Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 5, 2018

lectronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 03/27/2020 01:06:00 PM. 30-2018-004984724-CU-OE-CXC - ROA #144 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By e Clerk, Deputy Clerk. ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 jcampbell @aegislawfirm.com CAROLYN M. BELL, State Bar No. 313435 cbell@aegislawfirm.com 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew Holcomb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE If of all others similarly situat on behalf of all others similarly situated, Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. William D. Claster Flam, Dept. CX-104 vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO SUSPEND PRODUCTION OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION ACE HIGH CASINO RENTALS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Date: April 10, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION After years of flouting the law and stealing wages from its employees by classifying them as independent contractors, Defendant Ace High Casino Rentals, LLC (“Defendant”) now asks this Court to suspend production of the class member contact information so that Defendant has more time to liquidate its assets and avoid this lawsuit and a large potential judgment. Granting Defendant’s Motion sets a dangerous precedent-not only will the Court be paving an easy out for companies who want to avoid participating in litigation in good faith, the Court will be leaving Plaintiff without discovery to which he is entitled and preventing him from pursuing class-wide default if necessary. As such, the Court must deny the Motion in its entirety. IL. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed his putative class action complaint against Defendant seeking to represent himself and a class of individuals who were misclassified as independent contractors. See Complaint, generally. Plaintiff’s complaint also seeks individual damages for the period of time in which Plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee. Ibid. In January 2019, Plaintiff served written discovery seeking, among other things, contact information for the putative class members. See Declaration of Jessica L. Campbell (“Campbell Decl.”), § 3. During the meet and confer process, Plaintiff offered to enter into a protective order regarding the production of class member contact information in lieu of a Belaire notice. See Campbell Decl., { 4. In a supplemental response served on or about October 14, 2019, Defendant agreed to produce class contact information subject to a Belaire notice. See id. at 5. Following a dispute over the content of the Belaire notice, on February 13, 2020, the parties attended an informal discovery conference with the Court to obtain guidance on whether Plaintiff’s counsel’s contact information should be included on the Belaire notice. See Campbell Decl., | 6. As a result of the informal discovery conference and subsequent meet and confer efforts, Defendant agreed to produce the class contact information. See id. at 7. Despite this agreement, on February 25, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff correspondence stating that “it would be misleading to notify the putative class members of an action in which they -1- PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 will be unable to recover anything.” See Declaration of Brian C. Sinclair in Support of Motion for Protective Order (“Sinclair Decl.”), q 4, Ex. 1. In subsequent conversations, Plaintiff renewed his offer to enter into a protective order regarding the production of class member contact information, to which Defendant refused again. See Campbell Decl., 8. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. DEFENDANT’S CLAIMED FINANCIAL PREDICAMENT IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE Wholly absent from Defendant’s Motion is a citation to any legal authority supporting its position. Despite this, it remains clear that Defendant seeks a protective order excusing it from full and complete compliance with Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and its responses thereto, which seek class contact information. Motions for protective orders regarding interrogatories are governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.090. This Section requires the moving party establish good cause, and only protects the party from “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” Here, Defendant argues that it should not have to produce the class contact information because (1) Defendant has no money to continue to defend this action; and (2) it would be misleading to notify the putative class members of an action in which they will be unable to recover anything. See Motion, generally. However, neither of these reasons set forth the requisite good cause. Defendant’s financial predicament does not equate to any undue expense in complying with its discovery obligations. Defendant intentionally skirted California’s labor laws by misclassifying Plaintiff and class members as independent contractors and pocketed the profits. Plaintiff merely seeks information already in Defendant’s possession at minimal cost. Indeed, the cost for Rutan & Tucker to file the instant Motion likely exceed the cost of producing class contact information. Defendant has not provided any evidence of the cost of compliance with its discovery obligations. 2- PLAINTIFE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, were Defendant to proceed with formal bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise, Plaintiff, as a representative of the class, owes a duty to the class to obtain what information he can to support any eventual judgment (through default or proof of claims). Plaintiff cannot do so without contact information for the class members. Finally, and notably, Defendant’s basis for this Motion is disingenuous-Plaintiff previously offered to enter into a protective order regarding the handling of class member contact information, to which Defendant refused on multiple occasions. Any confusion and expense could have been wholly mitigated through such a procedure. Defendant’s refusal, however, highlights its true motivations behind its actions-it only seeks to delay so it can liquidate its assets that were obtained through its wage theft before any judgment is entered. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court must deny Defendant’s Motion in its entirety. Dated: March 27, 2020 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC By: - i (pet 4 Jessica L. Campbell Attorneys for Plaintiff <3 PLAINTIFE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER © 0 J O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N Em e m e m e m e m e m p m e d c o NN O N Ln BA A W I N D = O O 0 0 N N N N R E W N = O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; am employed with Aegis Law Firm PC and my business address is 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. On March 27, 2020, I served the foregoing document entitled eo PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO SUSPEND PRODUCTION OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing the original | a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Brian Sinclair Bsinclair @rutan.com Seth E. Ort Sort@rutan.com Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714-641-5100 Attorneys for Defendants: Ace High Casino Rentals, LLC ] (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) [] (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(¢c); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) X (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) to be served via electronic transmission via the above listed email addresses on the date below. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(6); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(E); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(3).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 27, 2020, at Irvine, California. . Carlsen CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE