Olivia Dizon vs. Sunjeen, Inc.

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 31, 2017

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Brandon L. Sylvia (State Bar No. 261027) bsylvia@rutan.com Radhika Sood (State Bar No. 228413) rsood@rutan.com 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931 Telephone: ~~ 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 Attorneys for Defendant SUNIJEEN, INC. ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 11/08/2017 at 02:45:00 Pi Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER OLIVIA DIZON, Plaintiff, VS. SUNIJEEN, INC. dba PROTEC dba BOULEVARD dba NAIL GENIE; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. Case No. 30-2017-00900708-CU-WT-CJC ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE SHEILA FELL DEPARTMENT C25 OPPOSITION OF SUNJEEN, INC. TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES Hearing Date: November 22, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: C25 Date Action Filed: January 31, 2017 Trial Date: May 14, 2018 -1- 2403/033445-0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 al1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION .....ceitiiitiiie etter stents eee sate sheet estes sate naan esse enbe sane 4 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....cutiiiiiiiiieetie etcetera seen ee 5 A. Identity Of The Parties And Nature Of The Case .......ccccceevveeiiieviiiniienieeieeeeeen, 3 B Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests to SUNjeen ...........ccceecvevieenieeieenieeiieeiie c c 6 C. Sunjeen Provides Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests ..........cccceeeeeunenee. 6 D Plaintiff’s Meager Meet-and-Confer “Efforts.” .........c.ccooveeveriiniininiineciecienee 7 1. Plaintiff Generally Addresses Sunjeen’s Discovery TRESSTIOTUSIES «sm. an. 5.5. 5 545.6556, 550505, 5 S845 40 545,65 05 5 45 AAA, 098 7 2. Sunjeen Responds With Reference to Individual Discovery RRCYIEBS comsranmsnossssosssasmaniose stesso RH a EB HGS SEAS SRS 7 3. The Parties’ Meet-and-Confer Discussion Focused on RFPs..................... 8 HI. LEGAL ARGUMENT ....coiiiiiiieee sees steers eaten estes sree sees enes 9 A. Governing Legal Standards ...........c.oocviieiiieiieeiiiiiieiecie cec seers 9 B. Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Meet-And-Confer ...........cocceeeevinieninnnnineciennne. 10 C. Sunjeen Has Complied With All Its Discovery Obligations............cccceeecveerueennnen. 10 I. Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7 ........ccooueeiveniienienieeieeeeeen. 10 2. Interro@atory NO. 211.1 oor 13 D. Plaintiff Should Be Sanctioned .............cccvveiiiiiiiiniiniieece cee en 14 IV. CONCLUSION Lottie eee sate sates estes sate sate neste ese sate sae nee 15 A 2 403/033445-0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a11/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CALIFORNIA CASES Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal: AP AEE: LET 50.0000 5000005005500 0 5005550058558 55500555 50 55 AS55855 Sh ASB AGT, 12 Brundage v. Hahn (1997) ST Cal. APP. 4th 228 o.oo eerste eset este eshte sabe eee t ee ehbe sateen ates tae e been 11 Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (Thiem Industries, Inc.) (1997) 53.Cal. APP. Ath 210 c s sheers tee saa eben 5,9,14 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rolfe) (1968) 263 Cals AGT 2! 12 sunenmss smumsmssusnnnsss osmmsnniss sass isan sss isms sss 850 ASS A SHA SSS OSES 9 Ryan v. Superior Court (Armstrong) (1960) 186 Cal. APP. 2d 813 eee eee estes sbeebs sateen e eta eaae enna enns 9 Scotch v. Art Institute of Cal. (2009) 173 Cal. APP. Ath O80... eects eee ete sate sabe e ease ae ebbe este enne esses saaaens 11 CALIFORNIA STATUTES Business and Professions Code SECLION T7200... eee eee st ee eee ete este estes sbae este esse eensee esse esse anseeensee esse seseanneas 6 Code of Civil Procedure SECON 128.5() 1ocuvreeeurieciiie cities eect eects eset ae setae ee bae eases eases esas ae sass ae eanee ee ssseeessneeensneanns 3 SCION 20T60.040 eee eter eee eset este e sees eabe eee eae eebaeeebe ese e eb aeesae enna e eens 9,10 SECTION 2023.0T0(1) «veeuvreerieerieeieeiteertee eit teetie ete e rt eeetee sete e e esseessae esse enseessee esse esse assesses esse ssssennne 14 Section 2023.0T0(Q) vocvveeerrieeiieeeieee cite etter settee eet ae estes estas esas eases eases eases era ae errr ee sare eeeerae es 14 SCION 2023.030 .....ueeiiieiie etic eee eres sabes teeta hae sabe e atest ae ebaeetbe ante e teehee eebae anne 14 SECON 2030.300(Q)(1) vvrreerrrieerieieetie eects eerste eet ee sree eraser ee eases saree a saae ee sane ee eare ee eaaeaas 9 SEOL iT ZT TOCA m5 055 0000000 015.040 000554 5B . 5 9 Section 2030.300(d) ..evvrerieerieeiteiieiie eters ste rs sabe e reste eraeesbe ne eebaeesae sere ennne 14 SECtion 203 T.3T0(D)(2).eeeveeeeieeieeitieeiie ete eters etree e este eebe este e eae e esas esae esse e esas esas esse anseennsees 9 Section 203 1.31001) .ocuviiiieiieeiieece cece ceet aes eras eraser ee eaae ease ee eaae eee 5 Government Code SCION 129260(IM) eevee eee e ete eras eet ae et ae esas eases eats ae esse ae esse ee sare ee saneeesaneeas 11 SECTION 12926(]) +veevveenerieiieeiie eters ett ete ates rte e sate eebe eee e tee esbe sabe ansee esses esse esseanseeensae esse ssseannes 11 SECION 12940(IM) uv itieerste setae se ae setae esas ease esate ee ears ae ease ee ssne ee saaeeesaneeas 11 Labor Code SECTION 203... ete este et ee eee este e ete e eb ee sabe ense eens ee ehbe esse ense ees ae esaeenbe anne eennaas 6 SECTION 226.7 «eeceter et ee eae estes tee sb te este este e ese e sabe sabe anse eens ae ebae este enseeennaes 6 SECTION STO. eee estes sabes e ete e sate este eabe essa ee ebae esse esse eensaeebae esse anseennsaes 6 3- 2403/033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 al1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law I. INTRODUCTION. Defendant Sunjeen, Inc. (“Sunjeen”) is a small, family-owned company based in Anaheim, California. Plaintiff Olivia Dizon (“Plaintiff”) is a former employee of Sunjeen, where she worked for approximately sixth months. After Plaintiff’s at-will employment ended due to Plaintiff’s performance deficiencies, Plaintiff sued Sunjeen, alleging claims of disability discrimination and wage-and-hour violations. By her Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (the ‘“Motion”), Plaintiff asks the Court to order Sunjeen to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, 204.7, and 211.1. No such further responses are necessary, for the following reasons: ° Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7 are each premised upon Plaintiff having a “disability,” Plaintiff communicating with Sunjeen regarding her “disability,” and discussions between Sunjeen and Plaintiff regarding accommodating Plaintift’s alleged “disability.” As Sunjeen’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery make clear, Plaintiff did not advise Sunjeen that she suffered from a disability, nor did she request accommodations in connection with a disability. As a result, Sunjeen never knew of Plaintiff’s alleged disabled status, and did not perceive Plaintiff to be disabled; thus, there is nothing for Sunjeen to disclose in response to these Interrogatories. Sunjeen could have simply objected to these Interrogatories, but instead provided as complete aresponse as possible - making clear that Plaintiff commonly spoke to her coworkers about various personal issues, but those communications did not alert Sunjeen of any alleged “disability.” Sunjeen has offered to make the individuals with whom Plaintiff communicated available through its counsel of record, and Plaintiff has proffered no explanation why this is insufficient for purposes of this litigation. ° Interrogatory No. 211.1 asked about the “benefits” that Plaintiff was entitled had she not been terminated. Sunjeen properly responded by providing Plaintiff’s wage information, and the fact that Plaintiff participated in the Company’s medical plan. Sunjeen has already produced documents from which it can be ascertained the 4- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law precise amount of deduction from Plaintiff’s wages was occasioned by this plan participation. No further response is necessary. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Additionally, the Court should consider an appropriate sanction to curtail Plaintiff’s improper litigation tactics. To date, Plaintiff has served 51 specially-prepared interrogatories, 49 requests for admission, 160 request for production, and two sets each of general and employment form interrogatories in this single-plaintiff employment case. Sunjeen has diligently responded to Plaintiff’s discovery, and has produced all relevant documents. Still, Plaintiff has manufactured reasons to file multiple discovery motions against Sunjeen. The instant Motion, and the others Plaintiff has filed, do not seek discovery that Plaintiff genuinely needs to prosecute her case. The sheer volume of discovery of discovery, and the four discovery motions Plaintiff has filed to date, are symptomatic of Plaintiff’s strategy to use discovery and law-and-motion to burden Sunjeen with litigation costs and the threat of sanctions in an effort to force it to settle Plaintiff’s claims. Such conduct is patently inappropriate. Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (Thiem Industries, Inc.) (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 221 (“Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to wage litigation.”). Hence, in addition to denying Plaintiff’s Motion, Sunjeen respectfully requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, for Plaintiff having brought motions without substantial justification, and for an improper purpose. CAL. CODE Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h); id., § 128.5(a). II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. A. Identity Of The Parties And Nature Of The Case. Sunjeen is a small, family-owned business located in Anaheim, California. Sunjeen specializes in distribution of wholesale goods to individual consumers, with particular interest in musical instrument carrying cases, fashion handbags and accessories, and manicure tools. Plaintiff is a former employee of Sunjeen; she worked for the company for approximately six months, from September 2016 until March 2017. (Complaint 4 10 & 20.) Plaintiff was terminated in March 2017 for persistent and uncorrected performance issues. (Complaint § 20.) Following her termination, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging that she experienced discrimination 5. 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law and retaliation on the basis of her disability, and wage-and-hour violations. (Complaint 22-106.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Sunjeen: 1. Discrimination based on perceived or actual disability in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”); Retaliation in violation of FEHA; Failure to prevent retaliation; Wrongful termination in violation of public policy; Violation of Labor Code § 510; Failure to provide rest breaks (Lab. Code § 226.7); Failure to pay overtime; Waiting time penalties (Lab. Code § 203); Unfair business practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Declaratory relief; and Injunctive relief. S S O N O L A L - _ - O (See Complaint.) B. Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests to Sunjeen. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff served the following written discovery requests upon Sunjeen: (i) Form Interrogatories (Employment); (ii) Form Interrogatories (General); (iii) Requests for Production; and (iv) Special Interrogatories. (Declaration of Radhika Sood (“Sood Decl.”), 9 2.) The initial set of Special Interrogatories included 34 interrogatories; the first set of RFP was comprised of 122 separate document production demands. (Sood Decl. q 2; Ex. 2-3, respectively, to Plaintiff's Motion.)! Plaintiff has since propounded an additional 17 interrogatories, 38 production demands, and a total of 49 requests for admission. (Sood Decl. q 3.) C. Sunjeen Provides Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests. The parties provided a series of mutual extensions with regard to the discovery requests each had served. (Sood Decl. 4.) The mutual cooperation and reciprocity that characterized the early timeline of this litigation disappeared in late summer of 2017, perhaps occasioned by a change of personnel in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Specifically, on July 19, Sunjeen requested a one-week extension of time to provide responses to Plaintiffs written discovery. (/d. 95; Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the week-long extension, and offered a one-day extension instead, while I" Numerical exhibits were submitted by Plaintiff with her moving papers, attached to the Declaration of Gerardo Sosa; alphabetical exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Radhika Sood, which is being submitted with this Opposition. -6- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law simultaneously requesting three additional weeks for Plaintiff to provide responses to outstanding discovery obligations. (/d. § 6; Ex. B.) Sunjeen’s counsel asked again that Plaintiff provide it the week it had requested, and explained that the time was needed for Sunjeen’s personnel to review the responses. (Id. § 7; Ex. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel still refused, ultimately offering a two-day extension and continuing to demand three more weeks for Plaintiff’s responses. (Id. q 8; Ex. D.) Left with insufficient time to review and verify the responses, Sunjeen had no choice but to serve objections to preserve its rights. (Id. 9 9; Ex. 5.) Sunjeen then promptly supplemented its responses to provide substantive information once its personnel had reviewed the responses and provided verifications. (Id. 49; Ex. 8.) Those supplemental responses were served on August 3, 2017. (/d.) D. Plaintiff’s Meager Meet-and-Confer “Efforts.” 1. Plaintiff Generally Addresses Sunjeen’s Discovery Responses. On August 22, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff sent a 15-page letter comprised of complaints about the manner in which Sunjeen had responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Sood Decl. 910; Ex. 11.) The letter took issue with Sunjeen’s “failure” to produce an applicable insurance policy, when Defendant provided a verified response that there is no insurance coverage in this case. (Id.; Ex. 11; Ex. 8.) The letter complained Sunjeen’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7 were insufficient because Sunjeen did not provide contact information and did not provide the dates of communications. (Ex. 11, p. 10.) Plaintiff’s letter also asked for a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 211.1 regarding the value of benefits paid for Plaintiff. (Ex. 11, p. 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter then proceeded to take issue with every objection Sunjeen asserted; but, the objections were not discussed in connection with any particular Interrogatory to which they were interposed. (Sood Decl. § 11.) Instead, the letter attempted to “incorporate” the lengthy, general descriptions of the law surrounding the assertion of objections on the basis of privilege, overbreadth, ambiguity, and the like that Plaintiff had set forth in connection with Sunjeen’s RFP and Special Interrogatory responses. (See Ex. 11, p. 12-13.) 2. Sunjeen Responds With Reference to Individual Discovery Requests. Sunjeen’s counsel responded with a letter dated September 7, 2017. (Sood Decl. 9 12; Ex. 13.) In its letter, Sunjeen sought to respond to each of its responses to Interrogatories that “I 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law Plaintiff had identified as being deficient. In connection with Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7, Sunjeen’s letter explained that “[a]s Sunjeen’s responses make clear, Plaintiff was neither perceived nor known to be ‘disabled.”” (Ex. 13, p. 6.) The letter explained that despite this foundational problem with the interrogatories Sunjeen had still made a good-faith attempt to respond by providing facts regarding Plaintiff’s casual conversations at work, and her occasional doctor’s appointments, but that these were not in connection with “accommodations” for “disability” under the law. (/d.) Sunjeen further explained that to the extent Plaintiff was requesting the contact information for all Sunjeen employees (as any of them may have had casual conversations with Plaintiff regarding her health), Sunjeen viewed the interrogatories as overbroad and invasive of employee privacy. (Id.) With regard to Interrogatory No. 211.1, Sunjeen offered to provide a supplemental response that stated the amount that Sunjeen pays for its employee medical plan if Plaintiff would provide an offer of proof: “we will consider supplementing this response to provide that information provided you articulate how such information is probative of any issue in this litigation.” (Ex. 13, p. 6.) 3. The Parties’ Meet-and-Confer Discussion Focused on RFPs. Plaintiff never again raised the issue of her dissatisfaction with Sunjeen’s Form Interrogatory responses. Instead, on September 12, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel responded via email to Sunjeen’s letter. (Sood Decl. 9 14; Ex. 14.) Plaintiff’s email asked when supplemental responses and a protective order would be provided for certain RFP responses. (/d.) That same day, Sunjeen’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel both (i) the supplemental responses that had been promised to Plaintiff’s RFP, and (ii) a draft protective order. (Sood Decl. q 13; Ex. 15-16.) On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel responded via email. (Sood Decl. §] 14; Ex. 17.) The email addressed perceived outstanding issues with Sunjeen’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFP, but said nothing whatsoever with regard to Sunjeen’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. (Id.) The email closed by stating that Plaintiff felt “forced to move to compel RFPs 99-103,” but made no mention of any perceived need to file a motion in connection with Sunjeen’s other discovery responses. (/d.) No other discovery issues were mentioned in the email. (/d.) On September 15,2017, counsel for the parties exchanged emails regarding a draft protective 8- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law order. (Exs. 18.) Plaintiff’s email that day also stated - for the first time - that Plaintiff planned to move to compel with regard to unspecified “special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and other requests for productions [sic].” (Ex. E.) This email came as a surprise to Sunjeen’s counsel, because following Sunjeen’s September 7th letter, there had been no further discussion regarding Sunjeen’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories or Form Interrogatories. (Sood Decl. q 16.) Plaintiffs Motion followed. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT. A. Governing Legal Standards. A party in receipt of responses to interrogatories may move to compel a further response if an answer to the interrogatory is “evasive or incomplete,” or if an objection asserted is “without merit or too general.” CAL. CODE CIv. PROC. § 2030.300(a)(1), (3). A party seeking the Court’s assistance must demonstrate that reasonable, efforts to resolve the dispute have already been exhausted. Id., § 2031.310(b)(2); id., § 2016.040. In ruling on a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, the Court should consider “not only the stated objections to the interrogatories, but also the interrogatories themselves, as well as the pleadings, and the contentions of the interrogating party as to the purpose and validity of the interrogatories.” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rolfe) (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 18-19. In making its determination, practicality plays an important role: [I]f interrogatories are reasonably subject to objection as calling for the disclosure of matters so remote from the subject matter of the action... as to make their disclosure of little or no practical benefit to the party seeking the disclosure or if to answer them would place a burden and expense upon the parties to whom the interrogatories are propounded... or if the interrogatories are so framed as to require the disclosure of relevant as well as irrelevant matter, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion may refuse to order such interrogatories answered. Ryan v. Superior Court (Armstrong) (1960) 186 Cal. App. 2d 813, 817. In ruling on this Motion, the Court should be mindful of the fact that “the scope of civil discovery . . . is not limitless.” Calcor Space Facility, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 223. Discovery devices must “be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to wage litigation.” Id. at 221. 9- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law B. Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Meet-And-Confer. Plaintiffs Motion can be denied for the additional reason that Plaintiff did not make reasonable efforts to meet-and-confer before rushing to file her Motion. Instead, Plaintiff sent a lengthy letter discussing various objections in an abstract sense, without engaging in any dialogue whether the objections were appropriate with regard to any specific Request. (Ex. 11.) Sunjeen responded by explaining its reasoning in connection with each of the interrogatories at issue in Plaintiff’s Motion, and asked Plaintiff to have a dialogue about any particular objection asserted to any of those interrogatories. (Ex. 13.) Plaintiff never took this opportunity, and did not mention the interrogatory responses again until stating that Plaintiff was filing a motion to compel responses to unspecified interrogatories. (Ex. E.) That Plaintiff made a half-hearted attempt at the meet-and-confer process is consistent with what appears to be Plaintiff’s strategy in this litigation. Specifically, Plaintiff has manufactured discovery disputes where none exist in order to foist additional litigation costs upon Sunjeen. The Code of Civil Procedure is designed to preclude such tactics; and, the meet-and-confer requirement set forth in Section 2016.040 is one such safeguard. CAL. CODE C1v. PROC. § 2016.040 (requiring a declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion”)(emph. added). Plaintiff’s failure to make a genuine effort to resolve “each issue” presented by her Motion justifies summarily denying Plaintiff’s Motion. C. Sunjeen Has Complied With All Its Discovery Obligations. 1. Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7. Interrogatory No. 204.3 asked whether there were communications between Sunjeen and Plaintiff “about the type or extent of any disability of [Plaintiff].” (Ex. 1.) Interrogatory No. 204.6 asked whether there were communications between Sunjeen and Plaintiff regarding “possible accommodation of [Plaintiff].” (/d.) Interrogatory No. 204.7 asked what Sunjeen “consider[ed] doing to accommodate [Plaintiff].” (/d.) Each interrogatory asked for so, Sunjeen was asked to provide details regarding the date and substance of the communications, if there were any. (/d.) Each of these interrogatories is premised on the concept that Plaintiff was either (i) known or perceived to be disabled, or (ii) requested accommodation due to a disability. In the context of -10- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law this action - which alleges violation of FEHA - an employer must provide accommodation only to employees known to be disabled. CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(m)(making it unlawful for an employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee”). The terms “disability” and “accommodation” also have a specific meaning under FEHA. See id, § 12926(m)(defining physical disability); § 12926(p)(defining accommodation). Sunjeen’s response to these interrogatories (and others, as discussed below) make Sunjeen’s position clear: Plaintiff did not communicate to the Company that she was disabled, and Plaintiff was not known or perceived to be disabled at any time. And, absent a disability, Sunjeen had no obligation to consider or discuss an “accommodation.” Scotch v. Art Institute of Cal. (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1008 (noting that “[v]ague or conclusory statements revealing an unspecified incapacity are not sufficient to put an employer on notice of its obligations[.]”)(citing Brundage v. Hahn (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 228, 236-237). Plaintiff’s Motion demonstrates that Plaintiff disagrees with Sunjeen’s view of the facts - her Separate Statement argues that Sunjeen has made “the false claim that Plaintiff did not communicate with Sunjeen regarding her disability.” (Form Interr. Sept. Stmt., p. 4, In. 19-20.) That the parties have a differing view of the facts and their legal import does not make Sunjeen’s 1 | SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: ro DESCRIBE any REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS made by YOU as to any Ww DISABILITY of PLAINTIFF during PLAINTIFF'S employment with YOU. (For purposes of these 4 || interrogatories the phrase “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION(s)” herein refers to the hn definition of that same phrase as set forth in California Government Code section 12926(p). The 6 || phrase “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION(s)” shall also have the same meaning that said 7 || phrase has as used and referenced in 2 California Code of Regulations §§ 11068 and 11069.) 8 | SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 9 Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague. ambiguous. uncertain. 10 || and overbroad. particularly with regard to the use of the defined term “YOU.” Defendant further 11 | objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 1s overly broad. unduly burdensome. oppressive. 12 [and harassing. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds: 13 [| Plaintiff did not advise Defendant of any alleged disability. nor was Plaintiff perceived to be 14 | disabled by Defendant. Plaintiff did occasionally request time-off to attend doctor’s appointments. 15 [| and Defendant accommodated all such requests by allowing Plaintiff to take time-off. -11- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law position “false.” Instead, in its discovery responses, Sunjeen has repeated explicated under oath its view that it never knew that Plaintiff claimed to have been suffering from a disability: (See Ex. 9 to Sosa Decl., p. 13; underline added.) Sunjeen provided consistent information to other of Plaintiff’s duplicative discovery requests. (See Ex. 9, p. 8, In. 18-19 (explaining that “Plaintiff’s office chat about aches and pains did not disclose a ‘disability’ under California law’).) Sunjeen cannot make any clearer its position that it was not aware of Plaintiff’s claimed disability, and did not regard Plaintiff as disabled. Nonetheless, Plaintiff demands that Sunjeen provide a further response to provide details regarding communications with Plaintiff about her “disability.” There are no such communications. The Code of Civil Procedure does not permit a party to move to compel discovery responses that conform to one side’s view of disputed facts; yet, that is precisely what Plaintiff is doing here. Sunjeen attempted to provide even more information than called for in Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7 by explaining that it knows Plaintiff had casual conversations with various coworkers regarding her personal life, including her health; and, Sunjeen provided the available details about the participants in those discussions. (Ex. 7.) Sunjeen also produced documents relevant to Plaintiff’s medical appointments. (/d.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, this additional information does not mean that there were conversations about Plaintiff’s “disability,” and Sunjeen’s allowing Plaintiff time off to go to a doctor does not necessarily evidence an “accommodation.” Not ever doctor’s appointment portends a “disability” that requires “accommodation.” See, e.g., Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1237, 1244-45, 1253 (holding that documents employee gave to employer evidencing hospitalization, and comments that employee had been “sick,” were “inadequate to support a conclusion that plaintiff informed [his employer] of his disability or the physical limitations it caused, such that [the employer] was on notice that plaintiff required accommodation”). Sunjeen provided responses negating the premise of Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.6, and 204.7 - Plaintiff never communicated a “disability” to Sunjeen, and there were no “accommodations” required or requested therefore. Sunjeen then volunteered additional information regarding Plaintiff’s office chats, and Sunjeen’s allowing Plaintiff to attend medical 12- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 appointments. Sunjeen also offered to make available the known witnesses to the office chats referenced in Sunjeen’s discovery responses, even though those individuals’ contact information was not called for by the Interrogatories (since there were no communications regarding “disability” or “accommodation”). (Ex. 7.) There is simply nothing further to compel. 2. Interrogatory No. 211.1. Interrogatory No. 211.1 asked about the “benefits” that Plaintiff was entitled had she not been terminated. (Ex. 1.) Sunjeen properly responded by providing Plaintiff's wage information, and the fact that Plaintiff participated in the Company’s medical plan. (Ex. 7.) Concurrently, Sunjeen also produced documents reflecting Plaintiff’s wage payments, which included an itemized amount deducted for the medical plan: Taxable Marital Status: Single Exemplions/Allowances: ax Override: OLIVIA O DIZON Federal: 3 Federal: State: 3 State: Local: 0 Local: Social Security Number: [IIE mata hours/units this period year to date Other Benefits and 0.00 1750.00 £750.00 information Should To - Camry Over Gross Pay $1,750.00 $8,750.00 - Accrued Hous 0.00 « Taken Hours 0.00 > Balance : . Ick StatutoryDeductions ______Wispenod yeartocaia Statutory Deductions this period arto data - Camry Over Federal Income -141.61 754.33 - Accrued Hours 0.00 Social Security -103.72 537.72 - Taken Hours 0.00 Medicare -24.26 125.76 - Balance California State Incoma -36.72 203.96 Vacation California State DI -15.06 78.06 - Cany Over . - Accrued Hours 1.67 cluntary Deductions this period year to - Taken Hours 0.00 MED125 -77.10 77.10 - Balance - Deposits 31,351.53 gocount number transiABA _ | I (Sood Decl. q 17; Ex. FE.) Thus, Plaintiff has already been provided the information Plaintiff claims to need in a further response. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate “good cause” to justify compelling information that Plaintiff was provided well-before Plaintiff filed this Motion. Again, Plaintiff’s persistence in seeking to force Sunjeen to provide the same information in response to duplicative discovery requests is symptomatic of Plaintiff’s use of litigation activity to harass Sunjeen. No further response is necessary. -145- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2403/033445-0002 11618200.2 a11/08/17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law D. Plaintiff Should Be Sanctioned. Plaintiffs Motion was filed without substantial justification, and should subject Plaintiff and her counsel to sanctions. CAL. CODE CIv. Proc. 2030.300(d)(permitting an award of monetary sanctions where a motion to compel is made “in bad faith or without substantial justification”); § 2023.010(a)(“Misuses of the discovery process include ... [p]ersisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.”); § 2023.030 (permitting monetary sanctions for misuses of the discovery process). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s meek meet-and-confer effort did not constitute a genuine, reasonable effort to informally resolve disputes. Instead, Plaintiff sent an omnibus letter complaining in generalities about Sunjeen’s responses. (Ex. 11.) Sunjeen responded with a detailed letter discussing the individual discovery requests with which Plaintiff appeared to take, and closed the letter by inviting Plaintiff’s counsel to continue to discuss any perceived issues. (Ex. 13.) Plaintiff did not take up this invitation; instead, Plaintiff focused on other discovery issues, then sprung this Motion on Sunjeen. Plaintiff’s failure to adequately meet-and-confer is separately sanctionable. CAL. CODE CIv. PROC. 2023.010(1). The real reason Plaintiff’s Motion was filed is part of a larger attempt by Plaintiff to use the discovery process to cripple Sunjeen with litigation expenses. This Motion is one of four discovery motions filed by Plaintiff, all of which are disputes Plaintiff has manufactured to impose the costs of law-and-motion practice upon Sunjeen - which Plaintiff knows to be a small, family-owned business - to pressure it into paying a settlement to avoid the litigation expense. Imposing a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and her counsel of record here is particularly appropriate, to avoid rewarding Plaintiff for her harassing litigation strategy. Calcor Space Facility, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 221 (“Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to wage litigation.”). Sunjeen has already incurred $1,490 in fees in connection with this Opposition, with additional time to follow. (Sood Decl. 9] 18.) Il Il Il -14- 2403/033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 al1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law IV. CONCLUSION. For all the foregoing reasons, Sunjeen respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintift’s Motion, and order Plaintiff and her counsel of record (jointly and severally) to pay a monetary sanction to Sunjeen to reimburse it for the fees incurred to litigate this unnecessary dispute. Dated: November §, 2017 Brangdf L. Sylvia Attorifey's for Defendant SUNJEEN, INC. -15- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law DECLARATION OF RADHIKA SOOD I, Radhika Sood, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, counsel of record for Sunjeen, Inc. (“Sunjeen”) in this action. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I make this Declaration in support of Sunjeen’s Opposition to Plaintiff Olivia Dizon’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories. 1 have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 2. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff served the following written discovery requests upon Sunjeen: (i) Form Interrogatories (Employment); (ii) Form Interrogatories (General); (iii) Requests for Production (“RFP”); and (iv) Special Interrogatories. The first set of Special Interrogatories included 34 interrogatories and the first set of RFP was comprised of 122 separate document production demands. 3. On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff propounded additional discovery requests on Sunjeen, comprised of 17 specially-prepared interrogatories, 38 production demands, and additional requests for admission (bringing the total number of requests for admission served by Plaintiff in this action to 49). 4. Between March 2017 and July 2017, the parties provided a series of mutual extensions with regard to the discovery requests each had served. These extensions were initiated by Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for more time to respond, and then to provide supplemental responses, and the parties’ agreement to maintain the original sequence of discovery. The mutual cooperation and reciprocity that characterized the early timeline of this litigation disappeared in July 2017, when Plaintift’s counsel, Peter Le, left the law firm representing Plaintiff. 5. On July 19, 2017, I sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email requesting a one-week extension of time to provide responses to Plaintiff's written discovery. A true and correct copy of my email is attached as Exhibit A. 6. Counsel for Plaintiff Linda Lara responded to my email that same day and refused to grant a one-week extension, and offered a ome-day extension instead, while simultaneously -16- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law requesting three additional weeks for Plaintiff to provide responses to outstanding discovery obligations. A true and correct copy of Ms. Lara’s email is attached as Exhibit B. 1. On July 19, 2017, I replied to Ms. Lara’s email and again asked that Plaintiff provide Sunjeen the one-week extension it had requested. I explained that the time was needed for Sunjeen’s personnel to review the responses. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit C. 8. On July 20, 2017, Ms. Lara responded to my email and offered a two-day extension for Sunjeen to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. In her email, Ms. Lara continued to demand three more weeks for Plaintiff to respond to Sunjeen’s discovery requests. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit D. 0. Left with insufficient time to review and verify the responses, Sunjeen had no choice but to serve objections to preserve its rights, which it timely served on Plaintiff on July 21, 2017. Sunjeen then promptly supplemented its responses to provide substantive information once its personnel had reviewed the responses and provided verifications. Those supplemental responses were served on August 3, 2017. 10. On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel, Gerardo Sosa, sent a 15-page letter to meet and confer about Sunjeen’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The letter took issue with Sunjeen’s “failure” to produce an applicable insurance policy, when Sunjeen provided a verified response that there is no insurance coverage in this case. The meet and confer letter also complained that Sunjeen had responded that it had no documents to produce, and asked Sunjeen to “ensure” that its verified responses were accurate. 11. Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter took issue with every objection Sunjeen asserted; but, the objections were not discussed in connection with any particular Request to which they were interposed. Instead, the letter set forth lengthy, general descriptions of the law surrounding the assertion of objections on the basis of privilege, overbreadth, ambiguity, and the like. Plaintiff made no specific demands, and did not specifically discuss, RFP Nos. 27, 35, 113, or 114. With regard to RFP Nos. 99-103, Plaintiff argued that “further responses are required.” 12, On September 7,2017, I sent a letter responding to Mr. Sosa’s August 22,2017 letter. In its response, Sunjeen sought to respond to each of the Requests that Plaintiff believed its 17- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law responses to be deficient. Sunjeen also agreed to provide a supplemental response to update its response to RFP No. 4. In connection with RFP No. 27 and 35, Sunjeen’s letter explained its inability to comply, and asked that if Plaintiff “genuinely believe[s] responsive documents exist, please describe them with specificity so that we can look into the matter further.” For RFP Nos. 99- 103, Sunjeen agreed to take the lead on preparing a draft protective order. My letter did not specifically mention RFP Nos. 113 or 114, as Plaintiff’s correspondence did not express a genuine concern with those responses. 13. On September 12, 2017, Mr. Sosa responded via email to my letter. In his email, Mr. Sosa asked when the supplemental response and protective order would be provided. That same day, I emailed Plaintiff’s counsel both (i) the supplemental responses and (ii) a draft protective order. 14. On September 13, 2017, Mr. Sosa responded to my email. The email complained: “[n]either your letter nor your protective order specify which requests you will respond to subject to the protective order. This leaves me to speculate as to which documents you will produce despite an approaching motion to compel deadline.” This statement was puzzling, since Sunjeen’s response to RFP Nos. 99-103 stated that Sunjeen “will comply with this Request subject to entry of an acceptable protective order.” Thus, no speculation was required - Sunjeen’s verified responses stated that it would produce documents in response RFP Nos. 99, 100, 101, 102, and 103 once a protective order was in place. Nonetheless, Mr. Sosa’s email closed by stating that he felt “forced to move to compel RFPs 99-103. No other discovery issues were mentioned in the email. 15. On September 15, 2017, Mr. Sosa responded to my prior email by reiterating that he believed there was “no assurance that Sunjeen will actually produce these documents,” notwithstanding its verified responses stating it would comply with RFP Nos. 99-103. Mr. Sosa also stated - for the first time - that Plaintiff planned to move to compel with regard to unspecified “special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and other requests for productions [sic].” A true and correct copy of Mr. Sosa’s email is attached as Exhibit E. 16. Ms. Sosa’s reference to other motions to compel came as a surprise to Sunjeen’s counsel, because following Sunjeen’s September 7th letter, there had been no further discussion -18- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rutan & Tucker, LLP attorneys at law regarding Sunjeen’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories or Form Interrogatories. 17. On August 10, 2017, Sunjeen produced 147 pages of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Among the documents produced were copies of Plaintiff’s wage statements. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of one of the documents produced to Plaintiff on August 10th, which reflects the amount of deduction for Plaintiff’s participation in Sunjeen’s medical plan. 18. I have spent approximately 2 hour preparing this Opposition and my supporting declaration. My hourly rate in this matter is $310. Brandon L. Sylvia, a partner at my firm, spent 3 hours preparing this Opposition brief; his hourly rate in this matter is $445. Thus, Sunjeen has already incurred $1,490 in fees and costs to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, and will incur additional fees to attend the hearing on this Motion. Executed on November 8, 2017, at Costa Mesa, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Lidice fod RadRika Sood -19- 2403033445.0002 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11618200.2 a1 1/08/17 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES EXHIBIT A Sylvia, Brandon From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:37 PM To: Linda Lara Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Linda, As you requested this morning, below is a list of upcoming discovery deadlines and deadlines that Plaintiff has missed: e Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s first set of discovery requests: 7/13/17 (past due) e Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s second set of RFPs: 7/10/17 (past due) e Plaintiff's response to Sunjeen’s third set of RFPs: 8/1/17 (This is a single Request seeking phone records for a month, to correct a typographical error from Set Two.) We understand that Peter (who was working on the case and primarily handling these discovery issues) is no longer with your firm. We are willing to work with you and provide additional time to respond to Sunjeen’s discovery requests. Please let us know how much time you will need to provide supplemental responses that are now past due. In exchange, we ask for one additional week to provide responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, which are currently due on July 21. With the extension Sunjeen’s responses will be due on July 28, 2017. Please advise by no later than the close of business tomorrow. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT A, PAGE 20 EXHIBIT B Sylvia, Brandon From: Linda Lara [mailto:llara@laralunalaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:28 PM To: Sood, Radhika Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Radhika: Upon reviewing the discovery history on this case, | see we have responded to two sets of discovery whereas you have failed to respond any discovery whatsoever that Plaintiff has served that dates to as far back as March 27, 2017. | do not think you are entitled to it but | will in turn give you until Monday July 24, 2017 until 5 p.m. to mail serve full and complete discovery responses and send us a courtesy copy by e-mail. No more extensions and good faith responses are required. In contrast, we have responded to your discovery and you requested that we supplement by July 10 and 13 but these dates were never calendared by Peter. As you acknowledged notice of, he is no longer with our firm. As we already responded and submitted our objections, we never waived any objections, you are merely requesting we supplement our responses. | do not see your meet and confer letter and | request that you send it to me. | will need time to provide supplemental responses and will need 3 weeks to provide supplemental responses, if we find a supplemental response is warranted, until August 16, 2017. | insist you give this to us give that we have given you nearly 3 months of extensions for you to respond to our discovery and frankly do not know why so much an extension was given as this is grossly extensive. | hope that we avoid discovery disputes, please confirm your agreement with the above. If not, we will be forced to file motions to compel and seek sanctions as too much time has passed without any discovery responses whatsoever. Linda Lara, Esq. LARA & LUNA 16700 Valley View Ave., Suite 170 La Mirada, CA 90638 P: (562) 444-0010 F: (949) 288-6953 LLara@LaralLunal.Law.com This email and any attachments hereto contain information (“Information”) from the Law firm of Lara & Luna, APC (the “Firm”). No attorney-client relationship exists with the Firm absent a fee contract or engagement letter. If you are not a client of the firm, you may not rely on the Information and do so at your own risk. Sender reserves and asserts any and all rights and privileges to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, which may apply to the information. The information is solely for intended recipients as may be identified in the “To”, “Cc”, and “Bcc” lines or in the body of this email. If you are not an intended recipient or reasonably believe that you were mistakenly included as a recipient, then your receipt of this information is either by an inadvertent or unauthorized transmittal/disclosure; you are hereby put on notice that you are prohibited from and must cease and desist any further viewing, copying, printing or dissemination of this Information in any manner or form whatsoever. Please notify the firm and sender immediately and permanently delete any and all embodiments of the information, including but not limited 1 EXHIBIT B, PAGE 21 to, deleting this email and any attachments and copies thereof from any drives of storage media and destroying any printouts of the email or attachments. From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:37 PM To: Linda Lara Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Linda, As you requested this morning, below is a list of upcoming discovery deadlines and deadlines that Plaintiff has missed: Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s first set of discovery requests: 7/13/17 (past due) Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s second set of RFPs: 7/10/17 (past due) Plaintiff's response to Sunjeen’s third set of RFPs: 8/1/17 (This is a single Request seeking phone records for a month, to correct a typographical error from Set Two.) We understand that Peter (who was working on the case and primarily handling these discovery issues) is no longer with your firm. We are willing to work with you and provide additional time to respond to Sunjeen’s discovery requests. Please let us know how much time you will need to provide supplemental responses that are now past due. In exchange, we ask for one additional week to provide responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, which are currently due on July 21. With the extension Sunjeen’s responses will be due on July 28, 2017. Please advise by no later than the close of business tomorrow. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT B, PAGE 22 EXHIBIT C Sylvia, Brandon From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:15 PM To: 'Linda Lara’ Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Hi Linda: We find it hard to countenance how you are willing to provide a 24-hour extension to us while simultaneously requesting three weeks’ additional time to provide supplemental responses that your office agreed to provide weeks ago. We're not aware of what Peter calendared, but he and | have been working cooperatively on this case for weeks regarding discovery issues. The reason Sunjeen’s responses to earlier-served discovery have not yet been due is only because we agreed - both with Peter and his predecessor on this case, Amaras Zargarian - that we ought to maintain the sequence of discovery as it was served: Plaintiff providing responses first, then Sunjeen responding. We still do not have full and complete responses from Plaintiff to discovery we served on March 15, 2017. We disagree that the extensions provided by your office thus far are grossly excessive; they were necessitated by the deficiencies that plagued Plaintiff's responses (see attached meet and confer letters). It is not clear what basis you have for the motions to compel you've threatened, as there is nothing outstanding and no deadlines that Sunjeen has blown with regard to which you might file. We'd suggest that the parties attempt to work cooperatively through these issues, and refrain from meritless threats. However, cooperation is a two-way street. We cannot agree at this juncture to provide you an additional three weeks when you'll allow us only a day. We've asked for a one-week extension; we reiterate that request now. We need the time to review the responses with our client and ensure we're providing accurate information. With regard to Plaintiff's supplemental responses to the first and second sets of RFP (which were promised by Peter to be served July 10 and 13), we ask that you provide the supplemental responses by no later than July 28 (and that Sunjeen’s deadline to move to compel on those sets of discovery be extended by two weeks). Please advise by no later than tomorrow by 11:00 a.m. whether we can agree to these mutual extensions. If we cannot, we'll have little option but to take the actions necessary to protect Sunjeen’s rights in connection with these discovery issues. Feel free to call if you'd like to discuss. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the 1 EXHIBIT C, PAGE 23 intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: Linda Lara [mailto:llara@laralunalaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:28 PM To: Sood, Radhika Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Radhika: Upon reviewing the discovery history on this case, | see we have responded to two sets of discovery whereas you have failed to respond any discovery whatsoever that Plaintiff has served that dates to as far back as March 27, 2017. | do not think you are entitled to it but | will in turn give you until Monday July 24, 2017 until 5 p.m. to mail serve full and complete discovery responses and send us a courtesy copy by e-mail. No more extensions and good faith responses are required. In contrast, we have responded to your discovery and you requested that we supplement by July 10 and 13 but these dates were never calendared by Peter. As you acknowledged notice of, he is no longer with our firm. As we already responded and submitted our objections, we never waived any objections, you are merely requesting we supplement our responses. | do not see your meet and confer letter and | request that you send it to me. | will need time to provide supplemental responses and will need 3 weeks to provide supplemental responses, if we find a supplemental response is warranted, until August 16, 2017. | insist you give this to us give that we have given you nearly 3 months of extensions for you to respond to our discovery and frankly do not know why so much an extension was given as this is grossly extensive. | hope that we avoid discovery disputes, please confirm your agreement with the above. If not, we will be forced to file motions to compel and seek sanctions as too much time has passed without any discovery responses whatsoever. Linda Lara, Esq. LARA & LUNA 16700 Valley View Ave., Suite 170 La Mirada, CA 90638 P: (562) 444-0010 F: (949) 288-6953 LLara@LaralLunal.Law.com This email and any attachments hereto contain information (“Information”) from the Law firm of Lara & Luna, APC (the “Firm”). No attorney-client relationship exists with the Firm absent a fee contract or engagement letter. If you are not a client of the firm, you may not rely on the Information and do so at your own risk. Sender reserves and asserts any and all rights and privileges to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, which may apply to the information. The information is solely for intended recipients as may be identified in the “To”, “Cc”, and “Bcc” lines or in the body of this email. If you are not an intended recipient or reasonably believe that you were mistakenly included as a recipient, then your receipt of this information is either by an inadvertent or unauthorized transmittal/disclosure; you are hereby put on notice that you are prohibited from and must cease and desist any further viewing, copying, printing or dissemination of this Information in any manner or form whatsoever. Please notify the firm and sender immediately and permanently delete any and all embodiments of the information, including but not limited 2 EXHIBIT C, PAGE 24 to, deleting this email and any attachments and copies thereof from any drives of storage media and destroying any printouts of the email or attachments. From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:37 PM To: Linda Lara Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Linda, As you requested this morning, below is a list of upcoming discovery deadlines and deadlines that Plaintiff has missed: Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s first set of discovery requests: 7/13/17 (past due) Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s second set of RFPs: 7/10/17 (past due) Plaintiff's response to Sunjeen’s third set of RFPs: 8/1/17 (This is a single Request seeking phone records for a month, to correct a typographical error from Set Two.) We understand that Peter (who was working on the case and primarily handling these discovery issues) is no longer with your firm. We are willing to work with you and provide additional time to respond to Sunjeen’s discovery requests. Please let us know how much time you will need to provide supplemental responses that are now past due. In exchange, we ask for one additional week to provide responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, which are currently due on July 21. With the extension Sunjeen’s responses will be due on July 28, 2017. Please advise by no later than the close of business tomorrow. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT C, PAGE 25 EXHIBIT D Sylvia, Brandon From: Linda Lara [mailto:llara@laralunalaw.com] Sent: Thursday, July 20,2017 4:05 PM To: Sood, Radhika Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Radhika: To suggest that our firm would undercut our right under the CCP to have discovery served within statute so that Defendant can have 3 sets of discovery answered first is patently incorrect and goes against the CCP - so sorry - you are incorrect on that assumption. As | recall, you requested several extension due to various reasons, non of which was so that Defendants get to finish all their discovery first. Again, the discovery we served dates back to March 27" - this is now 3 months later. It seems like you are leveraging my request for a legitimate extension to supplement responses already provided whereas you haven’t even responded. No more extension, as a courtesy | will extend your responses to be turned in Tuesday at 5 p.m. (a 2 business day extension) - via mail service but e-mail courtesy copy. This over 3 months to serve an initial set of responses. | imagine | would be admonished by a judge for giving you so many extensions at this point. We need to prosecute our case as well - for us, it is about our client, not yours. In turn, we will supplement in 3 weeks and will give you a reciprocal 3 week extension to file your motion. We have served legitimate responses already, | am taking over the file from 2 associates - we had transition we are having to deal with, and my request is reasonable given the 3 month extension we have given you. | also prefer to resolve these disputes informally and hope you will be reasonable. Regards, Linda Linda Lara, Esq. LARA & LUNA 16700 Valley View Ave., Suite 170 La Mirada, CA 90638 P: (562) 444-0010 F: (949) 288-6953 LLara@LaralLunalL.aw.com This email and any attachments hereto contain information (“Information”) from the Law firm of Lara & Luna, APC (the “Firm”). No attorney-client relationship exists with the Firm absent a fee contract or engagement letter. If you are not a client of the firm, you may not rely on the Information and do so at your own risk. Sender reserves and asserts any and all rights and privileges to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, which may apply to the information. The information is solely for intended recipients as may be identified in the “To”, “Cc”, and “Bcc” lines or in the body of this email. If you are not an intended recipient or reasonably believe that you were mistakenly included as a recipient, then your receipt of this information is either by an inadvertent or unauthorized transmittal/disclosure; you are hereby put on notice that you are prohibited from and must cease and desist any further 1 EXHIBIT D, PAGE 26 viewing, copying, printing or dissemination of this Information in any manner or form whatsoever. Please notify the firm and sender immediately and permanently delete any and all embodiments of the information, including but not limited to, deleting this email and any attachments and copies thereof from any drives of storage media and destroying any printouts of the email or attachments. From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:15 PM To: 'Linda Lara’ Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Hi Linda: We find it hard to countenance how you are willing to provide a 24-hour extension to us while simultaneously requesting three weeks’ additional time to provide supplemental responses that your office agreed to provide weeks ago. We're not aware of what Peter calendared, but he and | have been working cooperatively on this case for weeks regarding discovery issues. The reason Sunjeen’s responses to earlier-served discovery have not yet been due is only because we agreed - both with Peter and his predecessor on this case, Amaras Zargarian - that we ought to maintain the sequence of discovery as it was served: Plaintiff providing responses first, then Sunjeen responding. We still do not have full and complete responses from Plaintiff to discovery we served on March 15, 2017. We disagree that the extensions provided by your office thus far are grossly excessive; they were necessitated by the deficiencies that plagued Plaintiff's responses (see attached meet and confer letters). It is not clear what basis you have for the motions to compel you've threatened, as there is nothing outstanding and no deadlines that Sunjeen has blown with regard to which you might file. We'd suggest that the parties attempt to work cooperatively through these issues, and refrain from meritless threats. However, cooperation is a two-way street. We cannot agree at this juncture to provide you an additional three weeks when you'll allow us only a day. We've asked for a one-week extension; we reiterate that request now. We need the time to review the responses with our client and ensure we're providing accurate information. With regard to Plaintiff's supplemental responses to the first and second sets of RFP (which were promised by Peter to be served July 10 and 13), we ask that you provide the supplemental responses by no later than July 28 (and that Sunjeen’s deadline to move to compel on those sets of discovery be extended by two weeks). Please advise by no later than tomorrow by 11:00 a.m. whether we can agree to these mutual extensions. If we cannot, we'll have little option but to take the actions necessary to protect Sunjeen’s rights in connection with these discovery issues. Feel free to call if you'd like to discuss. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) EXHIBIT D, PAGE 27 rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: Linda Lara [mailto:llara@laralunalaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:28 PM To: Sood, Radhika Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Radhika: Upon reviewing the discovery history on this case, | see we have responded to two sets of discovery whereas you have failed to respond any discovery whatsoever that Plaintiff has served that dates to as far back as March 27, 2017. | do not think you are entitled to it but | will in turn give you until Monday July 24, 2017 until 5 p.m. to mail serve full and complete discovery responses and send us a courtesy copy by e-mail. No more extensions and good faith responses are required. In contrast, we have responded to your discovery and you requested that we supplement by July 10 and 13 but these dates were never calendared by Peter. As you acknowledged notice of, he is no longer with our firm. As we already responded and submitted our objections, we never waived any objections, you are merely requesting we supplement our responses. | do not see your meet and confer letter and | request that you send it to me. | will need time to provide supplemental responses and will need 3 weeks to provide supplemental responses, if we find a supplemental response is warranted, until August 16, 2017. | insist you give this to us give that we have given you nearly 3 months of extensions for you to respond to our discovery and frankly do not know why so much an extension was given as this is grossly extensive. | hope that we avoid discovery disputes, please confirm your agreement with the above. If not, we will be forced to file motions to compel and seek sanctions as too much time has passed without any discovery responses whatsoever. Linda Lara, Esq. LARA & LUNA 16700 Valley View Ave., Suite 170 La Mirada, CA 90638 P: (562) 444-0010 F: (949) 288-6953 LLara@LaralLunalLaw.com This email and any attachments hereto contain information (“Information”) from the Law firm of Lara & Luna, APC (the “Firm”). No attorney-client relationship exists with the Firm absent a fee contract or engagement letter. If you are not a client of the firm, you may not rely on the Information and do so at your own risk. EXHIBIT D, PAGE 28 Sender reserves and asserts any and all rights and privileges to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, which may apply to the information. The information is solely for intended recipients as may be identified in the “To”, “Cc”, and “Bcc” lines or in the body of this email. If you are not an intended recipient or reasonably believe that you were mistakenly included as a recipient, then your receipt of this information is either by an inadvertent or unauthorized transmittal/disclosure; you are hereby put on notice that you are prohibited from and must cease and desist any further viewing, copying, printing or dissemination of this Information in any manner or form whatsoever. Please notify the firm and sender immediately and permanently delete any and all embodiments of the information, including but not limited to, deleting this email and any attachments and copies thereof from any drives of storage media and destroying any printouts of the email or attachments. From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:37 PM To: Linda Lara Cc: Sylvia, Brandon Subject: Dizon v. Sunjeen (Discovery Deadlines) Linda, As you requested this morning, below is a list of upcoming discovery deadlines and deadlines that Plaintiff has missed: Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s first set of discovery requests: 7/13/17 (past due) Plaintiff's supplemental responses to Sunjeen’s second set of RFPs: 7/10/17 (past due) Plaintiff's response to Sunjeen’s third set of RFPs: 8/1/17 (This is a single Request seeking phone records for a month, to correct a typographical error from Set Two.) We understand that Peter (who was working on the case and primarily handling these discovery issues) is no longer with your firm. We are willing to work with you and provide additional time to respond to Sunjeen’s discovery requests. Please let us know how much time you will need to provide supplemental responses that are now past due. In exchange, we ask for one additional week to provide responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, which are currently due on July 21. With the extension Sunjeen’s responses will be due on July 28, 2017. Please advise by no later than the close of business tomorrow. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 4 EXHIBIT D, PAGE 29 (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT D, PAGE 30 EXHIBIT KE Sylvia, Brandon From: gsosa@Ilaralunalaw.com [mailto:gsosa@Iaralunalaw.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 5:03 PM To: Sood, Radhika ; Sylvia, Brandon ; Linda Lara ; Ed Lara Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen, Protective Order/Signature for RfP 99-103 Radhika, As of this date, you have not set a date by which you will produce these documents. I have no assurance that Sunjeen will actually produce these documents, or whether it will be a production compliant with the rules of discovery. This situation is why I requested an extension as to the motions to compel on this set of discovery. Once again, | would very much appreciate an extension for the deadline for the motion to compel, so that we can resolve this issue without judicial intervention. I will also be moving to compel special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and other requests for productions as to this set of discovery. The court would not appreciate another motion just for RfPs 99-103, should we fail to agree on a protective order, or you are unable to timely produce the documents. For the purpose of judicial efficiency, all these disputes should be heard at once. So, unless you produce these documents, I have to move to compel as to those items. From: Sood, Radhika [mailto:RSood@rutan.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 1:47 PM To: 'gsosa@laralunalaw.com' ; Sylvia, Brandon ; Linda Lara ; Ed Lara Subject: RE: Dizon v. Sunjeen, Protective Order/Signature for RfP 99-103 Hi Gerardo: We'll review your proposed changes and get back to you in due course. Given the number of changes, | do not know whether we'll be able to produce documents by 3 p.m. today, as you've requested. As | explained in my earlier email, because Sunjeen has already agreed to comply with RFP Nos. 99-103, there is no basis to move to compel a “further response.” And, a motion to compel compliance with an RFP response is made pursuant to CCP § 2031.320, and is not subject to the 45-day deadline. Thus, there is no basis for the short fuse production you've requested, and there is no real threat of waiver. The motion you continue to threaten remains unwarranted. As | have informed you before, | will be in a week long arbitration hearing beginning Monday of next week, so either Brandon or | will be back in touch with you shortly. Thanks, Radhika Radhika Sood Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1802 (direct) EXHIBIT E, PAGE 31 rsood@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: gsosa@laralunalaw.com [mailto:gsosa@Ilaralunalaw.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:53 AM To: Sood, Radhika ; Sylvia, Brandon ; Linda Lara ; Ed Lara Subject: Dizon v. Sunjeen, Protective Order/Signature for RfP 99-103 Radhika, Please find attached protective order with proposed changes. I also attached a signed signature page for the order in its revised state. Given that our deadline for the motion to compel as to these items is quickly approaching, please provide the documents responsive to RfP.01, 99-103 by 3:00PM today. Failure to do so, for any reason, will result in a motion to compel as to those documents. [ will not waive my client’s right to move to compel these items. However, if we come to an agreement as to those documents following our filing of the motion, we will withdraw the portions of the motion as warranted by Sunjeen’s compliance. Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. Gerardo Sosa LARA & LUNA, APC 16700 VALLEY VIEW AVE., SUITE 170 LA MIRADA, CA 90638 PHONE: (562) 444-0010 FAX: (949) 288-6953 E-Mail: GSosa@JLaralLunal.aw.com WEBSITE: WWW. LARALUNALAW.COM This email and any attachments hereto contain information (“Information”) from the Law firm of Lara & Luna, APC (the “Firm”). No attorney-client relationship exists with the Firm absent a fee contract or engagement letter. If you are not a client of the firm, you may not rely on the Information and do so at your own risk. Sender reserves and asserts any and all rights and privileges to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, which may apply to the information. If you are not an intended recipient or reasonably believe that you were mistakenly included as a recipient, then your receipt of this information is either by an inadvertent or unauthorized transmittal/disclosure; you are hereby put on notice that you are prohibited from and must cease and desist any further viewing, copying, printing or dissemination of this Information in any manner or form whatsoever. Please notify the firm and sender immediately and permanently delete any and all embodiments of the information. EXHIBIT E, PAGE 32 EXHIBIT F Company Code t Number Page RY7 SRA 21259735 01720 2550616 of 1 SUNJEEN INC 1340 S MANHATTAN FULLERTON, CA 92831 Taxable Marital Status: Single Exemplions/Allowances: Tax Override: Federal: 3 Federal: State: 3 State: Local: 0 Local: Social Security Number: [| NEG Eamings rata haurs/units this period year to date Regular 0.00 1750.00 8750.00 Gross Pay $1,750.00 $8,750.00 Statutory Deductions this period year to date Federal Income ~141.61 754.33 Social Security -103.72 $37.72 Medicare -24.26 125.76 California State Income -36.72 203.96 Califomia State DI -15.06 78.06 Voluntary Deductions this period year to date *MED125 -77.10 77.10 Net Pay $1,351.53 SUNJEEN INC 1340 S MANHATTAN FULLERTON, CA 92831 Deposited to the account Checking DirectDeposit THIS 15 OLIVIA O DIZON Earnings Statement Period Starting: 03/01/2018 Period Ending: 03/15/2018 Pay Date: 03/18/2016 OLIVIA O DIZON Other Benefits and Information this period year to date Personal - Cammy Over 0.00 - Accrued Hours 0.00 16.00 - Taken Hours 0.00 0.00 - Balance 16.00 Sick - Camry Over 0.00 - Accrued Hours 0.00 24.00 - Taken Hours 0.00 0.00 - Balance 24.00 Vacation - Camry Over 11.69 - Accrued Hours 1.67 20.04 - Taken Hours 0.00 0.00 - Balance 20.04 Deposits account number transiVABA amount Your federal taxable wages this period are $1,672,680 * Excluded from Federal taxable wages Pay Date: 03/16/2016 - amount 1351.53 EXHIBIT F PACE 33 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Olivia Dizon v. Sunjeen, Inc., et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00900708-CU-WT-CJC STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed by the law office of Rutan & Tucker, LLP in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931. On November 8, 2017, I served on the interested parties in said action the within: OPPOSITION OF SUNJEEN, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES as stated below: [] (BY MAIL) by placing a true copy thereof in sealed envelope(s) addressed as shown above. In the course of my employment with Rutan & Tucker, LLP, I have, through first-hand personal observation, become readily familiar with Rutan & Tucker, LLP’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, I deposited such envelope(s) in an out-box for collection by other personnel of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, and for ultimate posting and placement with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. If the customary business practices of Rutan & Tucker, LLP with regard to collection and processing of correspondence and mailing were followed, and I am confident that they were, such envelope(s) were posted and placed in the United States mail at Costa Mesa, California, that same date. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY FEDEX) by depositing in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx, an express service carrier, or delivering to a courier or driver authorized by said express service carrier to receive documents, a true copy of the foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages designated by the express service carrier, addressed as shown on the attached mailing list, with fees for overnight delivery provided for or paid. [1] (BYE-MAILL) by transmitting a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to the e-mail addresses set forth above. Executed on November 8, 2017, at Costa Mesa, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Marie Lee 5h An" Z Lee (Type or print name) (Signature) 2403/033445-0002 10715410.1 a11/08/17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Olivia Dizon v. Sunjeen, Inc., et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00900708-CU-WT-CJC Edward Lara Linda Luna Lara Amaras Zargarian Gerardo Sosa LARA & LUNA APC 16700 Valley View Ave., Suite 170 La Mirada, California 90638 Tel. 562-444-0010 Fax 949-288-6953 Email: ELara@LaralLunal.aw.com; AZargarian@LaralunalL.aw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff OLIVIA DIZON 2403/033445-0002 10715410.1 a11/08/17