Motion to Set Hearing in NATHAN PETER RUNYON VS. PAYWARD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL| Trellis.Law

On November 26, 2019 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Runyon, Nathan Peter, and Does 1-50, Inclusive, Ng, Kaiser, Payward, Inc., A California Corporation, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 CLAIRE E. COCHRAN (SBN 222529)
GREGORY STEVENS (PRO HAC VICE)
2 LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN, P.C. ELECTRONICALLY
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 1250
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
TELEPHONE: (415) 580- 6019 County of San Francisco
4 FACSIMILE: (415) 745- 3301
08/04/2021
5 Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Plaintiff, BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Nathan Peter Runyon Deputy Clerk
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 NATHAN PETER RUNYON, CASE NO. CGC-19-581099
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE AND MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
13 PAYWARD, INC., a California Corporation FROM PAYWARD, INC. TO
d/b/a KRAKEN; and KAISER NG an SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
14 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
individual and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
PRIVILEGE LOG
15
Defendant. [Concurrently Filled Herewith: Rule 335
16 Separate Statement(s); Declaration of Claire
E. Cochran in Support Thereof Motion to
17 Compel; and (Proposed) Order]
18 Date: August 30, 2021
Time: 9:00 A.M.
19 Dept.: 302
Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
20
Complaint Filed: March 27, 2020
21
22
TO ALL PARTIERS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
23
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 30, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon after as the
24
matter may be heard in Department 302 of the above-entitled court, located at 400 McAllister St,
25
San Francisco, CA 94102, Plaintiff, NATHAN PETER RUNYON, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) will
26
move this court for orders compelling Defendants, PAYWARD, INC. d/b/a KRAKEN, and
27
KAISER NG, (hereinafter “Defendants”) to provide further responses without objection to
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGED LOG
1 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, including
2 further supplementation of the privilege log provided by Defendants in response to discovery
3 pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 2023.030; an order imposing monetary sanctions against
4 responding party Payward, Inc., and its attorneys of record, Kimberly Pallen and Christopher
5 LaVigne, of Withers Worldwide in the amount of $1,500, to be paid to this court within fifteen (15)
6 days of the order on this motion.
7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.300 and
8 2023.030, on the grounds that the said Supplemental Requests for Production are relevant to the
9 subject matter of this action and there is a compelling need for their production. The Responses
10 provided by Defendant violate CCP §2030.300 as follows:
11 They withhold responses and documents unreasonably and fail to identify appropriate
12 privilege(s) and relevant objections in responses in response to Supplemental Requests for
13 Production and their related privilege log.
14 Counsel has made a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve the issues
15 presented by this motion. However, Defendants have continued to fail to provide full and complete
16 responses and/or to properly identify documents withheld based on privilege.
17 Defendants and their counsel have acted without substantial justification in refusing to
18 provide the information requested and should therefore be sanctioned.
19 Said motion will also be based on this notice of motion and motion, the memorandum of
20 points and authorities set forth below, the attached declaration of Claire Cochran, the exhibits
21 attached thereto, the complete files and records in this case and such oral and documentary evidence
22 as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion.
23
Dated: August 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
24
LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN
25
26
By:
27
Claire E. Cochran, Esq.
28 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon

2
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Defendants Payward, Inc. and Kaiser Ng have continuously withheld documents in an
4 attempt to thwart the Plaintiff’s employment lawsuit against his former employer – Payward, Inc.
5 in blatant disregard of their discovery obligations. The abuses of the Discovery Act have left Mr.
6 Runyon, a decorated Marine wartime veteran, in a position where he is unable to hold the company
7 that took adverse employment action against him, or the individuals involved responsible for their
8 actions. Accordingly, this motion to compel responses to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests is
9 necessary to receive discovery vital to this case in order to properly prepare for trial. Defendants’
10 and their counsel’s actions, constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Sanctions should be
11 imposed on Defendants Payward, Inc. and Kaiser Ng and their attorneys of record – Kimberly Pallen
12 and Christopher Lavigne for misuse of the discovery process.
13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
14 a. Summary of Relevant Facts
15 As set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint the Plaintiff in this matter, Mr. Nathan Peter Runyon
16 (“Mr. Runyon” or “Plaintiff”) was hired by Defendant Payward, Inc. on March 26, 2018, as a
17 Financial Analyst, and was to report directly to Defendant Ng. During his time with the company,
18 Mr. Runyon was forced to work long hours, attended a class to become more proficient at his job at
19 the request of Mr. Ng, and contributed meaningfully to the company. All the while, the Plaintiff was
20 subjected to harassment, ridiculed due to his disabilities, refused accommodations, retaliated
21 against, and ultimately was terminated, all because of his status as a disabled veteran. On August
22 1, 2019, Mr. Runyon was informed that he was being terminated from his position. Subsequently,
23 Mr. Runyon brough this action against his former employer, and Kaiser Ng in his individual
24 capacity.
25 b. Procedural/Discovery History
26 On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant Payward, Request for Admissions,
27 Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. On
28 May 28, 2021, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two. On July 8, 2021, Defendant
3
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 Payward provided responses to those discovery requests. On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff propounded on
2 Defendant Payward Supplemental Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of
3 Documents for any information/documents acquired after the initial round of discovery in a final
4 attempt to allow Payward to produce documents and information that the Plaintiff requested.
5 On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant regarding
6 deficiencies in its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. In its July
7 16, 2021 letter, Plaintiff outlined deficiencies and made demands for relevant documents that had
8 not been disclosed in the response. In response, on July 19, 2021, Payward sent its supplemental
9 responses, as well as documents Bastes-numbered PAYWARD006982 – PAYWARD007252. After
10 reviewing the supplemental documents and information, on July 22, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel
11 exchanged further correspondence with Defendant’s counsel regarding impermissible redactions.
12 On July 25, 2021, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter responding to Plaintiff’s July 16, 2021 attempt
13 to meet and confer informing Plaintiff that it would not be producing any further documents or
14 information.
15 c. Outstanding Documents
16 To date, Defendants have failed to produce multiple documents that are not only relevant
17 but are vital to discovery in this case. Outlined below are the documents the Plaintiff seeks in order
18 to properly prepare for trial:
19 1. Google document sent between Plaintiff Runyon and Defendant Ng in
20 preparation for June Board consent referenced in PAYWARD004792 –
21 PAYWARD004793
22 2. Google document at link referenced on PAYWARD005166 sent between
23 Plaintiff Runyon and “@stevec” (Steve Christie – Kraken’s Compliance
24 Officer)
25 3. Payward, Inc. Employee Handbook
26 4. Payward, Inc. Performance Reviews
27 5. Payward, Inc. Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”)
28 6. Kaiser Ng’s Docusign History
4
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 d. Insufficient Privilege Logs
2 Aside from the numerous documents that Defendant has refused to produce, the privilege
3 logs, and the documents claimed to be subject to privilege are wholly deficient. Many entries on the
4 privilege logs do not identify attorneys as recipients and provide insufficient information to enable
5 Plaintiff to identify if the document is actually subject to privilege. Examples of entries from
6 Privilege Log 5/15/2020 and Supplemental Log 8/19/2020 such as:
7 630 May 14, 2019 PDF Attorney-Client
8 631 June 29, 2019 Kaiser Ng Pete Email Board Attorney-Client
9 632 June 29, 2019 Word Attorney-Client
10 633 June 29, 2019 Text Attorney-Client
11 634 June 29, 2019 Pete Kaiser Ng Email re: Board Attorney-Client
12 635 June 29, 2019 Word Attorney-Client
13 636 June 29, 2019 Text Attorney-Client
14 do not provide the Plaintiff with requisite information in order to make out the basis of the
15 privilege asserted. The documents withheld are both relevant and key to this case and the
16 withholding of the document based on sham privilege is an abuse of the discovery process.
17 e. Failure to Direct Plaintiff to Responsive Documents to Its Request
18 Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2031.280 requires a responding party to identify which demand for
19 inspection a document produced corresponds to. In its numerous meet and confer attempts, Plaintiff
20 has requested that Defendant abide by its duty to direct Plaintiff to which documents are responsive
21 to which categories of documents as required by the Discovery Act. Defendant has wholly refused
22 to abide by this duty. Plaintiff has requested that Defendant identify by Bates Number which
23 documents it alleges are responsive to categories: 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 64, 76, 81. To date, Payward
24 has refused to identify the documents it contends it has produced in response to these requests.
25 Upwards of 8,000 pages of responsive documents have been produced by Defendant to date, and it
26 is an unreasonable burden to place on Plaintiff to attempt to locate responsive documents in this
27 voluminous production. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order Defendant
28 Payward to identify which documents are responsive to each respective category.
5
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
2 a. A Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery is Proper.
3 The California Code of Civil Procedure at § 2030.310 provides: On receipt of a response to
4 request for a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party requesting
5 productions may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that
6 any of the following apply:
7 (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
8 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
9 (3) An objection to the response is without merit or too general.
10 Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2030.310. Furthermore, if the responding party objects in part or in whole to a
11 specific category or item, the response shall:
12 (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land or
13 electronically stored information falling within any category or item in the
14 demand to which an objections is made.
15 (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. In
16 the case the objection is based on privilege, or work product, that objection
17 shall be expressly stated.
18 (3) If an objection is based off privilege, the response shall provide sufficient
19 factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim,
20 including if necessary, a privilege log.
21 Cal. Civ. Pro. 2031.240. A responding party must set forth clearly the extent of, the specific
22 ground for, the objection and particular privilege. Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 112
23 Cal.App. 4th 1181, 1189.
24 b. Good Cause Exists for Compelling Further Responses
25 In order to compel further responses, the moving party must show good cause justifying the
26 discovery sought by the demand. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.310. “Good cause” for a request for
27 production of documents is established where it can be shown that there was a good faith request
28 made for documents are relevant to the subject matter and material to the issues of the litigation.
6
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588. If good cause is
2 shown, the burden shifts back to the responding party to justify any objections on any basis. Kirkland
3 v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98. Clear and honest disclosure of facts and documents
4 prior to trial is a hallmark of modern civil litigation in the State of California. See generally
5 Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 376. Discovery laws in the state are aimed at
6 expediting trial of civil matters by enabling counsel to obtain evidence more quickly, in a more
7 thorough manner, thus allowing all parties to prepare for trial more quickly and efficiently. Burke
8 v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. App. 276, 281. Modern discovery prevents unfair surprise at trial,
9 and allows for parties to set at rest issues that are not genuinely in dispute. Id. at 280-81; Davies v.
10 Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 291.
11 Here, the Defendant in its response to Plaintiff’s request for production, has violated the
12 Discovery Act three-fold. Firstly, the Defendant has failed to produce documents that are not only
13 relevant to this litigation, but are vital to the Plaintiff’s case. Secondly, the Defendant has
14 inadequately stated the grounds for its objections based on privilege by failing to provide enough
15 information for Plaintiff’s counsel to evaluate the merits of that claim. The privilege log that
16 accompanied the production does not provide the basis for a claim to privilege, does not identify
17 who the parties privy to privileged communications are, and fails to give a general description of
18 the document past “Word” or “PDF” to allow the Plaintiff to evaluate any privilege that may exist.
19 Plaintiff seeks a Google document referenced in PAYWARD004792 – PAYWARD004793
20 and Kaiser Ng’s Docusign history that surround a June 2019 issue with employee stock vesting
21 schedules that the Plaintiff uncovered and was subsequently retaliated against for drawing attention
22 to it. The stock options and vesting schedules of numerous Payward employees were not awarded
23 in line with the Board’s vote on the matter. This document would reflect that. This document is
24 material to the allegation that Payward wrongfully terminated Mr. Runyon in violation of public
25 policy for voicing a potential violation of state/federal law regarding the stock options and vesting
26 schedules. Mr. Ng’s Docusign History would confirm his knowledge and complicity in wrongfully
27 withholding stock options and vesting schedules of employee stocks.
28 The Defendant produced a Slack message at PAYWARD005166 between the Plaintiff and
7
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 Steve Christie – Kraken’s Compliance Officer regarding country and region alignments, which was
2 one of numerous concerns the Plaintiff brought up regarding Payward’s operations and inability to
3 receive revenue from certain countries, that it deems relevant and unprivileged, but when Plaintiff
4 asked to receive the google document referenced in conversation, opposing counsel refused to
5 produce the document, or to give a valid basis for withholding the document. This document is
6 relevant and material to the allegation that Payward wrongfully terminated Mr. Runyon in violation
7 of public policy for voicing concerns that Payward may have been operating in violation to federal
8 law. The Plaintiff’s refusal to produce this document evidences bad faith, and an abuse of the
9 discovery process.
10 Plaintiff also seeks employee handbook and performance review materials which the
11 Defendant has failed to produce. The handbook and performance related documents are key to
12 substantiate any issues with Plaintiff’s performance and any rules and standards that Payward
13 employees are held to by Payward. Plaintiff has done everything in its power to meet and confer in
14 an attempt to secure documents vital to this case, this motion is timely as it has been brought within
15 forty-five (45) days of service of the Defendant’ s responses to discovery. Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2031.310;
16 Accordingly, good cause exists for the granting of this motion, and Defendants should be instructed
17 to comply with its obligations under the Discovery Act.
18 c. Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Defendants and Their Counsel for
19 Abuse of the Discovery Process.
20 Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the
21 discovery process. Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 2023.010. The Court shall impose monetary sanctions
22 against any party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless it
23 finds that the party acted with substantial justification or that sanctions are otherwise unjust. Cal.
24 Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2030.290; §2023.030; 2033.280. Moreover, the California Rules of Court hold
25 that even if no opposition is filed, or the requested discovery is produced after the filing of the
26 motion, the Court may still award the moving party sanctions requested in a motion to compel. Cal.
27 Rules of Ct. § 3.1348. The purpose of discovery sanctions is not to provide a weapon for punishment,
28 forfeiture, and the avoidance of the trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process
8
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 and correct the problem presented. Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 CA 4th 285,
2 301. Discovery sanctions are not a windfall. They are to compensate for costs and fees incurred by
3 the party in enforcing discovery or defending a meritless motion. See Weil and Brown, California
4 Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2019) ¶8:1213 citing Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978)
5 84 CA3d 1403, 1427-1428.
6 Here, there is no justification for the Defendant’s refusal to provide further responses to the
7 subject discovery. Plaintiff made every attempt to settle this discovery dispute without a motion to
8 compel but Defendant and its Counsel continues to refuse to provide responses despite ample
9 warnings and reminders that the Plaintiff would be forced to file a motion to compel if responses
10 were not received. It is evident from the Defendant’s final response to meet and confer, that
11 Defendant will not comply with this authorized use of discovery absent a court order and the
12 imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of
13 $ 1,500 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to Plaintiff as a result of the
14 Defendant forcing him to file this motion.
15 IV. CONCLUSION
16 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Runyon respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion
17 to Compel, and order Defendant Payward to produce the documents identified above, as well as any
18 additional documents that may be relevant to each category that have not been produced. Further,
19 the Plaintiff requests that the Court instruct the Defendant to identify with particularity enough
20 information to allow Plaintiff to evaluate any claim to privilege within a time this Court deems
21 reasonable given the circumstances. The Plaintiff requests further that the Defendants and their
22 attorney of record jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff, and his counsel, sanctions in the amount
23 of $1,500.
Dated: August 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
24
LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN
25
26 By:
27 Claire E. Cochran, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nathan Peter Runyon
28
9
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 DECLARATION OF CLAIRE E. COCHRAN
2 I, Claire Cochran, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am the founding
4 partner of the Law Offices of Claire Cochran. My firm was retained as counsel for Nathan
5 Peter Runyon (“Runyon” or “Plaintiff”) in the litigation entitled, Nathan Peter Runyon v.
6 Payward, Inc. and Kaiser Ng., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC-19-
7 581099.
8 2. On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant Payward, Request for Admissions,
9 Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set
10
One. On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two. A true and
11
correct copy of those Requests are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
12
3. On July 8, 2021, Defendant Payward provided responses to those discovery requests. A
13
true and correct copy of Payward’s responses are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
14
4. On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant Payward Supplemental Special
15
Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents for any information/documents
16
acquired after the initial round of discovery. A true and correct copy of those requests are
17
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
18
5. Defendant Payward has produced deficient Privilege Logs with each of its document
19
productions. True and correct copies of those privilege logs are attached hereto as Exhibit
20
D.
21
6. On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant regarding
22
deficiencies in its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.
23
A true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
24
7. On July 19, 2021, Payward sent its supplemental responses, as well as documents Bastes-
25
numbered PAYWARD006982 – PAYWARD007252. A true and correct copy of that
26
correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
27
28
10
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
1 8. On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel exchanged further correspondence with Defendant’s
2 counsel regarding impermissible redactions. A true and correct copy of that
3 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
4 9. On July 25, 2021, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter responding to Plaintiff’s July 16, 2021,
5 attempt to meet and confer informing Plaintiff that it would not be producing any further
6 documents or information. A true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached
7 hereto as Exhibit H.
8
10. To date, Defendant’s responses to discovery remain deficient, and Defendant has made
9
clear that it does not intend to provide further responses to the apparent issues with its
10
responses, absent a court order.
11
11. I have spent a total of five hours meeting and conferring, drafting correspondence to
12
Defendant’s counsel, legal research, the drafting of this motion to remedy the Defendant’s
13
failure to respond to discovery. This does not take into consideration future hours that will
14
need to be spent reviewing a potential opposition, drafting a reply, or arguing this matter
15
before the Court.
16
12. My hourly rate is $ 300 per hour. This rate is reasonable for this type of law, given my
17
experience and the complexity of this case. $ 300 x five hours = $ 1,500.
18
13. Accordingly, I am requesting the Court award sanctions to the Plaintiff and her counsel in
19
the amount of $ 1,500 to cover reasonable attorneys’ fees to pursue this motion.
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
22 is true and correct. Executed on this 4th day of August 2021, in San Francisco, CA.
23
24
By:
25 Claire E. Cochran
26
27
28
11
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG
Exhibit A
1 Claire E. Cochran (SBN 222529)
LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN, PC
2 100 Pine Street, Ste 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
3 Telephone: (415) 580-6019
4 Email: claire@clairecochranlegal.com

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
NATHAN PETER RUNYON
6

7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9

11 NATHAN PETER RUNYON CASE NO. CGC-19-581099

12 Petitioner, PETITIONER PETER RUNYON’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
13 v. TO RESPONDENT PAYWARD, INC.

14 PAYWARD, INC., a California Corporation
d/b/a KRAKEN; and KAISER NG an
15 individual and DOES 1-50, inclusive
Respondent.
16

17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Petitioner NATHAN PETER RUNYON

18 RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent PAYWARD

19 SET NUMBER: ONE

20 Petitioner NATHAN PETER RUNYON (“Petitioner”), hereby requests Respondent
21 PAYWARD, INC. (“Respondent”) respond to the following requests for admission within thirty
22 (30) days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.010, et seq.
23 In making such answers please provide information known to you, your attorneys and
24 investigators or otherwise available to you, and not merely such information known of your own
25 personal knowledge. If you cannot answer the following requests in full, after exercising due
26 diligence to secure the information to do so, please answer to the extent possible, specifying your
27 inability to answer the remainder, and stating whatever information or knowledge you have
28 concerning the unanswered portions.
Page 1

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1 DEFINITIONS
2 1. YOU: The term “YOU” and “YOUR” refers to Respondent PAYWARD, INC..
3

4 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 1:
6 Admit that you created a hostile working environment at Payward for Mr. Runyon based on his
7 status as a military veteran.
8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 2:
9 Admit that your decision to terminate Mr. Runyon from his employment with Payward was
10 motivated, in whole or in part, by his status as a military veteran.
11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 3:
12 Admit that you created a hostile working environment at Payward for Mr. Runyon based on his
13 disability.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 4:
15 Admit that your decision to terminate Mr. Runyon from his employment with Payward was
16 motivated, in whole or in part, by his disability.
17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 5:
18 Admit that you failed to engage in the required interactive process in an effort to make a reasonable
19 accommodation to Mr. Runyon for his medical condition so that he could perform the essential
20 functions of his position with Payward.
21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 6:
22 Admit that Mr. Runyon was able to perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable
23 accommodation for his medical condition.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 7:
25 Admit that your decision to terminate Mr. Runyon from his employment with Payward was
26 motivated, in whole or in part, by his participation in protective activity.
27

28
Page 2

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 8:
2 Admit that your decision to terminate Mr. Runyon from his employment with Payward was
3 motivated, in whole or in part, by the fact that he opposed and/or reported that Kaiser Ng had,
4 without formal consent by Payward’s Board of Directors, made changes to the stock options
5 program of Payward.
6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 9:
7 Admit that your decision to terminate Mr. Runyon from his employment with Payward was
8 motivated, in whole or in part, by the fact that he opposed and/or reported the fact that Payward was
9 engaged in what he reasonably perceived as illegal activity on the part of Payward.
10
Dated: May 28, 2021 Law Offices of Claire Cochran PC
11

12
____________________________
13 CLAIRE E. COCHRAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
14
NATHAN PETER RUNYON
15

19
20

28
Page 3

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1 Claire E. Cochran (SBN 222529)
LAW OFFICES OF CLAIRE COCHRAN, P.C.
2
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
3 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 580-6019
4 Facsimile: (415) 745-3301

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
NATHAN PETER RUNYON
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

9
Case No. CGC-19-581099
10 NATHAN PETER RUNYON
PLAINTIFF NATHAN PETER RUNYON
11 Plaintiff, SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
12 v. OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS TO
PAYWARD, INC., a California Corporation DEFENDANT PAYWARD, INC.
13 d/b/a KRAKEN; and KAISER NG an
individual and DOES 1-50, inclusive
14

15 Defendants.
16 PROPOUDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, NATHAN PETER RUNYON
17 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, PAYWARD, INC. d/b/a KRAKEN
18 SET NO.: TWO
19

20 Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.010 et.
21 al., Plaintiff, NATHAN PETER RUNYON (“Plaintiff”), demands that Defendant, PAYWARD,
22 INC (D/B/A KRAKEN) (“Defendant”), produce for inspection and copying, the items set forth
23 in Exhibit “A” below at 10:00 a.m. on June 27, 2021, at Law Offices of Claire Cochran, P.C.,
24 located at 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA 94111.
25 In addition, Section 2031.260 et. al. requires that Defendant serve a written, timely
26 response to this Demand for Identification and Production of Documents within thirty (30) days
27 from the date of service of this Demand in the form and manner set forth in that Section.
28

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 04, 2021

Case Filing Date

November 26, 2019

County

Parties

CALDERON, ANDREW E. Attorney for the Defendant
COCHRAN, CLAIRE E. Attorney for the Plaintiff
DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE Defendant
EMPLOYEE 5 Other
FORD, BRENDAN M. Attorney
LAVIGNE, CHRISTOPHER N. Attorney for the Defendant
NG, KAISER Defendant
PAYWARD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Defendant
RUNYON, NATHAN PETER Plaintiff
STEVENS, GREGORY W. Attorney for the Plaintiff
Natalie Xifo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kimberly Pallen Attorneys for Defendants
Claire Eberhard Attorney
Howard Strong Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eduardo Dominguez Attorney
Aaron Minnis Attorney
Christopher Layne Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Discovery: NATHAN PETER RUNYON VS. PAYWARD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties