Judge David S. Cunningham, Case 19STCV28168 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 19STCV28168, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Moving Party: Kahmyle Bloom (“Bloom”) and Martha Mendez Miranda (“Miranda”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

Opposing Party: Culmin Staffing Group, Inc. (“Culmin” or “Defendant”)

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is granted as to request nos. 3-10 (as is) and 18-20 (with modifications) and denied as to request nos. 13, 23-24, and 27-28.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is granted as to request nos. 10 and 12 (with modifications) and denied as to request nos. 1 and 6.

Culmin “‘is a temporary staffing firm specializing in light industrial & clerical disciplines’ that operates in New Jersey, Florida and California.” (Consolidated Complaint, ¶ 9.)

Employers HR, LLC (“Employers”) “is a . . . company performing staffing, payroll and human resources services to companies that operate in several states including in California.” (Id. at ¶ 10.)

Plaintiffs contend Culmin and Employers jointly employed them. They allege multiple “wage and hour” violations under the Labor Code and seek to represent a class of similar current and former hourly, non-exempt California employees. They also allege representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

Please provide the CONTACT INFORMATION for all PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS who formerly worked for DEFENDANT within the State of California at any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

(Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement Re: Special Interrogatories, p. 2, footnotes omitted.)[1]

STG Logistics and Cosmetix West were/are Defendant’s clients. (See Opposition, p. 2.) Defendant contends class discovery should be limited to the STG Logistics and Cosmetix West locations because they are the only two sites where Defendant staffed Bloom and Miranda to work. (See ibid.)[2]

To support the contention, Defendant discusses several federal cases – Nguyen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 275 F.R.D. 503, Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California (E.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2017, No. 1:15-cv-00842-AWI-SAB) 2017 WL 495635, Trujillo v. The Chef’s Warehouse West Coast LLC (C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2020, No. 2:19-cv-08370 DSF (MAAx)) 2020 WL 7315346, Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc. (9^th Cir. 1977) 564 F.2d 1304, and Romo v. GMIR, Inc. (C.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2013, No. EDCV-12-0715-JLQ) 2013 WL 11310656. Defendant asserts that the federal judges limited discovery to the named plaintiffs’ work sites because they failed to make prima facie showings of violations at other locations.

An interesting thing about these cases is that Plaintiffs cited them first. (See Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 4.) Plaintiffs think the cases support their position. (See Reply, pp. 2-3.)

The Court has read the decisions. Three things stand out. One, they are federal decisions applying federal law. Two, they recognize that class discovery is appropriate, generally, as long as the plaintiff alleges a prima facie case for class relief in the complaint. Three, and most important, a pre-discovery prima facie showing is not mandatory; the trial court has discretion to choose and is free to grant class discovery of all locations without one. (See, e.g., Trujillo, supra, 2020 WL 7315346, at *4, *7 [permitting class discovery of all locations despite the fact that the named plaintiff only worked at one of them].)

Accordingly, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The Court orders a further response because:

* It alleges the certification elements. (See, e.g., Consolidated Complaint, ¶¶ 35-42.)

* It does not state that Bloom and Miranda only worked at STG Logistics and Cosmetix West.

* Defendant fails to cite California law requiring a pre-discovery prima facie showing.

* Defendant forfeited the right to challenge the consolidated complaint’s certification allegations by failing to file a timely demurrer.

* As a matter of discretion, a pre-discovery prima facie showing is unnecessary because Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s purported misconduct was common and uniform across all of California work locations (see, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 23-34), and the request seeks contact information, which is standard and discoverable under California law.

* The 1/15/21 case management order (“CMO”) authorizes class discovery and, especially, use of the Belaire-West[3] procedure for obtaining contact information. (See 1/15/21 CMO, pp. 1-2.)

DESCRIBE all minimum wage rates YOU paid to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in the State of California in 2015 [and 2016-2021], including all municipalities in which those rates were paid.

(Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement Re: Special Interrogatories, pp. 5, 8, 12, 15, 18, 21-22, 25.)

The Court orders further responses. Defendant’s first objection – the requests are overbroad because they seek information pertaining to all California work sites, not just STG Logistics and Cosmetix West – fails for the reasons stated above (request no. 3). The second objection fails because the requests are not compound or conjunctive. The third objection fails because the requested information is relevant to certification. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that “understanding of what minimum wage was given to putative class members will aid Plaintiffs in demonstrating commonality and typicality of their minimum wage claim, inaccurate wage statement claim and claim that Defendant failed to timely pay all compensation due to putative class members” at separation or termination. (Id. at p. 8.)

* To repeat, the consolidated complaint alleges that Defendant’s purported misconduct was common and uniform across all California work locations. (See, e.g., Consolidated Complaint, ¶¶ 23-34.)

* Defendant cites zero authority limiting class discovery due to the responding party’s status as a staffing agency. (See Opposition, pp. 6-7 [failing to cite case law].)

* The requests ask Defendant to describe the minimum wage rates that Defendant paid. Such information is likely to be in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.

IDENTIFY all payroll systems YOU used to pay PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for work performed in the State of California during the relevant time period.

* Defendant’s first objection is unavailing – same analysis as request no. 3.

* The requested information is relevant to certification. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that “understanding of what payroll systems were used and if or how they may have differed from year or location will aid Plaintiffs in demonstrating commonality and typicality[.]” (Id. at p. 31.)

IDENTIFY all agreements YOU have with other entities that performed payroll services for YOU in California during the relevant time period.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, in that it is not reasonably limited in scope. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is confidential and proprietary. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court agrees with Defendant. The request is overbroad as drafted; it covers all agreements regardless of whether they concern payroll services, and it fails to limit production to payroll-services information within such agreements. The motion to compel further is denied as to this request.

DESCRIBE all efforts YOU undertook to ensure that PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS were paid all wages due under California Law during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

The Court finds that this request should be addressed at the hearing. Like request no. 13, it seems overbroad as drafted. It appears to seek individualized information pertaining to defenses and merits information that is unnecessary for certification. But the Court wants to hear more from counsel on these points.

DESCRIBE DEFENDANT’S policies and procedures and changes thereto regarding payment of all compensation to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS including, but not limited to, paying for all hours worked, paying accurate minimum wage, paying accurate overtime pay, paying for all piece rate(s), rest breaks, nonproductive time, bonuses, premium pay and expense reimbursements.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, in that it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery. Without waiving said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: See Responding Party’s responses to Propounding Party’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 13 through 18.

The Court modifies the request by limiting the scope to the alleged class period and orders a further response. The request seeks material information; it asks Defendant to describe the payment policies used during the putative class period. This is normal class discovery.

DESCRIBE DEFENDANT’s policies and procedures and changes thereto regarding rounding of time punches for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.

The Court modifies the request by limiting the scope to the alleged class period and orders a further response – same analysis as request no. 18.

DESCRIBE DEFENDANT’S overtime policies and procedures and changes thereto as they applied to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.

The Court modifies the request by limiting the scope to the alleged class period and orders a further response – same analysis as request no. 18.

If YOU contend that any of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ COMPLAINT are inaccurate, state all facts supporting YOUR contention.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that, due to the nature of the question, it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court denies a further response. The request is a contention interrogatory. It is overbroad as drafted and requests merits information.

State the total number of PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS who performed work for you during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD in every municipality in California where the minimum wage differs from the State of California’s minimum wage.

The Court denies a further response. The Court agrees with Defendant that the request calls for a legal conclusion as drafted. It imposes an improper obligation on Defendant to make a legal determination as to whether various municipal and state minimum wages differ from each other.

Plaintiffs are free to propound a different special interrogatory to obtain numerosity information.

If YOU contend that any of YOUR customers in the State of California failed to meet the threshold number of employees for an increased minimum wage during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state all facts that support YOUR contention.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, in that it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “the threshold number of employees for an increased minimum wage.” Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it calls for a legal conclusion.

The Court will address this request at the hearing. The request seeks information relating to a potential defense. Is Defendant planning to assert the defense in opposition to Plaintiffs’ certification motion? If yes, a further response probably should be ordered (and vice versa). Defense counsel needs to answer this question during oral arguments.

If YOU contend that YOUR failure to pay PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS all wages due was anything other than willful, state all facts that support YOUR contention.

The Court will address this request at the hearing. Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for violation of Labor Code sections 201-203 for failure to pay all wages due at separation or termination. (See Consolidated Complaint, p. 16.) Section 203 provides a penalty for willful failure to pay such wages. (See Cal. Lab. Code § 203, subd. (a); see also Chin, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 11:1461.) Does defendant intend to argue at the certification stage that certification should be denied because the willfulness element requires individualized proof? If yes, a further response probably should be ordered (and vice versa). Defense counsel needs to answer this question during oral arguments.

If YOU contend that YOU cured any California Labor Code violations during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, state all facts that support YOUR contention.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, in that it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and therefore seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is not full and complete in and of itself, and calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it assumes facts, i.e., that Responding Party engaged in Labor Code violations, which Responding Party denies. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

If YOU contend that a class cannot be certified in this case, state all facts that support YOUR contention.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is premature, as Responding Party’s discovery is just beginning. Without waiving said objection, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party contends that a class cannot be certified, because Responding Party’s policies at all times complied with California law and, to the extent any violations of the wage and hour laws occurred, which Responding Party denies, the circumstances of any such violations are individual to particular employees and, as a consequence, common questions do not predominate, the claims of the named plaintiffs are not typical, and a class action is not superior to resolution by individual actions. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to include in the putative class employees employed at locations other than STG Logistics or Cosmetix West, the issues alleged in this action are already pending in other litigation asserted by other plaintiffs, and this action should be abated as a result.

The Court denies a further response. The Court agrees with Defendant that the request is premature. If and when Defendant files an opposition to Plaintiffs’ certification motion, Plaintiffs will be able to draft a narrower request that targets the actual arguments that Defendant makes in the opposition.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS’ employment for YOU during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

(Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement Re: Document Requests, p. 2, footnotes omitted.)[4]

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to any punitive class member for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents protected by third party employees’ privacy rights. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court denies a further response. The request is overbroad as drafted; it seeks merits information.

All TIMESHEETS you provided to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

The Court will address this request at the hearing. The request seeks relevant certification information, but whether it is overbroad and burdensome depends on the number of putative class members and the number of timesheets issued. If the number is in the thousands, tens of thousands, or more, the Court has discretion to order Defendant to produce an appropriate sampling in lieu of producing all documents. (See, e.g., Talavera, supra, 2017 WL 495635, at *4.) Defense counsel should be prepared to provide the Court an estimate.

Please produce any and all WRITINGS and ELECTRONIC DATA that show, list, or document PLAINTIFFS’ hours WORKED for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, in that it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term “WORKED.” Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 2.

Please produce PLAINTIFFS’ complete payroll or compensation records for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 2.

Please produce any and all WRITINGS and ELECTRONIC DATA relating to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS’ WAGE STATEMENTS, including all formats of WAGE STATEMENTS provided to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME FRAME.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to any punitive class member for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents protected by third party employees’ privacy rights. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The request is overbroad as drafted; it seeks merits information in addition to certification information.

The Court intends to (1) limit the request to wage statements only, and (2) address the request as modified at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 2.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the amount of PLAINTIFFS’ compensation, including but not limited to descriptions of any commission programs, bonus, pension, or retirement plans for which PLAINTIFF was eligible at any time during employment by YOU.

The Cout denies a further response. The request is overbroad as drafted, timewise and because it seeks merits information. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs’ definition of “RELATE” is overbroad.

Any and all employee handbooks, notices, pamphlets, or other WRITINGS which govern POLICIES and procedures applicable to PLAINTIFFS and PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

The request is overbroad and ambiguous as drafted; however, instead of denying the motion, the Court intends to (1) limit the request to “employee handbooks, notices, pamphlets, or other writings which govern POLICIES and procedures regarding to payment of minimum wages and overtime wages, payment of wages due at separation or termination, and wage statements” during the alleged class period, and (2) order a further response.

All procedures, policies, memoranda, employment/personnel manuals or handbooks, instructional materials, or other DOCUMENTS that evidence, support, refer, or RELATE to YOUR policies and procedures governing working conditions of any kind in effect in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds that, due to its overbreadth, it seeks documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks confidential financial and business documents that are protected from disclosure by Responding Party’s privacy rights. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including No. 10. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court limits the request and orders a further response – same analysis as request no. 10.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to, reflect, refer to, or record YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding payment of minimum wages to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including Nos. 10 and 12. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing. The request seeks relevant certification information that pertains to the causes of action asserted in the complaint, but the “RELATE” definition is overbroad. Whether a further response should be ordered turns on whether Plaintiffs’ counsel is able to propose a narrower definition.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to, reflect, refer to, or record YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding payment of overtime wages to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including Nos. 10 and 12. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 13.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to, reflect, refer to, or record YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding payment of wages to PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in California upon termination of their employment with YOU during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including Nos. 10 and 12. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 13.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to, reflect, refer to, or record YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding recording of time for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including Nos. 10 and 12. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 13.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to, reflect, refer to, or record YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding providing accurate itemized wage statements for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including Nos. 10 and 12. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 13.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to, reflect, refer to or record YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding payment of wages on termination for PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that, through the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS,” it purports to expand the putative class beyond employees that worked at STG Logistics or Cosmetix West. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, due to the definition of “RELATE,” which includes every document that mentions or refers to Responding Party’s policies or procedures for a period exceeding six years, and because it is without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and as a result, may seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it is duplicative of prior requests, including Nos. 10 and 12. Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it exceeds the scope of the Court’s Case Management Order of January 15, 2021, in that it is not limited to class certification discovery.

The Court will address this request at the hearing – same analysis as request no. 13.

[1] “‘PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER’ is defined as ‘all persons who worke(ed) for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.’” (Ibid.) “‘RELEVANT TIME PERIOD’ is defined as from four years from filing the Consolidated Complaint to the present.” (Ibid.)

[2] The Court notes that Defendant did not file a response separate statement.

[3] Belaire-West Landscape v. Superior Court (2008) 149 Cal.App.4^th 554.

[4] “‘PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER’ is defined as ‘all persons who worke(ed) for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee in California during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.’” (Ibid.) “‘RELEVANT TIME PERIOD’ is defined as from four years from filing the Consolidated Complaint to the present.” (Ibid.)