NO 0 N I Wn Re W N PN ND = em ee ke ed pe d e m db ee l pe _- Oo O e S y nn RR W N = O 22 PAUL M. GLEASON State Bar No.: 155569 BRANDYN E. STEDFIELD State Bar No.: 225357 GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300 Long Beach, California 90807 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Markeisha Dawson ELECTROMICALLY FILED Superior Court of Califarnia, County of Orange 11/19/2018 at 02:26:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By Alan Silva, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MARKEISHA DAWSON, an Individual, Plaintiff, VS. BARBELLS FOR BOOBS, MAMMOGRAMS [IN ACTION; and DOES 1 through 100, nclusive, Defendants. ) Case No. 30-2017-00954271 ) [Assigned to Hon. Deborah C. Servino, Dept. ) C21] : PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ) COMPEL RESPONSES AND ) DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ) TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ) AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) 111 1117 1 THEREOF +3 nuary 11, 2019 Date: XXXXXXX, 2018 Time: B0Xa¥1. 10:00 AM Dept.: C21 Action Filed: November 7, 2017 Trial Date: None Assigned PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF W N NO 0 3 S N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT BARBELLS FOR BOOBS AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on JANUARY 11,2018 at 10:00 a.m. located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Dept. C21 plaintiff Markeisha Dawson (“Plaintiff”) will move the Court for an order compelling defendants Barbells for Boobs (“Defendant”) to provide responses and documents to the First Request For Production set No. 34 set forth in the Separate Statement of Requests For Production Of Documents, Set Two (No. 34) and Response in Dispute filed with this motion. This motion is made on the ground that Plaintiff’s Request For Production No. 34 Propounded on Defendant seeks information that is within the permissible scope of discovery in that it is non-privileged and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and Defendant’s refusal to answer fully is without substantial justification. The motion will be based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, declaration of Brandyn Stedfield and the Separate Statement of Requests For Production Of Documents, Set Two No. 34 and Responses in Dispute, and the records and files in this action. Dated: November 19, 2018 GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP PAUL M. GLEASON BRANDYN E. STEDFIELD Brandyn E. Stedfield Attorneys for Plaintiff Markeisha Dawson 1 PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF NO 0 N N N nn A W N RN O N ND N N N N N N m em e m e m me m e m p m pe t me d e d «00 N N Un BR W N = O Y N I N I R W =e OD I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Markeisha Dawson (“Plaintiff”) was terminated from her position with Defendant Barbells for Boobs (“Barbells” or “Company”) in December 2015, almost immediately after returning from a medical leave of absence. Plaintiff’s medical leave of absence followed a severe panic attack and severe depression and anxiety that developed around August 2015. Specifically, in early December, very shortly after returning from a medical leave of absence Plaintiff was terminated because her position was allegedly eliminated as part of a Company restructure. Plaintiff contends that the Company restructure was pre-textual and a sham and that her position was eliminated due to discriminatory animus. Here, the case hinges upon a determination of whether the asserted layoff was legitimate or discriminatory. A key issue in determining the foregoing will be an analysis of the context of the layoff including, the selection process, whether other employees were laid off and scrutiny as to the Company’s restructure to test whether it was in fact bona fide. Accordingly, Plaintiff propounded a request for production seeking “[a]ll documents evidencing any company layoffs or corporate restructuring from June 2015 through June 2016.” (Stedfield para 2, Exh. A.) The foregoing documents are directly relevant to the central issue in the case - whether the layoff was legitimate or pre-textual. Defendant is a very small employer and the foregoing request is narrowly tailored as to time and, consequently, the Court should order Defendant to produce all non-privileged responsive documents in connection with Request for Production No. 34. II. ARGUMENT A. THE DISCOVERY AND THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. The instant motion to compel only seeks documents from one narrowly tailored Requests for Production: e No. 34 - All documents evidencing any company layoffs or corporate restructuring from June 2015 through June 2016. (Stedfield Decl. para 2, Exh. A.) In response to the foregoing narrowly tailored request, Defendant lodged a series of objections including privacy and that the request is overbroad. 1 PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF OO 0 NN a un bh W N = N O N N N N N N Y N mm r e ee e d e m e d md p e t ee d 0 N N Ln R W = DO Y N N n hE W N = O On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel requesting that Defendant produce the requested documents as they go to the heart of Defendant’s defense in this case as Plaintiff was allegedly laid off in December 2015 as part of a company reorganization. (Stedfield Decl. para 4, Exh. C.) The parties continued to meet and confer over the next week and Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant that to alleviate privacy concerns the documents could be produced pursuant to the current negotiated protective order or that Defendant could redact the names of third parties in conjunction with a doe designation and redaction log. (Stedfield Decl. para 5, Exh. D.) The time frame is narrowly tailored and because Defendant is an extremely small organization the scope is narrowly tailored as well. The parties did not reach a resolution and in light of the nearing trial date and discovery cut-off, Plaintiff had to proceed with the instant motion, (Stedfield Decl. para 6.) B. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO RFP NO. 34. Section 2017.010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) provides that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery . ...” Tylo v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1387 (1997). “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement . . . .’ [Citation.]” Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc., 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1013 (2001). The purpose of the discovery statutes is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation and enable the litigants to avoid unnecessary surprise at trial. See Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 375 (1961). Discovery is designed to permit litigants to learn the nature and extent of their adversary’s evidence. 2 PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF O 0 0 N O N wn B W R N O N RN N N N N N NN = m m m e e t e m p m © N N On bh W N R R O 0 0 N N N E W N = O On a motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, the statutes require a showing of good cause to obtain the discovery. The term “good cause,” however, is liberally construed to permit rather than to prevent discovery. Greyhound Corp. v. Sup.Ct., 56 Cal. 2d 355, 377-78 (1961). And upon a showing of good cause, the propounding party is entitled to the production of documents requested unless the defendant can meet his burden of justifying his objections. Kirkland v. Sup. Ct, 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (2002). Good cause exists if the propounding party can show that the requested documents are relevant to the subject matter and that specific facts justify discovery. Glenfed Develop. Corp v. Sup Ct. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 1113, 1117 (1997). Furthermore, an order compelling further responses is also appropriate when the responses to the disputed requests contain meritless objections. C.C.P. § 2031.320. This request seeks all documents relating or pertaining to the reduction in force or layoff that resulted in the termination of Plaintiff’s employment in December 2015. Defendants legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for terminating Plaintiff is based on an allegedly bona fide reduction in force. Yet, they refuse to produce all documents related to the layoff. Plaintiff is entitled to the particular employees laid off in this reduction in force (or around the same time if any), the employees considered for layoff, documents that describe how they were chosen, notices that were provided under the federal Older Workers Benefits Act in connection with the layoff and whatever documents were relied upon to determine that layoffs were necessary in the first place. Plaintiff has agreed to enter into a stipulated protective order to cure any privacy or confidentiality issues and/or Defendant can also redact the names of third parties in conjunction with a doe designation and redaction log. (Stedfield Decl., para 3 to 4, Exhs. C and D.) Defendant claims it terminated Plaintiff as part of a bona fide reduction in force, and Plaintiff should be provided with the documents evidencing any legitimate reorganization around December 2015, the documents relied upon in deciding to restructure, documents evidencing the scope of the restructure, etc. Because these documents go the heart of Defendant’s defense in this case, Plaintiff has good cause for the production of such documents. 3 PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF OO 0 N N u n bh Ww ND = N O N DN N O N O N N N N m m e e ee e b pe d a pe d es WwW N Y In RR W N Re O Y N N R W ND = o IL CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court grant the instant Motion. Dated: November 19, 2018 4 GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP PAUL M. GLEASON BRANDYN E. STEDFIELD By: Brandyn E. Stedfield Attorneys for Plaintiff Markeisha Dawson PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF O R N Y nn W N BN N N N N N N N N m m m e e m e m e R e s em Ww N S N L h k W = O YO N S N R W N = Oo PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda Montemayor, declare: I am and was at the time of the service mentioned in this declaration, employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. 1am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Gleason & Favarote, LLP, 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300, Long Beach, CA 90807. On November 19, 2018, I served a copy(ies) of the following document(s): PLAINTIFF MARKEISHA DAWSON’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the parties to this action by placing them in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Attorney Party(ies) Served Method of Service Matthew A. Berliner Attorneys for Defendant | By Hand Eric J. Hardeman Barbells for Boobs FORTIS LLP (former corporate name 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530 “Mammograms in Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Action”) Tel.: (714) 839-3800 Fax: (714) 795-2995 Email: mberliner@fortislaw.com [] [BY MAIL] I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing by following the ordinary business practice of Gleason & Favarote, LLP, Long Beach, California. I am readily familiar with Gleason & Favarote, LLP’s practice for collecting and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, said practice being that, in the ordinary course of business, correspondence with postage fully prepaid is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection. [] [BY OVERNIGHT COURIER] I caused the sealed envelope(s) to be delivered by a commercial courier service for overnight delivery to the offices of the addressees). X [BY HAND] I directed the sealed envelope(s) to the party(ies) so designated on the service list to be delivered by Express Network this date. [BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION] I caused said document to be sent by facsimile transmission to the fax number indicated for the party(ies) listed above. L O [BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION] I caused said document to be sent by electronic transmission to the e-mail address indicated for the party(ies) listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on 2 at Long Beach, California. “Einida Montemayor Ls PROOF OF SERVICE
