Affidavit

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 18, 2017

33772193_1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer C. Skeen, CA Bar No. 182216 spencer.skeen@ogletree.corn Marlene M. Moffitt, CA Bar No. 223658 marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com Tim L. Johnson, CA Bar No. 265794 timjohnson@ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 858.652.3100 Facsimile: 858.652.3101 Attorneys for Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SHAILENDRA SINGH, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 17CV313202 [Assigned for all purposes to The Honorable Brian C. Walsh, Dept. 1] DECLARATION OF MARLENE M. MOFFITT IN SUPPORT OF: (1) DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND (2) DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Date: June 22, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 1 Action Filed: Trial Date: July 18, 2017 None set I, Marlene M. Moffitt, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and am Of Counsel with the law firm of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C., counsel of MOFFITT DECL ISO DEF'S OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4/18/2018 12:10 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #17CV313202 Envelope: 1425031 17CV313202 Santa Clara - Civil 33772193_1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 record for Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. in this action. I am one of the attorneys responsible for representing Defendant in this action. I have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein, and if called, would and could testify competently thereto. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Admission that I received in connection with this case. 3. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests as they related to Plaintiff and policies applicable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contended the responses were inadequate. The parties met and conferred on various issues. The outstanding issue is Plaintiffs discovery seeking identification of new potential representative employees and the contact information for Plaintiff's clients. 4. I originally reserved June 1, 2018 as the hearing date for Inter-Con's motion for summary judgment. However, I rescheduled the hearing to August 31, 2018 based on the Court's comments at the informal discovery conference on February 20, 2018. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and is ex April 2018, in San Diego, California. 1rts" 07111b- 18th day of 33772193.1 2 MOFFITT DECL ISO DEF'S OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL Exhibit 1 xhibit 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Larry W. Lee, Esq. SBN 228175 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Attorneys for Plaintiff (Additional counsel on following page) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SHAILENDRA SINGH, as an individual and on) Case No. 17CV313202 behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) ) Assigned for All Purposes to Honorable Brian C. Plaintiffs, ) ) Walsh in Department 1 ) )) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS ) vs. FOR ADMISSION ) ) INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a ) Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, ) inclusive, ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF SHAILENDRA SINGH SET NUMBER: ONE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile Edward W. Choi, State Bar No. 211334 LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC 515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 William L. Marder, Esq. (SSN 170131) POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Responding Party has not completed his investigation of the facts relating to this case, his discovery in this action, nor his preparation for trial. The responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents presently available to and known by Responding Party. Nothing contained herein shall be used to preclude Responding Party further research and investigation of the facts or from presentation of the results of that research and investigation to the trier of fact at the time of trial. The following responses are provided without prejudice to the right of Responding Party to produce and introduce at the time of trial subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of presently known material facts, and to produce and introduce all evidence whenever discovered relating to the proof of subsequently discovered material facts. Moreover, because the facts and evidence now known may be improperly understood, or the relevancy or consequence of certain facts and evidence may be imperfectly understood, such facts and evidence in good faith may not be included in the following responses. Responding Party reserves the right to refer to, conduct discovery with reference to, or offer into evidence at the time of trial, any and all documents and things notwithstanding the responses and objections interposed herein. To the extent that a response to an interrogatory has not been objected to, Responding Party has used reasonable diligence to obtain information responsive to the demand responded to herein, based on examination of those files that may reasonably be expected to yield such information and interviews with those individuals reasonably expected to have such information. All relevant and unprivileged information so obtained is contained in these responses. To the extent that the propounding party seeks to require Responding Party to do more than the foregoing, the interrogatories are objected to on the grounds that they seek information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would subject Responding Party to oppression, harassment, and undue burden and expense not commensurate with any legitimate discovery need. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GENERAL OBJECTIONS Responding Party objects to the definitions contained in the requests in that they are vague and ambiguous, and seek to impose obligations on Responding Party beyond those imposed by the California Code of Civil Procedure. Responding Party objects to each and every request to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to each and every request to the extent that they are compound and contain impermissible sub-parts. Responding Party incorporates by reference these general objections to each and every response below. RESPONSES REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you received your paychecks from Defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.2: Admit when you were hired by Defendant, you were hired to work for its client CHP. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.2: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you worked for its client CHP. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.4: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you only worked for its client CHP. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.4: Admit. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you worked at the DMV in San Jose, California. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you did not work at any location other than the DMV in San Jose, California. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6: Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, Defendant provided the equipment you used for work. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7: Plaintiff objects that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that "equipment" is vague and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request without further clarification. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, Defendant's client did not provide the equipment you used for work. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8: Plaintiff objects that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that "equipment" is vague and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request without further clarification. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you received your work assignments from Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9: Plaintiff objects that "work assignments" is vague and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request without further clarification. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you did not receive your work assignments from Defendant's client. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10: Plaintiff objects that "work assignments" is vague and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request without further clarification. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you received your work schedule from Defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, you did not receive your work schedule from Defendant's client. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13: Admit when you were employed by Defendant, your work assignments were not for a pre- determined period of time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13: Plaintiff objects that "work assignments" is vague and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request without further clarification. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14: Admit when you worked at the DMV for Defendant, your work assignment was not for a pre- determined period of time. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14: Plaintiff objects that "work assignments" is vague and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request without further clarification. Dated: December 20, 2017 By: LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES Edward W. Choi, Attorneys for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 7 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. On December 20, 2017, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Spencer C. Skeen Marlene M. Moffitt Tim L. Johnson OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Dennis S. Hyun HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Larry W. Lee Nick Rosenthal DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 BY MAIL _X_ As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the practice of Choi & Associates, Attorneys at Law for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that correspondence placed in the outgoing mail tray in my office for collection would be deposited in the United States Mail that same day in the ordinary course of business. BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION I caused a true and complete copy of the document(s) described above to be transmitted by facsimile transmission to the telephone number(s) of the person(s) set forth above. x (State) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on December 20, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. Cina Kim PROOF OF SERVICE