not to answer. before -- where else had you provided services.a5 a surgical ‘technician. prior 1 ‘Hospital iof-Manteda? LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. ~- 800.540.0681 10:28:08 10:28:12 10:28:15 10:28:17 10:28:23 10:26:29 10:28:30 10:28:33 10:28:36 10:28:40 10:28:42 10:28:45 10:26:51 10:28:52 10:28:55 10:28:58 10:28:59 10:29:02 10:29:04 10:29:05 10:29:11 10:29:13 27a REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. Algo, Mercy Hospital; Dominican campus, ‘in Merced, California, Q Okay, And for what peri lod of time’ wera you Ehere? aA Around 1'993 to 2002, Q Okay. ‘Anywhere else that you've provided zvices as a. sur ech, of th: Me Hospital. and Emanuel Medical. Center?. A Yes. Q Where?’ A Doctors Hospital of Modesto, California. Q And was that inthe 1995 time frame? A I_don't recall. Q What's your best estimate as t6 when Tt is you _believe_you may have provided. services. there? aA oe. iu. A A ‘Did. you provide ‘services -as a traveler ‘Hospital of Mantesa?, No. ‘Did you provide sczvices as -- on a Yes. i did you. pro r= LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 10:29:17 10:29:24 10:29:32 10:29:35 10:29:37 10:29:50 10:29:52 10:29:55 10:30:00 10:30:01 10:30:02 10:30:08 10:30:11 10:30:16 10:30:18 10:30:29 10:30:32 10:30:36 10:30:39 10:30:40 10:30:42 10:30:44 10:30:47 10:30:51 28REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. Services?. A of Pulock, California. Q And_for what. p eriod-of time did you provide Services there! on a pexr-dien basis? A i-don"t recall. 2 Anywhere e1s6? A Mes. Q Where else? A The Tower Surgical Center in Tulock, California. Q And for What period Sf tine! vas that? A don't regal, MR. GRANBERRY': hospital? “THE WITNESS +: Tulock, ‘BY i Q Towar Surgery. Center -on anything othér than a. Pper-diem basis? A No, 2 Wate ‘you staff dt any ‘tire? A To the best’ o LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 10:30:53 10:30:53 10:30:59 10:31:00 10:31:02 10:31:05 10:31:06 10:31:08 10:31:09 10:31:14 10:31:18 10:31:20 10:31:27 10:31:28 10:31:28 10:31:41 10:31:52 10:31:52 10:31:54 10:31:56 10:31:57 10:32:02 10:32:04 29REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. Q Do you know the circumstances under which any other employee reviewed or signed an arbitration agreement? MR. GRANBERRY: Same. Go for it. THE WITNESS: No. BY MS. BOYCE: Q Did anybody ever tell you that you could not be employed by the hospital, if you would not agree to participate in the fair treatment process? A I don't recall, Q You have no memory of that? A No. Q "No," you -- you do not have a memory of anybody ever telling you that you could not remain employed, if you had not agreed to abide by the fair treatment process? A That's correct. LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 16:48:55 16:48:57 16:49:00 16:49:01 16:49:03 16:49:04 16:49:06 16:49:08 16:49:16 16:49:20 16:49:29 16:49:32 16:49:33 16:49:36 16:49:40 26:49:42 16:49:43 16:49:46 16:49:47 16:49:48 16:49:50 16:49:52 16:49:53 293REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. THE WITNESS: I donit know, BOYCE: Q So you have. no idea ‘what collective bargaining agreement provisions might apply to other employees at the. hosp ital? ‘MR. GRANBERRY: (Same objection, You-can answer. _ THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY.MS. BOYCE: MR. GRANBERRY: Et's a legal conclusion. THE. WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. BOYCE 2 represent union employees. in this matter? ME. _GRANBERRY? Same objectYon. LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 16:49:54 16:49:55 16:49:58 16:50:02 16:50:04 16:50:04 16:50:06 16:50:07 16:50:12 16:50:13 16:50:15 16:50:18 16:50:20 16:50:23 16:50:27 16:50:30 16:50:32 16:50:33 16:50:35 16:50:37 16:50:39 16:50:40 294REGINALD LYLE - March 21, 2018 LYLE VS. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTEGA, INC. MR. :GRANBERRY; It's been’ asked and. answered, Xou_may answer again, THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS, BOYCE: Q . Within your surgical department do you have any knowledge as to whether or not any employee was . union? A Yes. Q What knowledge do you have? A To the best’ of my knowledge, it was verbally relayed to me by two employees that they were represented by a union. Q Who told you that? A Two employees that work in the cs department. Q What's CS? A Sterile processing. They process the inatruments. Q Do they work within the surgical LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 16:50:45 16:50:49 16:50:50 16:50:52 16:50:54 16:50:56 16:50:57 16:50:58 16:50:59 16:50:59 16:51:00 16:51:02 16:51:04 16:51:13 16:51:16 16:51:19 16:51:23 16:51:25 16:51:29 16:51:33 16:51:33 16:51:36 16:51:37 16:51:42 295REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, John M. Taxter, CSR No. 3579, RPR, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California, do hereby certify: That prior to being examined the witness named in the foregoing proceedings was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; That said proceedings were taken by me in shorthand at the time and piace herein named and were thereafter transcribed into typewriting under my direction, said transcript being a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes. I further certify that I have no interest in the outcome of this action, April 5, 2018 JOHN M. TAXTER CSR NO. 3579, RPR LUDWIG KLEIN REPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. - 800.540.0681 355Traci Holzer _ April 18, 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS, vs. CASE NO. STK~CV- UOE-2016-0006523 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. DEPOSITION OF TRACI HOLZER, PMK TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2018 Sandra Mitchell C,S.R. 12553 Job No. 202065 Network Deposition Services, Inc. networkdepo.com #*866-NET-DEPOTraci Holzer SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS, vs. CASE NO, STK-CVv- UOE-2016~0006523 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 . DEPOSITION OF TRACI HOLZER, PMK, taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs, at 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California, commencing at 10:21 a.m., Wednesday, April 18, 2018, before Sandra Mitchell, C.S.R. 12553, pursuant to Notice. April 18, 2018 Network Deposition Services, Inc, © networkdepo.com-© 866-NETDEPOTraci Holzer - April 18, 2018 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs, REGINALD LYLE, ET AL.: LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP BY: JOSEPH LAVI, ESQ. ‘ 8889 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 (310) 432-0000 E-MAIL: JLAVI@LELAWFIRM .COM For the Defendants, DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, ET AL.: LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. BY: SHANNON R, BOYCE, ESQ. 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, 5TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (310) 712-7304 E-MAIL: SBOYCE@LITTLER.COM ‘Network Deposition Services, Inc, ¢ networkdepo.com © 866-NET-DEPOTraci Holzer - _ April 18, 2018 A When you say "time cards" -- Q Let me rephrase because you guys are electronic; right? A Right. Q So time punch history? A Yes. Q So Manteca has maintained the time punch history of its employees since July 2012 to present; right? A Yes. Q It's’ my tinderstanding ‘that some of the employees at Manteca are union efiployees; tight? A Yes. Q Do you know the number -- let's backtrack. Do you know the average number of the nonexempt employees at Manteca right now? MS. BOYCE: Objection. Vague. Whether union or not, just total number? BY MR. LAVI: Q Total number of nonexempt employees, ballpark? A Okay. I'm not comfortable giving a ballpark on that. Q Okay. Is it more than 200 employees? A Yes. Q Is it more than 500 employees? 31 Network Deposition Services, Inc, # networkdepo.com @ 866-NET-DEPO24 25 ‘Traci Holzer . _ April 18, 2018 A No, Q Is it more than 300 employees? A I'm not sure. Q Somewhere between 200 to 500 nonexempt employees; right? A Yes. Q Do: you_ know the, percentag e@_of the nonexempt ‘employees that dre ‘union versus nonunion employees? A ‘Percentage, tio. ‘Do you. know. _numberwise?, ‘Approximately: Q What's your estimate? A 145. 145 are union employees? 2 A ‘Corred fe A Correct... Q Okay. That's a precise number. Has the number of the nonexempt employees been consistent within the last five years? MS. BOYCE: Objection. Vague. BY MR, LAVI: Q Actually, let me backtrack. Since July 2012 to. present, has the number of Network Deposition Services, Inc, © networkdepo.com ¢ 866-NET-DEPO i i2 3 24 25 Traci Holzer _ ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } I, Sandra Mitchell, Certified Shorthand Reporter, License No. 12553, for the State of California, do hereby certify: That, prior to being examined, the witness named in the foregoing deposition, to wit, TRACI HOLZER, was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; That said deposition was taken down by me in shorthand at the time and place therein named and thereafter reduced to computer-aided transcription under my direction. That the foregoing transcript, as typed, is a true record of the said proceedings. I further certify that I am not interested in the event of the action. Witness my hand this 29th day of April, 2018. SANDRA MITCHELL, C.S.R. No. 12553 ee ‘ . April 18, 2018 1 [scare OF CALIFORNIA ) 253 Network Deposition Services, Iic.’6 networkdepo.com #' 866-NET-DEPO.EXHIBIT BCIV-130, ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT. ley tNama, Stata far number, and addressh, FOR COURT USE ONLY J. Anthony Abbott (SBN E 33975) + ‘Mayall Hurley 2453 Grand Canat Boulevard Stockton, CA 96207 TELEPHONE NO: 209-477-3833 PAXNO, (Options!) EAMAIL ADCRESS (Options): Jabbott@mayellaw.com ATTORNEY FOR avemes: DISCOVERY REFEREE - ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STOCKTON ‘ . staeeranoness: 480 E, WEBER AVENUB MAUNG ADORESS: 180 E, WEBER AVENUE erryakoxPecoe STOCKTON 96202 BRANGHNAME: STOCKTON PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: REGINALD LYLE, ET AL. | DEFENCANT/RESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ET AL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (CASE RUMSI OR ORDER STK-CV-UOE-2016-0008523 (Check one): (2) unuimtencase [_] LiwiTeo case (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was. exceaded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 1. Aludgment, decree, or order was enterdd In this actfon on (date): 03/14/2018 2, Acopy of the Judgment, decree, or order Is attached to this notice, pate: 03/28/2018 J, ANTHONY ABBOTT b (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) Pagnt of? eum Apprcvtd fr Optosl Use ~ won courihla.cagev ae NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDERPLAL REGINALD LYLE, ET AL, ~ | San PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: Fi |), STK-CV-UOE-2018-0008523 DEFENDANTRESPONDENT: DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC, ETAL | PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order MF you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must completa this proof of service.) 4. [am atleast 18 years old and not a party to thls action. [ sm a resident of ar employed In the county where the mailing took placa, and my residence or business address Is (spacily): 2. | served a copy of the Notice af Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it In a sealed envelope with postage fully prepald and (check one): a [7] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b, [4] placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for malling, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily faraillar, On the same day correspondence {a placed for collaction and malling, It !s deposited In the ordinary caurse of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Eniry of Judgment or Order was malied: a, on (date); 03/29/2018 b. from (elly and stale): STOCKTON, CA 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c, Name of parson served: ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON Street address: 633 WEST 5TH STREET 63RD FL Street address: City: LOS ANGELES Gily: State and zip cade: CA 90071 State and zip code: b, Name of parson served: d, Name of person served: VINCENT C. GRANBERRY % Street address: 8589 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 200 Streat address: Clty: BEVERLY HILLS City: Stale and zip code: CA 90211 State and zip code: [1 names and addresses of additional pereons served ara attached, (You may use form POS-030(P),) 5. Number of pages attached 92. \ declare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the Stata of California that the foragolng Is true and correct. Date: 03/29/2018 MEGAN COOPER (TYP 2 OA PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) Pega 20t2 “can Re dwar FEN] “NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER4 J. Anthony Abbott (SBN 83975) aR 1 4208 1) 2489 Grand Canal Boulevard FIR eta | Stockton, CA 95207 A JUNQUEIRO, CLERR: 21 Telephone: (209) 477-3883 ROSA JUNQUEIRO, CLERK: | | Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 .. MBUNDA RUZ’ ai Jabbott@mayallaw.com aye 4 = : . ~ DEPUTY | DISCOVERY REFEREE 5 6) 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9}. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH 10) REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-0008528 . others simitarly situated, Assigned to Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys; Dept Wf 10C 12 Plaintiff, | DISCOVERY REFEREE'S RECOMMENDED 434 RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ! COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 44:{ DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; INTERROGATORIES; ORDER 15 | MANTECA; DRS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,.. Submission Date: December 22, 2017 ‘|. INC; SP OF MANTECA, ING; TENET 16 | HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; 17 | TENET HEALTH; and DOES ‘to 100, Action Filed: July 5, 2016 TratDate: June 4, 2018 ) ) ) ) ) ) J AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF =} ) ) ) ) ) ) Inclusive, 18 tol Defendants, 1 20 at. OVERVIEW 22 By order filed December 14, 2017, the undersigned was ‘appointed as Discovery 23] Referee. Plaintiff Reginald Lyle (Plaintiff or Lyle) moves to compel further responses to 24] enumerated Special Interrogatorlas, Set One, served on defendant Doctor's Hospital of 25 |. Manteca, Inc., (Defendant) on October 19, 2016.So en Oane Oo nw NM NM NY se ea ew ea an nw aw BNSF ESB SSESERASAZS SRB I FACTS Plaintiff's initlal complaint was filed July §, 2016, as a class action, Plaintiff's operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed July 25, 2016, setting forth eight causes of action arising from so-called “wage and hour” viclatlons allegedly committed by, among others, Defendant. The Eighth Cause of Action Is based. on the Labor Code Private Attomey Generals Act of 2004 (hereinafter PAGA). Labor Cade § 2698 ef, seq. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on November 8, 2016, After at least two extensions, responses were served February’ 9, 2017. On March 25, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel Vincent Granberry, Esq, sought, and was later granted, an extension of time fo file a motion to compel further responses to April 21, 2017. He suggested a timeline whereby he would send his "meet and confer’ letter by March 27, and the defense would respond by April 3, 2017. The meet and confer letter dated March 27, 2017 followed. Defense counsel Shannon Boyce, Esq., suggested a reply date of April 14, and extended the time for fillng a motion to compel to May 5, 2017. On Aptil 26, 2017, no responsive letter having been received, Mr. Granberry advised if no response to the meet and confer letter of March 27, 2017, or amended responses were recelved by April 28, a motlon to compel would be filed. There was no further substantive | correspondence prior to the filing of the motion on May 5, 2017. Defendant does not contend that the instant motion is untimely or that It should be denled for fallure to comply with CCP §§ 2030.300(b). The initial Proposed Recommended Ruling was issued January 24, 2018, Thereafter, at the request of the referee, the partles submitted supplemental briefs on the effact of Willams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5" 531, which had not been published at the time Plaintiffs reply was filed. These briefs were submitted February 8, 2018. Defendant also submitted an unsolicited Request For Judicial Notica, which Is denled as untimely.The Amended Proposed Recommended Rullng was transmitted to the attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendant by electronic mall on February 13, 2018, and also served by first class. mall on that date. No request for hearing before the referee was recelved within 5 court days. Ih, . ‘THE:CLASS: ALLEGATIONS -OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. The class allegations of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) pertinent to this discovery dispute are the following; the numbered subparagraphs below are paragraphs quoted from the FAC: A. UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE CLASS 23. In thls case, Defendants employed a pollcy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 | minutes prior to tha start of thelr shift In order to change into scrubs prior to clocking In for their shift. Similarly, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock ‘out of thelr shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 24, — In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees wages for that time. 26. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be “on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time, During “on-call" time Plaintitf's and similarly situated employees’ activitles were so restricted that belng “on-call” prevented them from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time. 46A. Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class: Ajl current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants In California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the Initial complaint In this action and through the date notice Is mailed to a certifiedoun @ HA RF WO NY BoM Ny Ny YP me a Be ew ew a ew Bw oe BRS RE BBR ES SeEAS AES BBS class, who were under contro! of Defendants during time prior to and after to a work period, whose dally hours worked were rounded down or shaved down to the nearest quarter of an hour and/or who were required to be “on-call” and Defendants did not pay wages for that time at the legal minimum wage rate. , B. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES CLASS 27. As described above, Defendants’ pollctes, practices, and procedures require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don and doff thelr scrubs off the clock, round down or shave down employees daily hours down to the nearest quarter hour, and require that an employees to remain “on-call” without belng compensated for that time. The foregoing resulted In time each work day which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants but were not compensated. 29, Despite that Californla law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked and at a higher tate of pay when those hours fall during work periods in excess of 8 hours in 4 workday and 40 hours in a workweek; Defendants would fail to pay employees wages for the time it took to don and doff their scrubs, for the time each workday that employees’ were hot compensated for due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure of rounding down or shaving down employees’ dally hours down to the nearest quarter hour, and requiring that an employees remain “on-call” without baing compensated for that time 1 |which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants, To the | extent the employees had already worked 8 hours In the day and on workweeks they had already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the employees should have been pald overtime for | this unpaid time. This resulted in non-exempt employees working time whlch should have | been paid at the legal overtime rate, but was not pald any wages in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders. 46B. Unpaid Work Overtime Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the fillng of the initial complaint In this actlon and through the date notice is malled to a certified . _. 4 _.| class, who were under contro! of Defendants during time prior to a work period and on workdays they had already worked in excess of 8 hours In a day, 40 hours In a week, or were working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that time. C. MISSED MEAL PERIOD CLASS 33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays In shifts long enough to entitle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Desplte the fact that California law requires employers to authorize or permit an uninterrupted, duty- free first meal period of not less than 30 minutes prior to thelr sixth hour of work when they 10] worked shifts more than five hours in length and a second, duty-free meal period of not jess 1 12 13 than 30 minutes when they worked shifts over 10 hours in length, Defendants routinely falled to authorize or permit first meal periods of not less than 30 minutes because Defendants would require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don their scrubs prior to conclusion 14] of thelr first meal periods and falled to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether 15 when employees worked shifts of more than 10 hours. 46C. Meal Perlod Class: jl current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in Callfornla at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the Initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked shifts of at least six hours yat Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal perlods of not less than 30 minutes, and/or who worked shifts more than ten hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of their eleventh hour of work. . D. REST PERIOD CLASS 36. "Defendants often employed hourly employees, including the named Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated, for shifts at least three and one-half (3.5) hours in length. 39. Defendants employed policies and procedures whlch ensured Plaintiff and | similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, ifoe nN oa ep ow, = 9 12 the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not - authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest perlod of ten net minutes. 46D. Rest Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants In California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in thls action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked at least three and one-half (3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive required rest Perlods of ten net minutes rest time for every four hours worked between three and one-half and six hours, slx and ten hours, or ten and fourteen hours. E, WAGE STATEMENT CLASS 43. Defendants falled to provide accurate wage and hour statements to Plaintiff .and similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendants’ control for uncompensated time and who did not receive the wages they eared (including minimum -| Wages, overtime wages, as well as fallure to pay premium wages for missed meal and rest ‘ ' periods), 46. Wage Statement Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants In Callfornta at any time within the one year prlor to the fillng of the inltlal { complaint in this action and through the date notice Is mailed to a certified class who received inaccurate or incomplete wage and hour statements, F. WAITING TIME CLASS 45. Because Defendants falled to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all thelr earned wages (Including minimum wages, overtime wages, and unpaid meal and rest period premlum wages), Defendants falled to pay those employees timely after each employee's termination and/or resignation. 46F. Waiting Time Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants In California at any time within the three years prior to the flling of the Initlal complaint in thls action and through the date notice Is mailed to a certified class who did not receive payment of all unpald wages upon separation of employment within the statutary time1 period, lV. THE .LLEGATIONS OF THE’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The PAGA-based allegations of the FAC, set forth In the at Cause of Action, track the class action allegations. The pertinent portions are these: 109. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 4 through 88 of this complaint as if fully alleged herein. 112. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage: In oe nN OO a RON thls case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and | similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the || Start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking In for thelr shift. Similarly, | Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly | Situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of thelr scrubs, 113. In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they rounded down or shaved down’Plaltitlif and similarly situated employees’ daily hours worked to. the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees wages for that time. 114, Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff. and similarly situated employees to be “on-call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. Durlng “on-call” time Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” Prevented them from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintift and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time. 120. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for workdays Defendants failed to provide required rest periods: Defendants employed .Policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated amployees would not ) receive ail legally required rest periods, Specifically, if the employees worked shifts between )10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed toprovide a third rest period of ten net minutes. V. PERTINENT DEFINED TERMS IN PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES The follwing defined terms are pertinent to a discussion of the Interrogatorles and ‘responses In dispute: “DEFENDANT", "YOU", and "YOUR": as used herein shall mean Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; i ©1282 NO a Rw NW "LIABILITY PERIOD": as used herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of verification of these responses. = o "PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS": means all non-exempt employees who performed work-related services for DEFENDANT In California during the LIABILITY PERIOD including any and all employees employed through temp agencies and/or staff aoa NOS agencies. 13), “EMPLOYEES”: Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term Is not defined in the 14] Interrogatorles. Accordingly, this term shall be construed to mean hourly non-exempt 48 : employees of DEFENDANT. i6 1 “REST PERIOD"; Plaintiff has admitted this capitalized term is not defined In the ; interrogatories, Accardingly, this term shall be construed to mean the rest periods a7]: described In Labor Code § 226.7 and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(12)(A). 18]: "MEAL PERIOD"; This capltallzed term Is not defined In the Interrogatories set forth In | plaintiff's Separate Statement. Accordingly, thls term shall be construed to mean the 19 meal periods described in Labor Code § 512(a) and 8 Cal. Code Regs 11010(11). 20): Vi at DISCUSSION "Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions ‘when the question is one ‘ot a common or general Interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and itis ‘impracticable fo bring them all before the court ... ."_ Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4” 319, 326, citation omitted. “The party seeking certification has the burden to }establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of Interest J among class members, /bld. “The ‘community of Interest’ requirement embodies three_P_ oo Oar OW Dr @ factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with clalms or defenses typlcal of the class; and (3) class representatives wtio can adequately represent the class.” /bid, The right to conduct discovery on class certification Issues Is well established. See Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4" 223, 232-233: Barthold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4" 816, 836; Carabin! v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4" 239, 244, However, the court has the power to restrict discovery which is unduly burdensome and expensive taking into account the needs of the case. CCP § 2019.030(a). Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the discovery In issue Is likely to produce substantlation of the class allegations. Mantolete v. Bolger (gh Clreuit 1985) 767 F.2d 1416, 1424, citing Doninger v, Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc. (9" Circuit 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, 1313. With respect to the PAGA-based cause of action, the California Supreme Court has recently affirmed that, at least with respect to Interragatorles, there is no requirement that a plaintiff make a threshold showing of good cause to be entitled to answers to questions within the scope of discovery established by the pleadings, See Williams v. Superior Court (201 7)3 Cal.5" 531, 550-651. The opinion also reiterated that a court exercising discretion in deciding | whether to grant or deny discovery should, where possible, “impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.” /d. at 559, cling Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1964) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, Vil. 'RULINGS-ON-PLAINTIFF!S*EVIDE N TIARY OBJECTIONS: | Declarations in support of and in opposition to a motion must set forth admissible evidence. See McLellan v. Mcl.ellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 359-360. An affidavit to be used as evidence cannot be based on hearsay. Star Motor imports, Inc, v, Superlor Court : (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 201, 204. Plaintiff has made objections to the declaration of Traci Holzer submitted in opposttion ta the motion. These objections are ruled upon as follows: 4. {2 of the Declaration: Overruled.1 2. 4/3 of the Declaration: Overruled, 2 3. 74 of the Declaration: Overruled. 3 4. [5 of the Declaration: Overruled, 4 5. 6 of the Declaration: Overruled, 5 6. 97 of the Declaration: Overruled. 6}: 7. {8 of the Declaration: Sustained. 77 8. 99 of the Declaration: Sustained. at 9. J 10 of the Declaration: Sustained. a VII. a ‘RECOMMENDED RULINGS ON_DISPUTED INTERROGATORIES In ruling on the individual interrogatories presented by the motion, the text of the a 12 | interrogatory will be set forth, followed by a brief synopsis of the positions of the parties if 13, | appropriate, and finally the ruling as to. whether a further response Is required with a statement 14 ,oF the reasons for the 'e Proposed ruling. 16} Please state the t total number 1 of YOUR former PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during 47) ‘the LIABILITY PERIOD. ((DEFENDANT", "YOU", arid "YOUR" as used herein shall mean 18! Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; "LIABILITY PERIOD" as used 19 ‘herein shall mean from July 5, 2011, to the time of verification of these responses, 20 |."WORKED" as used herein shall mean the time during which any person, as defined by 21 | California Labor Code section 18