DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 23, 2020DocuSign Envelope ID: BF1DE984-1czA-4F98-A02A-3A893A130034 200V373940 \OOOflQUl-bUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHr-tr-Kr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQOUl-RUJNh-‘OKOOOQONUI-hUJNHO Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed Howard L. Magee (State Bar N0. 185199) by Superior Court of CA, Larry W. Lee (State Bar N0. 228175) county of Santa Clara, Max W. Gavron (State Bar N0. 291697) on 12/1 6/2020 5:00 PM DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation Reviewed By: R_ Burciaga 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 case #Zocv373940 Los Angeles, California 90071 Envelope: 5487084 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile Robert Starr (State Bar No. 183052) Theodore Tang (State Bar N0. 3 13294) Manny Starr (State Bar N0. 3 19778) FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074 Calabasas, California 91302 T: (818) 914-3433 F: (818) 914-3433 Attorneys for Plaintiff J DOE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA J DOE, as an individual, Case N0. 20CV373940 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MANNY STARR IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION vs. FOR TRO AND OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ROKU, INC., a Delaware corporation; LONG-JI LIN, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, Date: December 18, 2020 inclusive, Time: 8:30 am Dept: 19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: November 23, 2020 Trial Date: None Set I, Manny Starr, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed t0 practice law before all courts of the State 0f California. My law firm, Frontier Law Center, is counsel for Plaintiff J Doe in this action. This declaration is 1 DECLARATION OF MANNY STARR IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO . Burciaga DocuSign Envelope ID: BF1 DE984-1 C2A-4F98-AD2A-3A8QBA13DCB4 \OOOflQUl-bUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHr-tr-Kr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQOUl-RUJNh-‘OKOOOQONUI-hUJNHO submitted in support 0f J Doe’s EX Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction. The following facts are Within my personal knowledge and, if called as a Witness herein, I can and will competently testify thereto. 2. This is a FEHA case involving allegations 0f mental disability discrimination. Plaintiff alleges t0 have a mental disability, in the form 0f a mental illness, and alleges that said disability does not interfere with Plaintiff s ability to perform Plaintiff s core job functions if provided a reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to grant Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation, and discriminated against Plaintiff 0n the basis of Plaintiff” s mental disability. This discrimination ultimately culminated in the unlawful termination 0f Plaintiff” s employment. Defendants have claimed that Plaintiff was terminated due t0 absenteeism and a failure to communicate with the company. Plaintiff alleges that while Plaintiff had a very brief interruption in communication due t0 being incapacitated and hospitalized due t0 Plaintiff s mental disability, Plaintiff shortly thereafter reestablished communication with Defendants’ HR department as soon as reasonably practicable and able t0 d0 so, in contrast t0 Defendant Roku Inc.’s claims. 3. Given Plaintiff” s burden 0f proving that Plaintiff in fact has a qualifying disability under the law, and Defendants’ anticipated defense 0f termination for cause due t0 purported absenteeism, the facts 0f Plaintiff” s condition and emergency hospitalization are highly relevant parts of Plaintiff” s case that must be pled and proven. Since Plaintiff cannot avoid discussing these highly sensitive and confidential facts relevant t0 the case, Plaintiff’s only option for protecting Plaintiff’s privacy is to seek an order protecting Plaintiff s identity. 4. In an effort t0 protect Plaintiff’s identity, Imet and conferred with Counsel for Roku, Inc. Via email 0n November 12, 2020. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy 0f that email and the response the I received from Roku Inc’s counsel, With identifying information of Plaintiff redacted. To summarize, I asked if Defendant Roku Inc. would be willing t0 stipulate t0 an order that Plaintiff would not be identified in any publicly available documents, and asked if counsel would also be representing the individual defendant, Plaintiff’s former supervisor Long-Ji Lin. Counsel for Roku, Inc. stated that their position was that Plaintiffwould not need to g0 into any of the aforementioned details about Plaintiff” s mental disability (although 2 DECLARATION OF MANNY STARR IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO DocuSign Envelope ID: BF1 DE984-1 C2A-4F98-AD2A-3A8QBA13DCB4 \OOOflQUl-bUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHr-tr-Kr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQOUl-RUJNh-‘OKOOOQONUI-hUJNHO this is clearly contrary to law), that they would oppose any effort t0 proceed With the claim under a pseudonym. Counsel for Roku, Inc. further stated that he would only consider a protective order if they first received a courtesy copy 0f the file stamped complaint. 5. Plaintiff seeks a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants Roku, Inc. and Long-Ji Lin (collectively “Defendants”) pending a hearing 0n a Preliminary Injunction. Said Temporary Restraining Order should issue because Defendant Roku Inc. is threatening t0 reveal Plaintiff’s identity in connection With this lawsuit, thus exposing Plaintiff” s private medical information t0 the public, Which Will result in great and irreparable injury if not restrained. Defendant Long-Ji Lin is an employee 0f Defendant Roku, Inc. and Plaintiff’s former supervisor, and thus it is necessary for Defendant Long-Ji Lin t0 be enjoined as well to prevent Roku Inc. from sidestepping the order. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an immediate Temporary Restraining Order, restraining and enjoining Defendants from the following acts pending hearing 0n the Preliminary injunction: a. Identifying Plaintiff” s true name or referring to Plaintiffby any name other than “J Doe” in any document filed with the court, unless filed under seal; and b. Making any statement t0 the media, or any person other than Defendants, Defendants’ directors, Defendants’ officers, Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiff, or Plaintiff” s Counsel that identifies Plaintiff as the individual bringing this lawsuit, unless such disclosure is necessary to litigate the action, and then only if such individual agrees in writing to be bound by this order before Plaintiff” s identity is disclosed. 6. The immediate and irreparable injury Which Will be suffered by Plaintiff (0f Which the amount 0f compensation Which would afford relief is extremely difficult to ascertain, if even possible) absent such a restraining order is a Violation 0f the privacy 0f Plaintiff’s medical and mental health history, harm t0 Plaintiff’s professional reputation and ability t0 obtain employment in Plaintiff s field, and the likelihood 0f further discrimination 0n the basis 0f Plaintiff” s mental disability. 7. There is a high likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail at trial 0f the action, in that Plaintiff” s 3 DECLARATION OF MANNY STARR IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO DocuSign Envelope ID: BF1 DE984-1 CZA-4F98-AD2A-3A893A1 3DCB4 \OmflQLh-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-IHHr-tr-tr-tr-Ib-Ib-t OOQONU‘I-PUJNHOWOONQM#WNHO allegations are well supported by documentation. Specifically, there is documentation 0f: a. Plaintiff s disability; b. Plaintiff’ s initial communications with Defendants regarding Plaintiff’ s disability, including Defendant Roku Inc.’s stated approval of Plaintiff’ s temporary reduction in work hours; c. Communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff s supervisor, Defendant Long-Ji Lin, in which Lin disregarded Plaintiff s work reduction restrictions and harassed Plaintiff for reducing Plaintiff” s work time; d. Plaintiff’s subsequent emergency hospitalization and incapacitation; e. Plaintiff’s communications with Defendant Roku, Inc.’s HR representative regarding Plaintiff being hospitalized and incapacitated due to Plaintiff’ s disability; f. Defendant Roku, Inc’s representations that a medical leave of absence had been approved; and g. Defendant’s subsequent termination 0f Plaintiff 0n the basis of purported job abandonment, notwithstanding the approved medical leave of absence. 8. Defendants will suffer negligible or no harm if the TRO is granted, in that they Will still be able to defend the action using Plaintiff’ s pseudonym. The order does not prevent Defendants from having notice 0f Plaintiff” s identity, or investigating the claims in the action. Further, in the unlikely event that Plaintiff” s identity is necessary t0 specify 0n the record, procedures exist where Defendants may seek permission t0 make such identification under seal. 9. For the above reasons and in light of the facts presented, a Temporary Restraining Order should be immediately issued to prevent further harm to Plaintiff. I declare under penalty 0fperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 16th day of December, 2020, at Calabasas, California. .m-nEA ASZEmJV nu. uu-orw... Declarant Manny Starr 4 DECLARATION OF MANNY STARR IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO