Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 18, 2020- \DOOMOSUI-bwh.) NNNNNNNNNI-Ifl-I-‘u-np-‘u-tu-“fi OONQMhWNfloomNC\M-PMN-O ZOCV365252 Santa Clara - Civil AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL. State Bar N0. 280626 ALEXANDER DAVIES, State Bar No. 328125 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 9261 8 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: icampbell!k}7':1cgislawfirmcom adavics’gaaeuislawfirmcom Attorneys for Plaintiff Victor Flores, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. R. Flemir Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/18/2022 10:51 AM Reviewed By: R. Fleming Case #20CV365252 Envelope: 8543077 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VICTOR FLORES, individually and on Case No. 20CV365252 behalf of all others similarly situated, Assignedfor all purposes to: Plaintiff, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas VS. Dept. 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT Acco ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC; CONFERENCE STATEMENT and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Date: Time: Dept: March 23, 2022 2:30 p.111. 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT N @wqmmhw 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Victor Flores (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties") submit this Joint Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference set for March 23, 2022, as follows: 1. BRIEF CASE HISTORY: This wage and hour class and representative PAGA action has been pending before the Court since March 18, 2020, and was last before the Court for a Status Conference on November 24, 2021. As plead in his March 22, 2021 Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant: (1) failed to pay minimum wages, (2) failed to pay overtime wages, (3) failed to provide meal periods, (4) failed to permit rest breaks, (5) failed to reimburse necessary business expenses, (6) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (7) failed to timely pay wages, (8) failed to pay all wages due upon separation of employment , (9) committed unfair business practices, and (10) claims for the enforcement of PAGA. Plaintiff seeks damages, unpaid wages, attorneys” fees, costs, and penalties on behalf 0f himself, the State of California, and all of Defendant’s non-exempt employees employed within the State 0f California during the relevant time period. 2. CASE UPDATE AND STATUS 0F DISCOVERY: a. Plaintiff’s Position: On July 22, 2021, this Court issued an Order compelling Defendant to provide code- compliant, verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff” s initial sets of Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) and Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), without objections. and to produce time and pay records for the proposed class. These supplemental responses were due 30 days after transmittal of the Belaire- West notice, or on September 30, 2021. However, as of the last CMC, Defendant had only produced supplemental records pertaining to Plaintiff‘s RPD No. 2 (Plaintiff‘s Timekeeping Records), and no additional discovery responses or document productions pertaining to the class. On November 24, 2021 , Plaintiff received Defendant’s un-verified Further Responses to Plaintiff‘s SROGS and RPDS, which indicated that Defendant would produce timekeeping and -2- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT \OOONO‘MADJNF‘ NNNNNNNNqufl-r-d-H-nflfl WQQMbWN'doomVQUIAWN-‘o payroll data for the class members who did not opt out of the Parties’ Belaire-Wesl process. As an initial matter, the Belairc- West process was completed over five months ago, on October 7, 2021. Also, per the explicit wording 0f the Court approved Belaire-Wesl notice. and as clarified by the Court at the hearing on Plaintiff“ s Motions t0 Compel, the Belaire-Wesl notice and opt- out process only applied to Plaintiff‘s request for Class Members‘ contact information (e.g. including names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses), not the production 0f their timekeeping and payroll records. Moreover, as they remain unverified, Defendant’s responses fail to comply with the Courts orders. On February 17, 2022. Defendant produced time and pay records for a batch ofemployees that held the same position as Plaintiff. However, as Plaintiff addressed with Defendant, Plaintiff’s discovery requests pertain to all non-exempt employees. Defendant has stated they do not intend to limit the production. and that supplemental records will be produced. but has not provided a clear response on when Plaintiff should expect t0 receive these records. On February 28, 2022. Plaintiffreceived Defendant’s Responses t0 Plaintiff’s RPDS, Set Two and SROGs, Set Two. However, Defendant provided objection-only responses to each of Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, and all but one of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. As with Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff‘s initial set of discovery requests, these responses are also unverified. Plaintiff plans to meet and confer further on these issues with Defendant in the hopes of resolving these issues informally. However, if the Parties are unable t0 resolve these disputes informally, further intervention from the Court may be required to enforce the Court’s previous orders and to obtain compliant responses to Plaintiff’s second sets of discovery. b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant is continuing to pull and produce all records required to be produced for its non-exempt employees. However, the manner in which the records are stored is causing the process to take time. Defendant intends to work cooperatively with Plaintiff to get the records produced and resolve any other discovery issues. Defendant does not believe court intervention -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT OOOQON regarding discovery is necessary at this time. 3. TIMELINE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT a. Plaintiff’s Pcsition: Once Plaintiff receives compliant, verified supplemental, responses and the production 0f discovery .doCumems for the class members, he should be in a position t0 set a class certification deadline and determine whether informal reSOIution, and mediation would be appropriate. Plaintiff proposes that the Court should set an additional Case Management Conference in this matter no earlier than 60 days from the present hearing date (May or June 2022'). b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant agrees with Plaintiff and proposes Court set a further Case Management COnference 60 to 90 days Out. Dated: March l 8 , 2 O 2 2 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PCmm A1¢%d3¥ GL. Davies Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: March 17, 2022 By QK ajé/ Benjamin A. Emmert Attorneys for Defendant -4- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT \OOOQONUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tv-lr-tr-tv-tr-tr-Av-np-tr-A OOQONUI-bUJNv-‘OKOOOQQUI-PWNHO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, am employed in the County 0f Orange, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the Within action; am employed with Aegis Law Firm PC and my business address is 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. On March 18, 2022, I served the foregoing document entitled: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by delivering D the originalE a true copy thereof on the party(ies) addressed below as follows: Richard A. Leasia Benjamin A. Emmert Edwin Aiwazian Lawyers for Justice, PC LITTLER MENDELSEN’ P'C' 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 50 W. San Fernando, 7 Floor Glendale CA 91203 San Jose, CA 951 13-2303 edwin@1’f C com Telephgné: 408'998'41 50 e-service@calliustice.com Facsmule,‘ 4082885686 records@ca11justice.com rleasm 11ttler.c0m bemmert@httler.com Attorneysfor Plaintiff MARTIN HEREDLA Attorneysfor Defendant: ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. D /// /// /// /// (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date 0f deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(0).) (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar With the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(0); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) t0 be served Via electronic transmission Via the above listed email addresses on the date below. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(6); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(E); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(3).) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered the foregoing document by hand delivery to the addressed named above. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 101 1; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(A)-) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \OOOQONUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tv-lr-tr-tv-tr-tr-Av-np-tr-A OOQONUI-bUJNv-‘OKOOOQQUI-PWNHO I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n March 18, 2022, at Irvine, California. Delaney Graves -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE