LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 096838)
JULLIE Z. LAL (Cal. State Bar No. 279067)
ANDREA B. DICOLEN (Cal. State Bar No. 305555)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
jullielal@paulhastings.com
andreadicolen@paulhastings.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Target Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NEDA FARAJI, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, and as an
“aggrieved employee” on behalf of other
“aggrieved employees” under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendant(s).
No. 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP
DEFENDANT TARGET
CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS TO
AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER
DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Date: January 19, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 5D, First Street
Courthouse
350 W. 1st St., 5th Flr.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright II
Complaint filed: November 28, 2016
Trial date: None Set
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 53 Page ID #:5052
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) submits the following evidentiary
objections to the declarations of plaintiff Neda Faraji and putative class members
Eduardo Arvilla, Robert Hodsdon, Matthew Sullentrop, Steven Lopes, Sharad Sabharwal,
Dante Jones, Absalon Alonso, Andrew Sherwin, and Nolan Rak, which were submitted
by plaintiff in support of her Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff’s declaration was
lodged as ECF 49-2, and the putative class member declarations were attached as
Exhibits 53 to 61 of the Declaration of David Spivak in Support of Plaintiff Neda Faraji’s
Motion for Class Certification, lodged as ECF 49-3.
Target respectfully requests that the Court sustain its objections, and exclude
and/or strike as inadmissible specific portions of the declarations, as set forth in section II
below. C.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-7 (“Declarations shall contain only factual, evidentiary
matter and shall conform as far as possible to the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4).”);
see also United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601-02 (9th Cir. 1970) (improper
declarations are subject to a timely objection and may be stricken).
II. TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S AND PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS’ DECLARATIONS
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
1. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.” Faraji
Decl., ¶ 2.
Contradicts prior sworn testimony (Fed.
R. Evid. 613). Faraji testified at deposition
that she did have periods of time spanning
10 minutes where she was provided with an
uninterrupted break. (Faraji Depo., 582:3-
7.)
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 53 Page ID #:5053
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that she did not
receive overtime wages or take compliant
breaks is irrelevant to whether Target has a
common policy or practice, or is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
2. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work 10 to
12 hours per day for five days per
week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend three to four
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for ten-hour periods which mostly
involved:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area;
G. cashier duties;
H. locating customers’ online orders
from the back room;
I. collecting shopping carts from
the parking lot and returning
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
she knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; her statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which she allegedly
worked 10 to 12 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for three to
four days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which she or ETL-AP Tyler Timothy
allegedly was required to perform LOD
duties, nor establishes how much time she
or Mr. Timothy allegedly spent performing
such tasks. To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to infer, from the
declarant’s or Mr. Timothy’s alleged LOD
duties, some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that she was trained to perform
the listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the
issue of whether Target engaged in some
wage-and-hour practice that would give rise
to a violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or give rise to class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 3 of 53 Page ID #:5054
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
them to the store.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. ETL-AP
Christina Gavin trained me to work
in this way at Target’s Murrieta,
California store. Additionally, I
observed another ETL-AP, Tyler
Timothy, working in this way at
Target’s Hemet, California store
during the period of approximately
February of 2015 to August of 2015.”
Faraji Decl., ¶¶ 4.
3. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance, and loading and
unloading.” Faraji Decl., ¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of her work time on
the listed tasks, and whether she acted under
the directive of a common policy or
practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
4. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them with other ETLs.
Target failed to provide sufficient
payroll that would allow the store to
schedule enough hourly employees
for me and the other ETLs to delegate
these tasks. As a result, the tasks
could not have been completed unless
all ETLs, including myself,
performed them as well. On
numerous occasions, I told or
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 4 of 53 Page ID #:5055
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
suggested to my Store Team Leader
(“STL”) supervisor Katherine Clarke
that I was performing such tasks for
the majority of my workdays. She
never took issue with my doing so.
On one occasion, I complained to her
how such tasks were preventing me
from performing my other duties. She
responded, ‘I hate to break it to you,
girlfriend, but that is how retail is.’”
Faraji Decl., ¶ 6.
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification. That the declarant allegedly
“suggested” to her STL that the declarant
was performing the listed tasks for the
majority of her workdays is irrelevant to
whether the declarant was acting pursuant
to a common policy or practice, and to
whether Target had actual or constructive
knowledge.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement repeating the
purported comment by Katherine Clarke is
inadmissible hearsay.
Lacks foundation; speculation (Fed. R.
Evid. 901); improper lay opinion (Fed. R.
Evid. 701). The declarant does not provide
a basis for her opinion that Target failed to
provide sufficient payroll that would allow
the store to schedule enough hourly
employees for her and the other ETLs to
delegate these non-managerial tasks.
Therefore, that statement lacks foundation
and is speculative, and it is an improper lay
opinion.
5. “My managers at Target, including
STLs Linda Roebuck, Katherine
Clarke, and Jamie Schossow,
knowingly required me to work
through my meal and rest periods.
While on duty, my managers required
me to have my assigned handheld
transceiver within reach and hearing
and respond to calls immediately at
all times. STLs Linda Roebuck,
Katherine Clarke, and Jamie
Schossow discouraged me from
leaving the store or engaging in
activities that would prevent me from
monitoring the transceiver, including
breaks, and at all other times.
According to Target management
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for her
conclusion that her managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which her
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent her from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that she was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede her ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 5 of 53 Page ID #:5056
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
employees who trained me and
supervised me, how quickly I
responded was one of Target’s
criteria for measuring my work
performance.” Faraji Decl., ¶ 7.
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
6. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods within the first
five hours of my daily work or 10-
minute rest periods every four hours
worked.” Faraji Decl., ¶ 8.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
7. “STLs Linda Roebuck, Katherine
Clarke, and Jamie Schossow and
Asset Protection Business Partners
Casey Heagle and Stacey Puza
frequently sent me text messages and
emails to assign me new tasks and
request status updates.” Faraji Decl.,
¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Linda Roebuck, Katherine
Clarke, Jamie Schossow, Casey Heagle and
Stacey Puza is inadmissible hearsay.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 6 of 53 Page ID #:5057
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
8. “ETL-AP Christina Gavin trained me
to follow specific guidelines when
scheduling the TPS and to schedule
the TPS to work for the number of
hours Target permitted me to. At
Hemet and Temecula, I did not
schedule the work hours of any
employees because Target did not
assign me any hourly employees.”
Faraji Decl., ¶ 10.
Contradicts prior sworn testimony (Fed.
R. Evid. 613). Faraji testified at deposition
that she was assigned Target Protection
Specialists and Asset Protection Specialists
at the Hemet and Temecula stores. (Faraji
Depo., 179:7-16.)
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant does not explain
whether Target required that she follow,
and whether the declarant did in fact follow,
the scheduling guidelines. Without such an
explanation, the declarant’s description of
how she personally was trained is irrelevant
to whether a common policy or practice
gives rise to a wage-and-hour violation
alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise
to class certification. Similarly, the
declarant’s statement that she was not
assigned hourly employees specifically at
the Hemet and Temecula stores is irrelevant
to whether Target is liable for some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification.
9. “Even though the TPS was involved
in AP, I had very little control over
him because other Target managers
outside of my store assigned him his
work routines and directly assigned
him daily tasks. Target did not permit
me to modify these routines or daily
tasks. Other than the TPS employee,
Target assigned no other hourly
employee to AP at the Corona store.”
Faraji Decl., ¶ 11.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how she
knows that other managers assigned work to
the TPS. The declarant also does not
explain whether the declarant was able or
expected to supervise the TPS in his tasks,
and whether the declarant was able or
expected to assign additional tasks to the
TPS. Without such explanation, the
declarant’s statement that she “had very
little control” over the TPS lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 7 of 53 Page ID #:5058
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
would give rise to class certification.
10. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Faraji Decl., ¶ 12.
Contradicts prior sworn testimony (Fed.
R. Evid. 613). Faraji testified at deposition
that she could interview and recommend
team members for hire. (Faraji Depo.,
406:22-408:9.)
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for her assertion
that she was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of her job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification.
11. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Faraji Decl.,
¶ 13.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs she knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
12. “To the best of my knowledge, I have
no conflicts of interest with the other
Improper legal conclusion. Whether the
declarant has any conflicts of interest with
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 8 of 53 Page ID #:5059
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
FARAJI DECLARATION (ECF 49-2)
Testimony Objections
Target current and former ETL-APs
that may be part of this case.” Faraji
Decl., ¶ 19.
the other putative class members is a legal
issue for the Court, not a fact.
Improper lay opinion, lacks foundation,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 901).
The declarant does not provide any basis for
her opinion that she has no conflicts of
interest with the putative class members.
13. l “I can and will represent the interests
of all members of this class in
litigation to recover money for the
other ETL-APs that are part of the
class. I understand that the class will
consist of all current and former
ETL-APs that were subject to
Target’s policies and procedures and
who were not paid for all hours
worked and who were not provided
with rest and meal periods as
required by California law.” Faraji
Decl., ¶ 20.
Improper legal conclusion. Whether the
declarant can and will represent the interests
of putative class members is a legal issue
for the Court, not a fact.
14. “[T]he savings of time, money and
effort should benefit all parties to the
lawsuit and the Court.” Faraji Decl.,
¶ 21.
Improper legal conclusion. To the extent
the declarant suggests that purported
“savings of time, money and effort” make
this case proper for class treatment, that
determination is a legal issue for the Court,
not a fact.
Improper lay opinion, lacks foundation,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 901).
The declarant does not provide any basis for
her statement that proceeding in a class
would benefit all parties and the Court.
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
15. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
Contradicts prior sworn testimony (Fed.
R. Evid. 613). Arvilla testified at
deposition that he did have periods of time
spanning 10 minutes long where he was
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 9 of 53 Page ID #:5060
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.”
Arvilla Decl., ¶ 2.
provided with an uninterrupted break.
(Arvilla Depo., 378:16-22.)
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
16. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work ten to
twelve hours per day for five days per
week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend three to four
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for ten-hour periods which mostly
involved:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 10 to 12 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for three to
four days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he or ETL-AP Neda Faraji allegedly
was required to perform LOD duties, nor
establishes how much time he or Ms. Faraji
allegedly spent performing such tasks. To
the extent the declarant invites the Court to
infer, from the declarant’s or Ms. Faraji’s
alleged LOD duties, some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 10 of 53 Page ID #:5061
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
from the back room to the sales
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. ETL-AP Kyle
Collingwood trained me to work in
this way at Target’s Norco,
California store. Additionally, I
observed another ETL-AP Neda
Faraji working in this way at Target’s
Corona, California store during the
period of June of 2015 to May of
2016.” Arvilla Decl., ¶ 3.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
17. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Arvilla Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
18. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Arvilla Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 11 of 53 Page ID #:5062
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
19. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leaders (“STLs”)
Jennifer Paige Silva, Tara Esparza,
Katherine Clark, and Isela Navarro,
knowingly required me to work
through my meal and rest periods.
While on duty, my managers required
me to have my assigned handheld
transceiver within reach and hearing
and respond to calls immediately at
all times. Store Team Leaders
(“STLs”) Silva, Esparza, Clark, and
Navarro and ETL-AP Collingwood
discouraged me from leaving the
store or engaging in activities that
would prevent me from monitoring
the transceiver, including breaks, and
at all other times. According to
Target management employees who
trained me and supervised me, my
level of responsiveness was one of
Target’s criteria for measuring my
work performance.” Arvilla Decl.,
¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
20. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Arvilla Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
21. “Store Team Leaders (“STLs”) Silva,
Esparza, Clark, and Navarro and
Asset Protection Business Partner
Stacy Puza frequently sent me text
messages and emails to assign me
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 12 of 53 Page ID #:5063
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
new tasks and request status
updates.” Arvilla Decl., ¶ 8.
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Silva, Esparza, Clark,
Navarro, and Stacy Puza is inadmissible
hearsay.
22. “Even though Target Protection
Specialist (“TPS”) and Asset
Protection Specialist (“APS”)
employees were involved in Asset
Protection at Target stores, I had very
little control over them because
Target’s corporate office assigned
them their work routines. Target’s
corporate office also directly
assigned them daily tasks. Target did
not permit me to change these
routines and duties.” Arvilla Decl.,
¶ 9.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that “Target’s corporate office”
assigned work to the TPS and APS. The
declarant also does not explain whether the
declarant was able or expected to supervise
the TPS and APS employees in their tasks,
and whether the declarant was able or
expected to assign additional tasks to the
TPS and APS. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement that he “had very
little control” over the TPS and APS lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
23. “Other than TPSs and APSs, Target
assigned me no other subordinates.”
Arvilla Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of subordinates that
were assigned to the declarant specifically
is irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
24. “Target’s corporate office set a
number of hours that the APSs could
schedule subordinates for each
weekly to monthly period and
required APSs to schedule them
strictly within the number of hours it
provided.” Arvilla Decl.”), ¶ 11.
Contradicts prior sworn testimony (Fed.
R. Evid. 613). Arvilla testified at
deposition that he was responsible for
scheduling his subordinates, but he chose to
let his APS do it. He also testified that he
was specifically told by Target to schedule
his subordinates himself. (Arvilla Depo.,
271:22-273:5.)
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how APS employees
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 13 of 53 Page ID #:5064
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
were expected to make scheduling
decisions.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That APS employees may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
25. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Arvilla Decl., ¶ 12.
Contradicts prior sworn testimony (Fed.
R. Evid. 613). Arvilla testified at
deposition that he interviewed a team
member, made a recommendation to
Human Resources, and that the
recommendation was followed. (Arvilla
Depo., 255:22-256:16.)
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
26. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 14 of 53 Page ID #:5065
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-14-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ARVILLA DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 53)
Testimony Objections
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Arvilla Decl.,
¶ 13.
give rise to class certification.
HODSDON DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 54)
Testimony Objections
27. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.”
Hodsdon Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
28. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work ten to
thirteen hours per day for five days
per week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend three to four
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for ten-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 10 to 13 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for three to
four days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he or ETL-AP Danny Kasoss
allegedly was required to perform LOD
duties, nor establishes how much time he or
Mr. Kasoss allegedly spent performing such
tasks. To the extent the declarant invites
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 15 of 53 Page ID #:5066
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HODSDON DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 54)
Testimony Objections
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. ETL-AP Mike
Eveilo trained me to work in this way
at Target’s Mountain View,
California store. Additionally, I
observed another ETL-AP, Danny
Kasoss, working in this way at
Target’s San Mateo, California store
during the period of February of 2010
to September of 2016.” Hodsdon
Decl., ¶ 3.
the Court to infer, from the declarant’s or
Mr. Kasoss’ alleged LOD duties, some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
29. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Hodsdon Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
30. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 16 of 53 Page ID #:5067
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-16-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HODSDON DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 54)
Testimony Objections
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Hodsdon Decl., ¶ 5.
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
31. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leaders (“STLs”) Sam
Dukes, John Williams and Sean
Shugre, knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my managers
required me to have my assigned
handheld transceiver within reach
and hearing and respond to calls
immediately at all times. STLs Sam
Dukes, John Williams and Sean
Shugre and ETL-AP Mike Eveilo
discouraged me from leaving the
store or engaging in activities that
would prevent me from monitoring
the transceiver, including breaks, and
at all other times. According to
Target management employees who
trained me and supervised me, my
level of responsiveness was one of
Target’s criteria for measuring my
work performance.” Hodsdon Decl.,
¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
32. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Hodsdon Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 17 of 53 Page ID #:5068
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-17-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HODSDON DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 54)
Testimony Objections
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
33. “STLs Sam Dukes, John Williams
and Sean Shugre and Asset
Protection Business Partners Taylor
Henson, Emily Relenso, Daniella
Peregreiña and Kevin Taylor
frequently sent me text messages and
emails to assign me new tasks and
request status updates.” Hodsdon
Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Sam Dukes, John Williams,
Sean Shugre, Taylor Henson, Emily
Relenso, Daniella Peregreiña and Kevin
Taylor is inadmissible hearsay.
34. “Target set the number of hours I was
permitted to schedule these
employees.” Hodsdon Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
35. “Even though they were involved in
AP, I had very little control over the
TPS and APS employees because
other Target employees assigned
them their work routines and directly
assigned them daily tasks. Target did
not permit me to modify these
routines or daily tasks. Other than
TPS and APS employees, Target
assigned one other hourly APTL
employee to AP at Target’s Deli City,
California store and no other
employee to AP at Target’s Mountain
View, California store.” Hodsdon
Decl., ¶ 10.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that other employees assigned work
to the TPS and APS. The declarant also
does not explain whether the declarant was
able or expected to supervise the TPS and
APS employees in their tasks, and whether
the declarant was able or expected to assign
additional tasks to the TPS and APS.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement that he “had very little control”
over the TPS and APS lacks foundation and
is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 18 of 53 Page ID #:5069
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-18-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HODSDON DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 54)
Testimony Objections
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
36. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Hodsdon Decl., ¶ 11.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
37. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Hodsdon
Decl., ¶ 12.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 19 of 53 Page ID #:5070
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-19-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SULLENTROP DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 55)
Testimony Objections
38. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.”
Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
39. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work ten to
twelve hours per day for five days per
week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend three to four
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for eight to ten-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
floor;
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 10 to 12 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for three to
four days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he or ETL-AP Lenny Ski allegedly
was required to perform LOD duties, nor
establishes how much time he or Mr. Ski
allegedly spent performing such tasks. To
the extent the declarant invites the Court to
infer, from the declarant’s or Mr. Ski’s
alleged LOD duties, some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 20 of 53 Page ID #:5071
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SULLENTROP DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 55)
Testimony Objections
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. ETL-AP
Richard Alvarez trained me to work
in this way at Target’s South Gate,
California store. Additionally, I
observed another ETL-AP, Lenny
Michael Ski, working in this way at
Target’s Northridge, California store
during the period of May of 2007 to
2012 or 2013.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 3.
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
40. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
41. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 21 of 53 Page ID #:5072
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SULLENTROP DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 55)
Testimony Objections
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
42. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leaders (“STLs”) Amber
Loranza, and Manny (unknown last
name), knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my managers
required me to have my assigned
handheld transceiver within reach
and hearing and respond to calls
immediately at all times. STLs
Amber Loranza, and Manny
(unknown last name) and ETL-AP
Richard Alvarez discouraged me
from leaving the store or engaging in
activities that would prevent me from
monitoring the transceiver, including
breaks, and at all other times.
According to Target management
employees who trained me and
supervised me, my level of
responsiveness was one of Target’s
criteria for measuring my work
performance.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
individual identified as “Manny” and thus,
Target cannot identify the person with
reasonable certainty.
43. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
44. “STLs Amber Loranza, and Manny Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 22 of 53 Page ID #:5073
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-22-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SULLENTROP DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 55)
Testimony Objections
(unknown last name) and Asset
Protection Business Partner Josh
Strom frequently sent me text
messages and emails to assign me
new tasks and request status
updates.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 8.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Amber Loranza, Manny, and
Josh Strom is inadmissible hearsay.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
individual identified as “Manny” and thus,
Target cannot identify the person with
reasonable certainty.
45. “Target set the number of hours I was
permitted to schedule these
employees.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
46. “Even though they were involved in
AP, I had very little control over the
TPS and APS employees because
other Target employees assigned
them their work routines and directly
assigned them daily tasks. Target did
not permit me to modify these
routines or daily tasks. Other than
TPS and APS employees, Target
assigned one other hourly APTL
employee to AP at Target’s Van
Nuys and Eagle Rock stores and no
other employee to AP at Target’s
Northridge, Topanga, and Azusa,
California stores.” Sullentrop Decl.,
¶ 10.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that other employees assigned work
to the TPS and APS. The declarant also
does not explain whether the declarant was
able or expected to supervise the TPS and
APS employees in their tasks, and whether
the declarant was able or expected to assign
additional tasks to the TPS and APS.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement that he “had very little control”
over the TPS and APS lacks foundation and
is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 23 of 53 Page ID #:5074
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-23-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SULLENTROP DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 55)
Testimony Objections
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
47. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Sullentrop Decl., ¶ 11.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
48. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Sullentrop
Decl., ¶ 12.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 24 of 53 Page ID #:5075
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-24-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LOPES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 56)
Testimony Objections
49. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.” Lopes
Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
50. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work ten to
fourteen hours per day for five to six-
days per week. Further, Target
managers required me to spend three
to four days out of my five to six-day
workweek as a leader on duty
(“LOD”). Target also assigned LOD
responsibilities to Team Leads
(“TLs”), Target hourly workers.
Based on my observations of the
LODs at work, Target required LODs
to perform the following duties for
five to seven-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 10 to 14 hours per day for five to
six days per week, or worked as an LOD for
three to four days per week. Likewise, the
declarant neither explains the circumstances
under which he or ETL-APs John Crain or
Robert Bohen allegedly was required to
perform LOD duties, nor establishes how
much time he, Mr. Crain, or Mr. Bohen
allegedly spent performing such tasks. To
the extent the declarant invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s, Mr. Crain’s, or
Mr. Bohen’s alleged LOD duties, some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 25 of 53 Page ID #:5076
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-25-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LOPES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 56)
Testimony Objections
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. I was trained
to work in this way at Target’s
Albany and Davis, California stores.
Additionally, I observed other ETL-
APs working in this way during the
period of April of 2011 to May of
2013, including John Crain at
Target’s down town Sacramento,
California store and Robert Bohen at
Target’s Lodi, California store.”
Lopes Decl., ¶ 3.
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
51. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
52. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 26 of 53 Page ID #:5077
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LOPES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 56)
Testimony Objections
Lopes Decl., ¶ 5. Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
53. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leader (“STL”) Brandon
Eaton, knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my
managers required me to have my
assigned handheld transceiver within
reach and hearing and respond to
calls immediately at all times. STL
Brandon Eaton discouraged me from
leaving the store or engaging in
activities that would prevent me from
monitoring the transceiver, including
breaks, and at all other times.
According to Target management
employees who trained me and
supervised me, my level of
responsiveness was one of Target’s
criteria for measuring my work
performance.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
54. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
55. “STL Brandon Eaton and Asset
Protection Business Partner Jessica
(last name unknown) frequently sent
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 27 of 53 Page ID #:5078
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-27-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LOPES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 56)
Testimony Objections
me text messages and emails to
assign me new tasks and request
status updates.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 8.
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Brandon Eaton and Jessica is
inadmissible hearsay.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
individual identified as “Jessica” and thus,
Target cannot identify the person with
reasonable certainty.
56. “Target set the number of hours I was
permitted to schedule these
employees.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
57. “Even though they were involved in
AP, I had very little control over the
TPS and APS employees because
other Target employees assigned
them their work routines and directly
assigned them daily tasks. Target did
not permit me to modify these
routines or daily tasks. Other than
TPS and APS employees, Target
assigned no other hourly employee to
AP at my stores.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 10.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that other employees assigned work
to the TPS and APS. The declarant also
does not explain whether the declarant was
able or expected to supervise the TPS and
APS employees in their tasks, and whether
the declarant was able or expected to assign
additional tasks to the TPS and APS.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement that he “had very little control”
over the TPS and APS lacks foundation and
is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 28 of 53 Page ID #:5079
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-28-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LOPES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 56)
Testimony Objections
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
58. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Lopes Decl., ¶ 11.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
59. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Lopes Decl.,
¶ 12.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint that would give rise to
class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 29 of 53 Page ID #:5080
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-29-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SABHARWAL DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 57)
Testimony Objections
60. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.”
Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
61. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work ten to
eleven hours per day for five days per
week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend four to five
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for five to eight-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
floor;
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 10 to 11 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for four to
five days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he or ETL-AP Diana Joyce allegedly
was required to perform LOD duties, nor
establishes how much time he or Ms. Joyce
allegedly spent performing such tasks. To
the extent the declarant invites the Court to
infer, from the declarant’s or Ms. Joyce’s
alleged LOD duties, some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 30 of 53 Page ID #:5081
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-30-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SABHARWAL DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 57)
Testimony Objections
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. Additionally, I
observed another ETL-AP, Diana
Joyce, working in this way at
Target’s Pinole and Richmond,
California stores during the period of
January of 2010 to May of 2016”
Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 3.
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was required to perform
the listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the
issue of whether Target engaged in some
wage-and-hour practice that would give rise
to a violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or give rise to class certification.
62. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
63. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 31 of 53 Page ID #:5082
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-31-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SABHARWAL DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 57)
Testimony Objections
certification.
64. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leaders (“STLs”)
Richard (last name unknown),
Merideth Klauser, Lydia Stroup,
Jasenka (last name unknown), Gina
Steffen, Stephanie Shinok, Salvador
Vela, Stanton Johnson, and Grace
Kwon, knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my managers
required me to have my assigned
handheld transceiver within reach
and hearing and respond to calls
immediately at all times. STLs
Richard (last name unknown),
Merideth Klauser, Lydia Stroup,
Jasenka (last name unknown), Gina
Steffen, Stephanie Shinok, Salvador
Vela, Stanton Johnson, and Grace
Kwon discouraged me from leaving
the store or engaging in activities that
would prevent me from monitoring
the transceiver, including breaks, and
at all other times. According to
Target management employees who
trained me and supervised me, my
level of responsiveness was one of
Target’s criteria for measuring my
work performance.” Sabharwal
Decl., ¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
individuals identified as “Richard,” and
“Jasenka,” and thus, Target cannot identify
these persons with reasonable certainty.
65. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
66. “STLs Richard (last name unknown),
Merideth Klauser, Lydia Stroup,
Jasenka (last name unknown), Gina
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 32 of 53 Page ID #:5083
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-32-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SABHARWAL DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 57)
Testimony Objections
Steffen, Stephanie Shinok, Salvador
Vela, Stanton Johnson, and Grace
Kwon and Asset Protection Business
Partners Veronica (last name
unknown), David Lake, Beth Link,
Ashley Jones, and Alex A. frequently
sent me text messages and emails to
assign me new tasks and request
status updates.” Sabharwal Decl.,
¶ 8.
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Richard, Merideth Klauser,
Lydia Stroup, Jasenka, Gina Steffen,
Stephanie Shinok, Salvador Vela, Stanton
Johnson, Grace Kwon, Veronica, David
Lake, Beth Link, Ashley Jones, and Alex A.
is inadmissible hearsay.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
individuals identified as “Richard,”
“Jasenka,” and “Veronica,” and thus, Target
cannot identify these persons with
reasonable certainty.
67. “Target set the number of hours I was
permitted to schedule these
employees.” Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
68. “Even though they were involved in
AP, I had very little control over the
TPS and APS employees because
Target’s other employees assigned
them their work routines and directly
assigned them daily tasks. Target did
not permit me to modify these
routines or daily tasks. Other than
TPS and APS employees, Target
assigned no other hourly employee to
AP at my stores.” Sabharwal Decl.,
¶ 10.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that other employees assigned work
to the TPS and APS. The declarant also
does not explain whether the declarant was
able or expected to supervise the TPS and
APS employees in their tasks, and whether
the declarant was able or expected to assign
additional tasks to the TPS and APS.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement that he “had very little control”
over the TPS and APS lacks foundation and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 33 of 53 Page ID #:5084
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-33-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SABHARWAL DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 57)
Testimony Objections
is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
69. “Target managers did not allow me to
make firing decisions. I did not have
the authority to make decisions
regarding budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, what types of
services or merchandise the store
could provide to its customers,
advertising, store hours, store
locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Sabharwal Decl., ¶ 11.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
70. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Sabharwal
Decl., ¶ 12.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint that would give rise to
class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 34 of 53 Page ID #:5085
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-34-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
JONES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 58)
Testimony Objections
71. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.” Jones
Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
72. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work twelve
to thirteen hours per day for five days
per week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend three to four
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for five to eight-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 12 to 13 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for three to
four days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he and other ETL-APs allegedly
were required to perform LOD duties, nor
establishes how much time he and other
ETL-APs allegedly spent performing such
tasks. To the extent the declarant invites
the Court to infer, from the declarant’s
alleged LOD duties, some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 35 of 53 Page ID #:5086
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-35-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
JONES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 58)
Testimony Objections
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. I was trained
to work in this way at Target’s
Livermore, California store.
Additionally, I observed other ETL-
APs working in this way at Target’s
San Jose, Livermore and San Ramon,
California stores during the period of
October of 2016 to March of 2017.”
Jones Decl., ¶ 3.
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
73. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Jones Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
74. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Jones Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 36 of 53 Page ID #:5087
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-36-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
JONES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 58)
Testimony Objections
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
75. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leader (“STL”) Tyler
Hersome, knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my managers
required me to have my assigned
handheld transceiver within reach
and hearing and respond to calls
immediately at all times. STL Tyler
Hersome discouraged me from
leaving the store or engaging in
activities that would prevent me from
monitoring the transceiver, including
breaks, and at all other times.
According to Target management
employees who trained me and
supervised me, my level of
responsiveness was one of Target’s
criteria for measuring my work
performance.” Jones Decl., ¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
76. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Jones Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
77. “STL Tyler Hersome and Asset
Protection Business Partner Ellie
Chung frequently sent me text
messages and emails to assign me
new tasks and request status
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 37 of 53 Page ID #:5088
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-37-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
JONES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 58)
Testimony Objections
updates.” Jones Decl., ¶ 8. and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Tyler Hersome and Ellie
Chung is inadmissible hearsay.
78. “Target set the number of hours
permitted to schedule these
employees.” Jones Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
79. “Other than TPS and APS
employees, Target assigned one other
hourly APTL employee to AP at my
store.” Jones Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
80. “Target managers did not allow me to
make firing decisions. Neither did my
managers at Target allow me to pick
what types of employees I could have
working at my assigned store, other
than in AP. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Jones Decl., ¶ 11.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
81. “At no time during my employment Lacks foundation, conclusory,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 38 of 53 Page ID #:5089
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-38-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
JONES DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 58)
Testimony Objections
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Jones Decl.,
¶ 12.
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint that would give rise to
class certification.
ALONSO DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 59)
Testimony Objections
82. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.”
Alonso Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 39 of 53 Page ID #:5090
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-39-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ALONSO DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 59)
Testimony Objections
83. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work twelve
to fourteen hours per day for five
days per week. Further, Target
managers required me to spend four
to five days out of my five-day
workweek as a leader on duty
(“LOD”). Target also assigned LOD
responsibilities to Team Leads
(“TLs”), Target hourly workers.
Based on my observations of the
LODs at work, Target required LODs
to perform the following duties for
six to nine-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. ETL-AP
Athena Lemus trained me to work in
this way at Target’s San Leandro,
California store. Additionally, I
observed other ETL-APs working in
this way during the month of
December of 2012, including Sharad
Sabharwal at Target’s Emeryville,
California store and LoVell McElroy
at Target’s Hayward, California
store.” Alonso Decl., ¶ 3.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 12 to 14 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for four to
five days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he or ETL-APs Sharad Sabharwal
and LoVell McElroy allegedly were
required to perform LOD duties, nor
establishes how much time he, Mr.
Sabharwal, or Mr. McElroy allegedly spent
performing such tasks. To the extent the
declarant invites the Court to infer, from the
declarant’s or other ETL-APs’ alleged LOD
duties, some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 40 of 53 Page ID #:5091
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-40-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ALONSO DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 59)
Testimony Objections
84. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Alonso Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
85. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Alonso Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
86. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leaders (“STLs”) Gary
(last name unknown) and Flavio
Garzon knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my managers
required me to have my assigned
handheld transceiver within reach
and hearing and respond to calls
immediately at all times. STLs Gary
(last name unknown) and Flavio
Garzon and ETL-AP Athena Lemus
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 41 of 53 Page ID #:5092
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-41-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ALONSO DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 59)
Testimony Objections
discouraged me from leaving the
store or engaging in activities that
would prevent me from monitoring
the transceiver, including breaks, and
at all other times. According to
Target management employees who
trained me and supervised me, my
level of responsiveness was one of
Target’s criteria for measuring my
work performance.” Alonso Decl.,
¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
individual identified as “Gary” and thus,
Target cannot identify the person with
reasonable certainty.
87. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Alonso Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
88. “STLs Gary (last name unknown)
and Flavio Garzon frequently sent me
text messages and emails to assign
me new tasks and request status
updates. Asset Protection Business
Partners Joe Forbes and Chris Shuler
frequently sent emails to assign me
new tasks and request status
updates.” Alonso Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Gary, Flavio Garzon, Joe
Forbes and Chris Shuler is inadmissible
hearsay.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not provide a last name for the
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 42 of 53 Page ID #:5093
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-42-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ALONSO DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 59)
Testimony Objections
individual identified as “Gary” and thus,
Target cannot identify the person with
reasonable certainty.
89. “Target set the total number of hours
I was permitted to distribute to these
employees.” Alonso Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
90. “Other than TPS and APS
employees, Target assigned no other
hourly employee to AP at my stores.”
Alonso Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
91. “I did not have the authority to make
decisions regarding budgeting, job
descriptions, employee handbooks,
investigating discrimination or
harassment complaints, what types of
services or merchandise the store
could provide to its customers,
advertising, store hours, store
locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Alonso Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
92. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Alonso
Decl., ¶ 12.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 43 of 53 Page ID #:5094
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-43-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
ALONSO DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 59)
Testimony Objections
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
SHERWIN DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 60)
Testimony Objections
93. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.”
Sherwin Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification.
94. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target managers required me to work nine
to ten hours per day for five days per
week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend two to three
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for eight-hour periods:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 9 to 10 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for two to
three days per week. Likewise, the
declarant neither explains the circumstances
under which he was required to perform
LOD duties, nor establishes how much time
he allegedly spent performing such tasks.
To the extent the declarant invites the Court
to infer, from the declarant’s alleged LOD
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 44 of 53 Page ID #:5095
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-44-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SHERWIN DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 60)
Testimony Objections
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
F. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. ETL-AP
Jeremy Dawson trained me to work
in this way at Target’s Paso Robles,
California store.” Sherwin Decl., ¶ 3.
duties, some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was trained to perform the
listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the issue
of whether Target engaged in some wage-
and-hour practice that would give rise to a
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
give rise to class certification.
95. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, shelving, zoning,
signing, moving merchandise,
serving customers, locating
customers’ online orders from the
back room, cashiering, cleaning,
surveillance and apprehension,
ordering supplies, and loading and
unloading.” Sherwin Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
96. “The only way I could make sure that
these tasks were completed was to
help complete them myself. Because
the store did not have enough hourly
employees for me to assign these
tasks to, they would not have been
completed if I had attempted to
delegate them to others without
helping complete them myself.”
Sherwin Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 45 of 53 Page ID #:5096
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-45-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SHERWIN DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 60)
Testimony Objections
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
97. “My managers at Target, including
Store Team Leader (“STL”) Marie
Duenow, knowingly required me to
work through my meal and rest
periods. While on duty, my managers
required me to have my assigned
handheld transceiver within reach
and hearing and respond to calls
immediately at all times. STL
Duenow discouraged me from
leaving the store or engaging in
activities that would prevent me from
monitoring the transceiver, including
breaks, and at all other times.
According to Target management
employees who trained me and
supervised me, my level of
responsiveness was one of Target’s
criteria for measuring my work
performance.” Sherwin Decl., ¶ 6.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
conclusion that his managers “knowingly”
required the declarant to work through
breaks. Likewise, the declarant fails to
establish the circumstances under which his
managers allegedly “discouraged” the
declarant from engaging in activities that
would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
98. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Sherwin Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
99. “STL Duenow and Asset Protection
Business Partner Richard Drahsen
would call and email me to assign
new tasks and request status updates”
Sherwin Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 46 of 53 Page ID #:5097
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-46-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SHERWIN DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 60)
Testimony Objections
lacks foundation and is speculative.
100. “Target set the number of hours I was
permitted to schedule these
employees.” Sherwin Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
101. “Even though they were involved in
AP, I had very little control over the
TPS employees because other Target
employees assigned them their work
routines and directly assigned them
daily tasks. Target did not permit me
to modify these routines or daily
tasks. Other than TPS employees,
Target assigned no other hourly
employee to AP at my store.”
Sherwin Decl., ¶ 10.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that other employees assigned work
to the TPS and APS. The declarant also
does not explain whether the declarant was
able or expected to supervise the TPS and
APS employees in their tasks, and whether
the declarant was able or expected to assign
additional tasks to the TPS and APS.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement that he “had very little control”
over the TPS and APS lacks foundation and
is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to Asset Protection at a particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
102. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 47 of 53 Page ID #:5098
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-47-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
SHERWIN DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 60)
Testimony Objections
to its customers, advertising, store
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Sherwin Decl., ¶ 11.
scope of his job of managing security and
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
103. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Sherwin
Decl., ¶ 12.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
RAK DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 61)
Testimony Objections
104. “While I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not pay me overtime wages and did
not provide me with duty-free, 30-
minute meal periods before I worked
more than five hours in a day. Also,
while I was an ETL-AP, Target did
not permit me to take 10-minute
duty-free rest periods every four
hours that I worked in a day.” Rak
Decl., ¶ 2.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not offer
any basis on which to conclude that the
declarant was entitled to overtime wages.
The declarant also does not explain the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly did not take compliant meal and
rest breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without more, the declarant’s
conclusory statement that he did not receive
overtime wages or take compliant breaks is
irrelevant to whether Target has a common
policy or practice, or is liable for some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 48 of 53 Page ID #:5099
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-48-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
RAK DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 61)
Testimony Objections
rise to class certification.
105. “When I was an ETL-AP, Target
managers required me to work nine
to ten hours per day for five days per
week. Further, Target managers
required me to spend three to four
days out of my five-day workweek as
a leader on duty (“LOD”). Target
also assigned LOD responsibilities to
Team Leads (“TLs”), Target hourly
workers. Based on my observations
of the LODs at work, Target required
LODs to perform the following duties
for five to seven-hour periods which
mostly involved:
A. inspecting aisles and alerting the
system of products that need
replenishing;
B. shelving moved, returned, or
sold-out products;
C. organizing aisles;
D. inspecting and discarding trash;
E. pushing pallets of merchandise
from the back room to the sales
floor;
F. sweeping and mopping the trash
area; and
G. cashier duties.
On days Target did not assign me to
be the LOD, Target still required me
to perform such work. I observed
other ETL-APs working in this way,
including: Robert Kovacs at Target’s
Gilroy, California store during the
period of February 2012 to 2013,
Adolfo Pando at Target’s Saratoga,
California store during the period of
February 2012 to 2014, Stephen
Hayth at Target’s Sand City,
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to provide any basis for how
he knows what duties the LODs and other
ETL-APs performed; his statements lack
foundation and are speculative.
The declarant does not explain the
circumstances under which he allegedly
worked 9 to 10 hours per day for five days
per week, or worked as an LOD for three to
four days per week. Likewise, the declarant
neither explains the circumstances under
which he or other ETL-APs allegedly were
required to perform LOD duties, nor
establishes how much time he or other
ETL-APs allegedly spent performing such
tasks. To the extent the declarant invites
the Court to infer, from the declarant’s or
other ETL-APs’ alleged LOD duties, some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Without establishing how much
time the declarant allegedly spent
performing LOD duties, the declarant’s
statement that he was required to perform
the listed LOD duties is irrelevant to the
issue of whether Target engaged in some
wage-and-hour practice that would give rise
to a violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or give rise to class certification.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 49 of 53 Page ID #:5100
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-49-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
RAK DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 61)
Testimony Objections
California store during the period of
February 2012 to 2013, and Sean
Christiansen at Target’s Sand City,
California store during the period of
February 2012 to 2014.” Rak Decl.,
¶ 3.
106. “When I was not serving as the LOD,
I spent most of my ETL-AP work
time inspecting and organizing
merchandise, moving merchandise,
surveillance and apprehension, and
ordering supplies.” Rak Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s statement is
irrelevant without an explanation of the
circumstances under which the declarant
allegedly spent most of his work time on the
listed tasks, and whether he acted under the
directive of a common policy or practice.
Vague and ambiguous. The declarant
does not describe the specific tasks that he
performed as part of “serving customers” or
“surveillance” –– some of which may
constitute management-level duties that
require the exercise of independent
judgment and discretion.
107. “Because the store did not have
enough hourly employees for me to
assign these tasks to, I was unable to
delegate them to others and had to
help complete them myself.” Rak
Decl., ¶ 5.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work allegedly
expected of employees and some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification, the statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The amount of work allegedly
expected of employees is irrelevant to
whether a common policy or practice gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation alleged in
plaintiff’s complaint or gives rise to class
certification.
108. “I would often be required to work
through my meal and rest breaks.
While on duty, my managers required
me to have my assigned handheld
transceiver within reach and hearing
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not establish the
circumstances under which he allegedly
was “required” to work through breaks, and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 50 of 53 Page ID #:5101
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-50-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
RAK DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 61)
Testimony Objections
and respond to calls immediately at
all times. ETL-AP Victoria
Habermehl, who trained me at
Target’s Watsonville, California store
and Store Team Leaders (“STLs”)
Alyssa Kojima and Wayne Comstock
and discouraged me from leaving the
store or engaging in activities that
would prevent me from monitoring
the transceiver, including breaks, and
at all other times. According to
Target management employees who
trained me and supervised me, my
level of responsiveness was one of
Target’s criteria for measuring my
work performance.” Rak Decl., ¶ 6.
“discouraged” from engaging in activities
that would prevent him from monitoring the
transceiver. Likewise, the declarant does
not establish whether his managers had
actual or constructive knowledge of any
instances the declarant may have worked
during breaks.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s subjective belief
that he was discouraged from engaging in
activities that would impede his ability to
monitor the transceiver, and any voluntary
decision not to engage in any such
activities, neither gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation nor justifies class
certification. Similarly, the level of
responsiveness allegedly expected of the
declarant is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint or gives rise to class certification.
109. “Target did not pay premium wages
to me for days it failed to provide me
with one or more unrestricted 30-
minute meal periods or 10-minute
rest periods.” Rak Decl., ¶ 7.
Lacks foundation, conclusory (Fed. R.
Evid. 901). The declarant does not
establish any basis on which to conclude
that the declarant was entitled to premium
wages on days when the declarant allegedly
did not take a compliant meal or rest break.
110. “Store Team Leaders (“STLs”)
Alyssa Kojima and Wayne Comstock
and Asset Protection Business
Partners David Lake, Daniella
Peregretti and Eman Abyass
frequently sent me text messages and
emails to assign me new tasks and
request status updates.” Rak Decl.,
¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). To the extent the declarant
invites the Court to draw an inference
between the amount of work the declarant
was expected to perform and some wage-
and-hour violation that would give rise to
class certification, the declarant’s statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s statement regarding the
content of purported text messages and
emails sent by Alyssa Kojima, Wayne
Comstock, David Lake, Daniella Peregretti
and Eman Abyass is inadmissible hearsay.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 51 of 53 Page ID #:5102
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-51-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
RAK DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 61)
Testimony Objections
111. “Even though Target Protection
Specialist (“TPS”) and Asset
Protection Specialist (“APS”)
employees were involved in Asset
Protection at Target stores, I had very
little control over them because
Target’s corporate office assigned
them their work routines. Target’s
corporate office also directly
assigned them daily tasks. Target did
not permit me to change these
routines and duties.” Rak Decl., ¶ 9.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for how he
knows that Target’s corporate office
assigned work to the TPS and APS. The
declarant also does not explain whether the
declarant was able or expected to supervise
the TPS and APS employees in their tasks,
and whether the declarant was able or
expected to assign additional tasks to the
TPS and APS. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement that he “had very
little control” over the TPS and APS lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
112. “Other than TPSs and APSs, Target
assigned me no other subordinates.”
Rak Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of employees
assigned to the declarant at any particular
store is irrelevant to whether Target is liable
for some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification.
113. “Target’s corporate office set a
number of hours that I could schedule
my subordinates each weekly period
and required me to schedule them
strictly within the number of hours it
provided.” Rak Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or
gives rise to class certification.
114. “Target managers did not allow me to
make hiring or firing decisions.
Neither did my managers at Target
allow me to pick what types of
employees I could have working at
my assigned store. I did not have the
authority to make decisions regarding
budgeting, job descriptions,
employee handbooks, investigating
discrimination or harassment
complaints, what types of services or
merchandise the store could provide
to its customers, advertising, store
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for his assertion
that he was not allowed to make hiring or
firing decisions. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant may have
been unauthorized to make certain
decisions, particularly when outside the
scope of his job of managing security and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 52 of 53 Page ID #:5103
LEGAL_US_W # 91696189.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-52-
TARGET’S OBJECTIONS TO PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBER DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
RAK DECLARATION (ECF 49-3, Exh. 61)
Testimony Objections
hours, store locations, or store lease
negotiations.” Rak Decl., ¶ 12.
asset protection, is irrelevant to whether
Target is liable for some wage-and-hour
violation alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
that would give rise to class certification.
115. “At no time during my employment
as an ETL-AP did I perform
accounting, finance, tax preparation,
legal and regulatory compliance,
negotiate contracts or bind Target on
significant matters. I never wrote
policies for Target. I did not design
any operating practices for Target. I
do not know of any ETL-APs who
performed such tasks.” Rak Decl.,
¶ 13.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no detail as to what
number of ETL-APs he knows. To the
extent the declarant wants the Court to infer
that no other ETL-APs performed certain
tasks, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). That the declarant and other
ETL-APs may have been unauthorized to
perform these tasks, which are outside the
scope of the job duties of an ETL-AP, is
irrelevant to whether Target is liable for
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing objections and grounds, the Court should sustain Target’s
objections to specific portions of Plaintiff’s and putative class members’ declarations as
set forth above.
Dated: November 1, 2017.
JEFFREY D. WOHL
JULLIE Z. LAL
ANDREA B. DICOLEN
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
By: /s/Jeffrey D. Wohl
Jeffrey D. Wohl
Attorneys for Defendant Target Corporation
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 71 Filed 11/01/17 Page 53 of 53 Page ID #:5104
