LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND 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 MOTION TO
STRIKE AND OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND
DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED WITH
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
HER MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
Date: January 19, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 5D, First Street
Courthouse
350 W. 1st St.
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 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 109 Page ID #:5173
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
I. INTRODUCTION
In support of her motion for class certification, plaintiff Neda Faraji asks the Court
to take judicial notice of a 2010 class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of
the District of Minnesota, Gifford et al. v. Target Corp., No. 10-cv-1194 (“Gifford”),
along with seven declarations of putative class members from that case. The plaintiff in
Gifford challenged the exempt classification of all Target Executive Team Leaders in the
United States, not just Executive Team Leaders – Asset Protection in California as here,
and the applicable law was the Fair Labor Standards Act and Minnesota state law, not the
California wage-and-hour laws invoked in this action. Moreover, there is no overlap
between the limitations period at issue in Gifford and the one here.
This proffered evidence from Gifford is immaterial to whether class certification is
appropriate here. Accordingly, Target objects to the Court’s consideration of the 2010
Gifford complaint and accompanying declarations and moves to strike them.
Alternatively, if the Court declines to strike these materials, the Court still should
sustain Target’s objections to specific parts of the declarations as set forth in section IV
below. The Court also should admit the 359 declarations Target gathered in the Gifford
case (Wohl Decl., ¶ 11; Compendium of Defendant Target Corporation’s Gifford
Declarations in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.) that plaintiff has
chosen to ignore in favor of the seven she cherry-picked.
II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her class action complaint on November 28, 2016. (ECF 1.)* In her
first amended complaint, plaintiff purports to represent a class of individuals who were
employed by Target in California as Executive Team Leaders – Assets Protection (“ETL-
APs”) at any time on or after on November 28, 2012. See FAC, ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges
various violations of California’s wage-and-hour laws based on the allegation that Target
misclassified ETL-APs as exempt employees. Id., ¶ 2.
* The case was originally filed in state court and then removed to this Court on
January 27, 2017. (ECF 1.)
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 109 Page ID #:5174
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
On September 25, 2017, plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. (ECF 45.)
In support of her motion for class certification, plaintiff asked the Court to take judicial
notice of: (1) an April 2010 class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Gifford et al. v. Target Corp., No. 10-cv-1194, in which the
plaintiff purported to represent a class of all Executive Team Leaders (“ETLs”) employed
by Target nationwide (a much broader group than California ETL-APs); and (2) seven
declarations of putative class members filed by the plaintiff in Gifford. (ECF 47.)
III. THE GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND RELATED DECLARATIONS ARE
WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND SHOULD BE
STRICKEN
The Court “may strike from a pleading ... any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter,” either on its own motion or on motion made by a party prior to
responding to a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Immaterial matter is “that which has no
essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.”
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation and quotation
marks omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Impertinent matter
includes “statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.”
Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Gifford complaint and the seven
accompanying declarations are both immaterial and impertinent to plaintiff’s motion for
class certification, and may properly be stricken by the Court.
First, the substance of plaintiff’s proffered evidence has little to no relation to her
claims in this action. The Gifford plaintiff purported to represent a broad class of all
ETLs—in all Target work centers—employed anywhere in the nation, along with a
subclass of ETLs who were employed in Minnesota. Unsurprisingly, the Gifford
declarations thus have only minimal, if any, relevance to plaintiff’s allegations, which
pertain specifically to the work experiences of ETL-APs employed in California. In fact,
none of the seven Gifford declarations plaintiff wishes to use were given by an ETL-AP
working at a store in California, and only one of the seven Gifford declarants worked as
an ETL-AP (at a store in Washington State). See ECF 47, Exh. 38. The other declarants
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 3 of 109 Page ID #:5175
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
were ETLs at other Target work centers, such as Logistics or Sales Floor, who had
entirely different job functions and experiences from an ETL-AP. See ECF 47, Exhs. 35-
37, 39, 41. Similarly, only one of the seven Gifford declarants worked at a Target store in
California (although as an ETL of Guest Services, not Assets Protection). See ECF 47,
Ex. 40. The remaining six declarants worked at stores outside of California. Where, as
here, the proffered evidence is “so unrelated to plaintiff’s claims as to be unworthy of any
consideration as a defense and whose presence in the pleading will be prejudicial to the
moving party,” the Court may strike the evidence from the record. See Garcia, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS at *75 (citing Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1527-28).
Second, the Gifford complaint and declarations are irrelevant to plaintiff’s motion
considering the timing of relevant events. The declarations in Gifford concerned events
that occurred well before the relevant time period of plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, the
Gifford complaint was filed in April 2010, and the Gifford declarations were signed in
April 2011—more than one and a half years before the onset of plaintiff’s claims in
November 2012. Evidence that falls outside the scope of the relevant time period has
little, if any, relevance and may properly be stricken. See, e.g., Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1527
(“Superfluous historical allegations are a proper subject of a motion to strike.”) (internal
quotations and citation omitted); Garcia v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 83352, *77-78 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (striking allegations regarding “events that
occurred between 15 and 20 years ago with different personnel and actors,” because those
incidents were “too stale”).
Third, the Gifford action asserted violations of entirely different laws than those at
issue in this action. The allegations in Gifford were brought under federal and Minnesota
state laws—specifically, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. See ECF 47, Exh. 30. In
contrast, plaintiff’s action is based entirely on alleged violations of California wage-and-
hour laws. See FAC. The allegations and testimony in Gifford support legal theories of
liability that are not at issue in plaintiff’s case. Under such circumstances, it is
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 4 of 109 Page ID #:5176
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
appropriate for the Court to strike and disregard the Gifford complaint and related
declarations as irrelevant. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal.
2005) (“The function of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the
expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by
dispensing with those issues prior to trial. ‘Redundant’ matter consists of allegations that
constitute a needless repetition of other averments or are foreign to the issue.”)
IV. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD SUSTAIN TARGET’S
OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE DECLARATIONS
Even if the Court declines to strike the Gifford complaint and declarations in their
entirety, numerous statements made in the declarations are objectionable. Those
statements should be stricken on the grounds as set forth below:
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
1. “While an ETL, I worked 5 days per
week, as assigned by my store
manager. The store manager would
assign me to one of three shifts: the
opening shift (7 a.m. – 5 p.m.), the
closing shift (1 p.m. –11 p.m.) or a
mid shift (8 – 6). Frequently, I would
work hours beyond my scheduled
shifts. This was often the case on
Mondays, when we had our ETL
meetings, and on days when I was
scheduled as Leader of the Day
(‘LOD’), as serving as LOD
prevented me from doing many of
my ordinary ETL tasks.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs (Asset Protection) in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked beyond
his scheduled shifts; his statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. Likewise, he
provides no explanation of his duties as
LOD, and fails to provide any basis for his
statement that serving as LOD prevented
him from performing ETL tasks.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s work hours and
tasks some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 5 of 109 Page ID #:5177
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
2. “On average, I worked at least 50
hours per week.” McConnell Decl.,
¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked at least 50
hours per week; his statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. To the extent
plaintiff invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
3. “Target classified me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
meant that neither I nor any other
ETL received overtime pay for hours
we worked beyond 40 per week. I
was a salaried employee.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how he was paid are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
understanding of how ETLs other than
himself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 6 of 109 Page ID #:5178
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
4. “I often worked through lunch but I
would sometimes take half an hour to
eat something. On occasion, I would
come into the store on my scheduled
days off to help out if the store was
short-staffed (usually to address
administrative tasks, such as
scheduling or planning for events).
While my normal practice was to
work late at the store, I would
sometimes take work home, for
example, completing a schedule or
doing some filing. This averaged
about an hour per week.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
and duties are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked through
his lunch; his statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s work
hours some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
5. “At the Tom’s River, New Jersey
store, I worked alongside
approximately eight other ETLs.
There were about 180 employees in
the store.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs and other
employees at the Target store in New Jersey
is irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 7 of 109 Page ID #:5179
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
6. “My job responsibilities, as
described below, were the same at
all Target stores in which I worked.
Based upon my observations of and
interactions with other Target ETLs
and my experiences as an ETL for
two departments (Guest Experience
and Sales Floor -- Hardlines), I
understand that their job
responsibilities were very similar to
my own.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities at the specific Target stores
where he worked are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for his understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. He explains
neither how often and in what capacity he
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
7. “As a Target ETL, my primary
responsibilities were: scheduling
team members, assigning tasks to
team members, reviewing reports
generated by Target (and reacting to
them), attending weekly ETL
meetings and staffing Leader of the
Day (‘LOD’) shifts.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 8 of 109 Page ID #:5180
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
8. “At the Tom’s River store, I was part
of a team of approximately 65
employees assigned to Guest
Experience. Approximately fifty of
those were cashiers. There were four
Guest Service Team Leaders and
one Team Leader for “Food
Avenue,” the part of the store where
customers could purchase prepared
foods. All of my team members
were hourly employees.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store in New Jersey are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for
concluding that all of his team members
were hourly employees.
9. “As an ETL of Guest Experience, I
would assign members of the team
to tasks determined by Target (e.g.,
cashiering). I was not permitted to
assign team members to tasks that
had not been identified for me by
Target. I would also schedule the
team members according to
directions provided to me by Target
as to how many employees should
be scheduled per shift. I was not
permitted to assign additional team
members to a shift without approval
from my store manager. I would
walk around the store to check for
problems or messes that needed to
be cleaned up. I would assist in
bringing merchandise out of the
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). First and foremost, tasks that the
declarant performed as ETL of Guest
Services are irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
That aside, the declarant provides no
explanation of how much time he spent
performing the listed tasks, and the
circumstances under which he did so.
Without establishing those facts, the
declarant’s statement is irrelevant to the
issue of whether Target’s policies and
practices give rise to some wage-and-hour
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 9 of 109 Page ID #:5181
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
back room and onto the floor. I
ordered supplies for my department,
as permitted by Target, took
inventory for Food Avenue, filled
gift card fixtures near the registers
and helped keep merchandise
fixtures and end caps stocked.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 12.
violation or to class certification.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
10. “I had no control over my
department’s budget nor was I
permitted to assign team members
overtime hours.” McConnell Decl.,
¶ 13.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant did or did not
do at his particular store is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have been
responsible for making 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 or to class certification in this
action.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same types of
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 10 of 109 Page ID #:5182
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
11. “As ETL for Guest Experience, I
estimate that I spent approximately
50% of my time performing tasks
identical to those of the team
members I supervised. This included
cashiering, helping a customer at the
service desk, building an end cap or
re-stocking merchandise. When I
worked a closing shift, I would
spend at least 50% of my time
‘zoning,’ that is, straightening the
shelves.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Guest Experience at his
particular store is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which he allegedly spent half his time
performing such tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
12. “As an ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines), my responsibilities
included making sure the shelves in
my area were stocked, the aisles
clean and that price signs and
merchandise labels were up and
correct.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL for Sales Floor at his particular store
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 11 of 109 Page ID #:5183
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California had similar job
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer based on those alleged job
responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
13. “As ETL for Sales Floor (Hardlines),
I spent nearly all of my time
working side by side with my team
members. Together, we would build
end caps and stock merchandise
according to plans and reports
provided to me by Target.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 16.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Sales Floor at his particular store
is irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which he allegedly spent most of his time
performing such tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California spend their time
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 12 of 109 Page ID #:5184
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
14. “Once a year, I was required to
review the performance of the Guest
Experience Team Leaders according
to a matrix provided to me by
Target. Both my store manager and a
representative from Human
Resources had to sign off on these
reviews before they could be
presented to the Team Leader.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901).
The declarant offers no basis for knowing
that the store manager and human resources
representative were required to approve of
team member reviews. Likewise, the
declarant offers no explanation of whether
his store manager or human resources
representative ever declined to adopt or
follow his review recommendation. Without
such explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of his authority in the
review process lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 13 of 109 Page ID #:5185
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
15. “Also once a year, I participated in
the reviews of the store’s cashiers,
along with the four Guest
Experience Team Leaders and the
store’s Human Resources manager.
My input in these reviews was not
any greater than any of the Team
Leaders or the HR manager, who
ultimately signed off on the review.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL at his particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
his input in reviews was no greater than the
input of other managers, or that the human
resources manager was required to approve
of the reviews. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the human
resources manager ever declined to follow
his recommendation. Without such
explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of his authority in the
review process lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
16. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I would attend a weekly
meeting of all store ETLS where the
store manager would inform us of
any upcoming promotions or issues
relevant to our store. We would also
discuss any issues we perceived with
team members and get direction
from the store manager about how to
address those issues.”
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at his particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 14 of 109 Page ID #:5186
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
McConnell Decl., ¶ 19. speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
did and, based on that, to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
17. “Each week, the Store Team Leader
(my manager) would schedule me
for 2 – 3 shifts as the LOD. Each
LOD shift was approximately 7
hours.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
18. “During these shifts, I was
essentially and extra pair of hands in
the store. My responsibilities as
LOD were: walking the store to
identify any areas needing cleaning
or re-stocking; making sure all store
team members had work to do and
were actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; “zoning”
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise
or checking out customers at the
registers. As LOD I would also
make sure the back room was
running smoothly and that
merchandise was being efficiently
moved to the sales floor and stocked
properly. To do this, I would often
assist in this process of transferring
stock, physically taking merchandise
off the shelves in the back room and
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as LOD at his particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 15 of 109 Page ID #:5187
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
moving it to the aisle on the sales
floor.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 21.
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
19. “As an ETL, I did not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members I was not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor did I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member may be
scheduled in a given week.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 22.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
20. “On occasion, I would participate in
the team member hiring process at
Target by interviewing an applicant.
I had no role in deciding whether an
applicant would be interviewed; that
decision was made by Target,
through an on-line survey the
applicant would complete. After the
interview, I could make a
recommendation to the store Human
Resources manager, but my
recommendation was not given any
greater weight than the HR
manager’s own opinion. I had no
authority to determine how much an
employee would be paid, how many
or what hours they would be
assigned.” McConnell Decl., ¶ 23.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that his
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 16 of 109 Page ID #:5188
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
recommendation was given no greater
weight than the HR manager’s opinion; his
statement thus lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
21. “Although I could recommend to my
store manager that a team member
be promoted, I had no authority to
make a promotion happen. Team
members would apply for promotion
with the store manager and be
interviewed by a group of store
ETLs, selected by the manager.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 24.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight his recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
22. “I was not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from both my store manager and a
Human Resources representative.
Any discipline had to be signed off
on by the store’s HR manager.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 25.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 17 of 109 Page ID #:5189
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
the store manager and human resources
representative were required to approve of
disciplinary actions against team members.
Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether the store manager or
human resources ever declined to follow his
recommendation for disciplinary action.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of his
authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
23. “Similarly, I was not permitted to
terminate a team member without
prior approval from both the store
manager and Human Resources.
Sometimes, depending on the
seniority of the employee,
permission to terminate would have
to come from the district manager or
district HR representative as well.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 26
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager, human resources, and
district manager must approve of any
termination recommendations. Likewise,
the declarant offers no explanation of
whether the store manager, human
resources, or district manager ever declined
to follow his recommendation for
termination. Without such explanation, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the termination process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 18 of 109 Page ID #:5190
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
McCONNELL DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 35)
Testimony Objections
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
24. “When I was first hired by Target, I
attended at least four weeks of
training called “Target Business
College.” This consisted of four
weeks of day-long classroom
training before I entered a Target
store. During this time, I was paid
my ETL salary and did not have any
involvement supervising, hiring,
promoting, disciplining or
terminating employees.”
McConnell Decl., ¶ 27
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s experience
during his training is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California had the same training
experience as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 19 of 109 Page ID #:5191
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
25. “While an ETL for Guest Experience,
I worked 5 days per week, as
assigned by my store manager. My
shifts were always scheduled for 10
hours, starting at 4 a.m., 6 a.m., 7
a.m. or 2 p.m. I frequently worked
more than my scheduled hours, often
working about 55 hours per week.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work as
ETL for Guest Experience are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs (Asset Protection) in California.
As set forth in his declaration, the declarant
did not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked more than
his scheduled hours; his statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. Moreover, to
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s work hours some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
26. “As an ETL for Logistics, I worked 4
days per week, as assigned by my
store manager, arriving at the store
around 7 p.m. and working until 9 or
10 a.m. the following morning. I
often worked 60 hours a week while I
held this position.” Crescenzo Decl.,
¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work as
ETL for Logistics are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked 60 hours
per week; his statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory. Moreover, to the extent
plaintiff invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
27. “As both an ETL for Guest Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 20 of 109 Page ID #:5192
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
Experience and an ETL for Logistics,
I would do additional work from
home. When I was and ETL for
Guest Experience, I would do about
10 hours of work a week at home.
This included writing reviews,
reviewing Target planograms,
reading and responding to Target
email and working on break
schedules. As an ETL for Logistics, I
would do about 8 hours of work a
week from home; this included
checking and responding to Target
emails, writing reviews and working
on charts for the layout of the store’s
back room.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 6.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedules
as ETL for Guest Experience and as ETL
for Logistics are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked at home;
his statement lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s work
schedule some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
28. “Target classified me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
meant that neither I nor any other
ETL received overtime pay for hours
we worked beyond 40 per week.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how he was paid are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
understanding of how ETLs other than
himself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 21 of 109 Page ID #:5193
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
29. “At the Chesapeake East Target,
which had approximately 250
employees, I worked alongside
approximately 9 ETLs and at both the
Chesapeake Square Mall Target and
the Virginia Beach Southeast Target,
which each had approximately 150
employees, I worked with
approximately 7 ETLs.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs and other
employees at the Target stores in Virginia is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
30. “Based upon my observations of and
interactions with other ETLs, my job
responsibilities, as described below,
were very similar to the
responsibilities of the other ETLs at
each of the Target stores in which I
worked.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities at the specific Target stores
where he worked are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for his understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. He explains
neither how often and in what capacity he
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
31. “As a Target ETL, my primary Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 22 of 109 Page ID #:5194
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
responsibilities were: assigning tasks
to team members, reviewing reports
and planograms generated by Target
(and assigning tasks based on them),
attending weekly ETL meetings and,
when an ETL for Guest Experience,
staffing Leader of the Day (‘LOD’)
shifts.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 10.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
32. “In my last position at the
Chesapeake East Target store, I was
part of a team of approximately 60
employees assigned to Logistics. My
team included 2 Team Leaders and I
worked alongside an ETL of
Replenishment who shared my
team.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store in Virginia are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 23 of 109 Page ID #:5195
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
33. “As ETL for Logistics, I was
responsible for re-stocking the store
overnight. I would arrive a few hours
before my team members to clean the
back room (removing broken pallets,
trash and stock that had been left out)
and reviewing spreadsheets and
directions created for me by Target.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 12.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL for Logistics are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
That aside, the declarant provides no
explanation of how much time he spent
performing each of the listed tasks. Without
establishing that fact, the declarant’s
statement is irrelevant to the issue of
whether Target’s policies and practices give
rise to some wage-and-hour violation or to
class certification.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
analyzed spreadsheets generated by Target
is irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
34. “As ETL for Logistics, I would
receive a print out at the start of my
shift from Target that told me how
many units of each product had been
sold that day, how many new units
were in the store’s back stock and
how many new units (if any) would
be arriving that evening by truck
from the distribution center. Target
also provided me with information
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). First, tasks that the declarant
performed or did not perform as ETL for
Logistics are irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 24 of 109 Page ID #:5196
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
that told me how many “man hours”
were required to stock merchandise
in each department of the store. My
job was to assign the appropriate
number of team members, based on
these guidelines, to each department
that was being re-stocked that night
and ensure that the merchandise was
stocked in the correct location. I had
no discretion as to where to place
merchandise in the store. These
reports and guidelines instructed me
as to the total number of hours
required to unload the truck, put the
merchandise on the floor, pull
additional inventory from backstock
and put excess inventory into the
store’s backstock area.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 13.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on
guidelines of estimated labor hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
35. “When my team arrived, I would
oversee the unloading of the truck
(this took about two hours) and then I
would assign team members to
different areas of the store, based on
the guidelines from Target and the
day’s report, to re-stock merchandise.
I would then walk the store, making
sure team members were doing their
assignments correctly and helping
people out when they were getting
behind.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL for Logistics are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
The declarant also fails to explain how
much time he allegedly spent performing
each of the listed tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks based on guidelines is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 25 of 109 Page ID #:5197
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
36. “As ETL for Logistics, I estimate I
spent about 75% of my time working
alongside my team members, doing
tasks identical to those of the people I
supervised: unloading boxes from the
truck, stocking merchandise on the
sales floor, cleaning up from this
process, unloading and re-stocking
merchandise from the trailers in the
back of the store, and re-building end
caps based on the planograms.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Logistics at his particular store
is irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which he allegedly spent 75% of his time
performing such tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
37. “As an ETL for Guest Experience, I
was part of a team of approximately
70 team members at the Chesapeake
East store, including between 2 – 4
Team Leaders and 40 team members,
including about 4 Team Leaders at
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
stores in Virginia are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 26 of 109 Page ID #:5198
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
the Chesapeake Square Mall and
Virginia Beach Southeast stores.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 16.
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
38. “In all of the stores where I was an
ETL for Guest Experience, my
responsibilities essentially the same.
My team members worked as
cashiers, shopping cart attendants, at
the store photo lab, in the Food
Avenue (where customers could buy
prepared food) and in guest services.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Guest Experience at his
particular store is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California. Likewise, the declarant’s
assessment of the hourly team members’
duties is also irrelevant to this action.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how his responsibilities were
“essentially the same” at all of his stores.
Without any such explanation, the
declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same job
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 27 of 109 Page ID #:5199
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
39. “As an ETL for Guest Experience,
my primary job was making sure the
store looked good and that customers
were able to make purchases easily
and quickly. This meant monitoring
cashiers to make sure they were
working quickly, helping customers
find things, making sure the end caps
were stocked and that merchandise
was on the floor, making sure the
aisles were clean and straightened,
restocking gift card displays and the
merchandise displays near the front
of the store.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL for Guest Experience are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the time he spent on the
listed tasks, or the circumstances under
which he did so. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
40. “I was not responsible for scheduling
team members. The store’s Human
Resources manager would provide
me with a schedule that indicated
which team members would be
working in certain areas (e.g.,
cashier, cart attendant, photo lab
attendant). My job was to make sure
they were working, help get our work
done and assign tasks during slow
times, like building end caps,
marking items as clearance,
restocking merchandise or cleaning
an aisle. I was not permitted to assign
team members to tasks that had not
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant was or
was not responsible for as ETL at his
particular store are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks based on allotted payroll
hours is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 28 of 109 Page ID #:5200
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
been approved by Target.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 19.
hour violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
41. “During my shifts, I would walk
around my department and assist my
team members with these tasks. I
would make sure the aisles were
clean and stocked; I would physically
clean aisles and re-stock
merchandise. I helped assist
customers, cashiered, gathered
shopping carts and ‘zoned’
(straightened merchandise in the
aisles).” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL at his particular store are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks, or the
circumstances under which he assisted his
team members. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 29 of 109 Page ID #:5201
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
42. “As ETL for Guest Experience, I
estimate I spent about 75% of my
time completing tasks identical to
those of the team members I
supervised.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 21.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Guest Experience at his
particular store is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the types of tasks he
allegedly performed or the circumstances
under which he performed those tasks.
Without such basis, the declarant’s
statement is irrelevant to whether there is
any common policy or practice that gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
43. “In neither ETL position did I have
any control over my department’s
budget. I could not assign team
members overtime hours without
permission and approval from my
store manager.” Crescenzo Decl.,
¶ 22.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant did or did not
do at his particular store is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have been
responsible for making 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-
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 30 of 109 Page ID #:5202
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
hour violation or to class certification in this
action.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to offer any basis for
knowing that the store manager’s approval
was required to schedule overtime, and
whether the store manager ever declined to
approve the declarant’s overtime requests.
Without such basis, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of his
authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same types of responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
44. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I would attend a weekly
meeting of all store ETLS where the
store manager would inform us of
any upcoming promotions or issues
relevant to our store. We would also
discuss any issues we perceived with
team members and get direction from
the store manager about how to
address those issues.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 23.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at his particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
did and, based on that, to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 31 of 109 Page ID #:5203
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
is speculative.
45. “When I was an ETL for Guest
Experience, my Store Team Leader
would assign me approximately 4
shifts per week as the Leader of the
Day (‘LOD’). Each LOD shift was
approximately 7 hours.” Crescenzo
Decl., ¶ 24.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
46. “During these shifts, I was essentially
and extra pair of hands in the store.
My responsibilities as LOD were:
walking the store to identify any
areas needing cleaning or re-
stocking; making sure all store team
members had work to do and were
actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; ‘zoning’
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise,
collecting carts or checking out
customers at the registers. As LOD I
would also make sure the back room
was running smoothly and that
merchandise was being moved to the
sales floor and stocked properly. I
often physically re-stocked and
moved merchandise myself.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 25.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as LOD at his particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 32 of 109 Page ID #:5204
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
47. “As an ETL, I was asked to complete
reviews of my team members twice a
year. I was responsible for
completing the reviews of my Team
Leaders. The Team Leaders, who
were paid on an hourly basis,
reviewed the team members. If my
Team Leaders couldn’t complete the
reviews of team members, I would be
required to do it for them.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 26.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have similar involvement
in the review process as the declarant did,
and to further infer some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing how the Team
Leaders were paid by Target.
48. “Team Leaders were reviewed by all
the store’s ETLs and the store
manager. Target provided us with an
overall store score and, based on this,
we were permitted to give a certain
number of “excellent’s, “good’s,
“satisfactory’s, ‘ineffective’s and
“inconsistently ineffective’s to the
Team Leaders in the store. My
opinion in this process was not given
particular weight, and both the store
manager and the HR manager had the
authority to override me.” Crescenzo
Decl., ¶ 27.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The process for conducting
performance reviews at the declarant’s
particular store is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
his opinion in the review process “was not
given particular weight” or that the store
manager and HR manager were able to
“override” him. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the store
manager or human resources manager ever
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 33 of 109 Page ID #:5205
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
declined to follow his review
recommendation. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement regarding the
scope of his authority in the review process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
49. “All of the reviews, of both team
members and Team Leaders, had to
be approved and signed off on by the
store Human Resources manager
before they were presented to the
individual employees.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 28.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The process for conducting
performance reviews at the declarant’s
particular store is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
the store human resources manager was
required to approve all reviews. Likewise,
the declarant offers no explanation of
whether the store human resources manager
ever declined to sign off on his
recommended reviews. Without such
explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of his authority in the
review process lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 34 of 109 Page ID #:5206
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
50. “As an ETL, I did not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members. I was not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor did I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member may be
scheduled in a given week.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 29.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
51. “On occasion, my store manager
would ask me to participate in the
team member hiring process at Target
by interviewing an applicant. I had no
role in deciding whether an applicant
would be interviewed; that decision
was made by Target or by Human
Resources. After the interview, I
would recommend to the HR
manager whether or not the
individual be hired. The HR manager
had the final say over whether or not
to hire an applicant.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 30.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 35 of 109 Page ID #:5207
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that the HR manager
had the “final say” over whether to hire an
applicant. Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether the human resources
manager ever declined to follow his
recommendation. The declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of his authority in the
hiring process thus lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
52. “Although I could recommend to my
store manager that a team member be
promoted, I had no authority to make
a promotion happen. Promotion
decisions were made by the store
manager and District Team Leader.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 31.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight his recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 36 of 109 Page ID #:5208
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
53. “I was not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from the store Human Resources
manager. Written warnings were
edited and approved by the HR
manager before presented to the team
member.” Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 32.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the human resources manager was required
to approve of disciplinary actions against
team members. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the human
resources manager ever declined to follow
his recommendation for disciplinary action.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of his
authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
54. “Similarly, I was not permitted to
terminate a team member without
prior approval from either the store
manager or Human Resources.”
Crescenzo Decl., ¶ 33.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 37 of 109 Page ID #:5209
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
CRESCENZO DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 36)
Testimony Objections
the store manager or human resources must
approve of any termination
recommendations. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the store
manager or human resources ever declined
to follow his recommendation for
termination. Without such explanation, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the termination process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
55. “While an ETL for Replenishment, I
worked 5 – 6 days per week, as
assigned by my store manager. My
hours were scheduled as 9 p.m. to 8
a.m., but I almost always arrived for
my shift between 7:30 and 8 p.m. to
clean up the back room and set up
the work for my team that night.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 3.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work as
ETL for Replenishment at a Target store in
New Jersey are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs
(Asset Protection) in California. As set forth
in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked earlier
than his scheduled shift; his statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. Moreover, to
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 38 of 109 Page ID #:5210
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
from the declarant’s work hours some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
56. “As an ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines), I worked 5 days per
week, as assigned by my store
manager, to either an opening
(7 a.m. – 5 p.m.) or closing (1 p.m. –
11 p.m.) ten hour shift. Frequently, I
would work hours beyond my
scheduled shifts, particularly on
Mondays, when we had our ETL
meetings, and on days when I was
scheduled for the closing shift, as I
rarely left the store at 11 p.m.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work as
ETL for Sales Floor at a Target store in
New Jersey are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked beyond
his scheduled shift; his statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. Moreover, to
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s work hours some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
57. “In the ETL Replenishment position,
I estimate that I worked about 60
hours per week, and always worked
through lunch.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work as
ETL for Replenishment at a Target store in
New Jersey are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked through
his lunch, and worked about 60 hours per
week; his statement lacks foundation and is
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 39 of 109 Page ID #:5211
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
conclusory. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
58. “As an ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines), I estimate I worked
about 52 hours per week, although I
also took work home, on average 4 -
5 hours per week. This included
working on team member reviews
twice a year or bringing home Target
planograms and working on
determining which tasks to assign my
team members in order to complete
the weekly planogram.” Boyle Decl.,
¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work as
ETL for Sales Floor at a Target store in
New Jersey are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly took work home;
his statement lacks foundation and is
conclusory. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
59. “Target classified me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
meant that neither I nor any other
ETL received overtime pay for hours
we worked beyond 40 per week. As
an ETL, I was a salaried employee.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how he was paid are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 40 of 109 Page ID #:5212
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
understanding of how ETLs other than
himself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
60. “If I took part of a shift off (for
example, to attend a doctor’s
appointment), I was expected to
make that time up at a later point in
the week.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What was expected of the
declarant, as ETL at his particular store in
New Jersey, is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not offer any explanation of
how, and by whom, he allegedly was
expected to make up time off; his statement
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
61. “At the Tom’s River, New Jersey
store, I worked alongside
approximately six other ETLs. There
were about 180 employees in the
store.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs and other
employees at the declarant’s Target store in
New Jersey is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
62. “Based upon my observations of and
interactions with other ETLs, my job
responsibilities, as described below,
were very similar to the
responsibilities of the other ETLs in
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities at the specific Target store
where he worked are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 41 of 109 Page ID #:5213
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
the Tom’s River store.” Boyle Decl.,
¶ 10.
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for his understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. He explains
neither how often and in what capacity he
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
63. “As a Target ETL, my primary
responsibilities were: assigning tasks
to team members, reviewing reports
and planograms generated by Target
(and assigning tasks based on them),
attending weekly ETL meetings and,
when an ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines) staffing Leader of the
Day (‘LOD’) shifts.” Boyle Decl.,
¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities as ETL are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 42 of 109 Page ID #:5214
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
64. “In my last position at the Tom’s
River store, I was part of a team of
approximately 40 employees
assigned to Sales Floor (Hardlines).
My team included 7 – 8 Team
Leaders. All of my team members
were paid on an hourly basis.” Boyle
Decl., ¶ 12.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store in New Jersey are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for
knowing how all of his team members were
paid by Target.
65. “As an ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines), I would receive a weekly
schedule from the store’s Human
Resources manager telling me how
many and which employees on my
team were assigned to each shift. If I
wanted a particular team member
assigned to a specific shift, I would
have to request it from Human
Resources or my store manager, and
it was up to that person to make the
assignment. I had no responsibility
for my department’s budget, nor was
I permitted to assign employees
overtime. I several occasions I asked
the store manager for permission to
assign overtime hours, but I was
always refused. The response was
that I would have to complete those
tasks myself.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 13.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL for Sales Floor are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made certain 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 or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities and perform the same tasks
as the declarant did, and to further infer
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 43 of 109 Page ID #:5215
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801).
The declarant’s description of what his store
manager allegedly told him is inadmissible
hearsay.
66. “While ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines), I would review weekly
planograms created by Target that
would explain how my department
should be set up, including what
promotional items should be placed
on end caps and any unique or
seasonal displays that needed to be
built. I would then assign members of
my team to various tasks (building,
stocking, taking down displays) in
order to arrange our department
consistent with the planogram. I was
not permitted to assign team
members to tasks that had not been
identified for me by Target, nor was I
permitted to depart from the
planogram.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL for Sales Floor are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks based on guidelines, is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 44 of 109 Page ID #:5216
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
67. “During my shifts, I would walk
around my department and assist my
team members with these tasks. I
would make sure the aisles were
clean and stocked; I would physically
clean aisles and re-stock
merchandise. I helped assist
customers, made sure signage was
correct and in the correct place and
“zoned” my department (spent two
hours per shift straightening the
merchandise).” Boyle Decl., ¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL at his particular store in
New Jersey are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the time he spent on the
listed tasks, or the circumstances under
which he did so. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
68. “As ETL for Sales Floor (Hardlines),
I estimate I spent about 50% of my
time completing tasks identical to
those of the team members I
supervised.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 16.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Sales Floor at his particular store
is irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the tasks he and his team
members allegedly performed, or the
circumstances under which he allegedly
spent 50% of his time on such tasks.
Without such basis, the declarant’s
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 45 of 109 Page ID #:5217
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
statement is irrelevant to whether there is
any common policy or practice that gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
69. “As ETL for Replenishment, I was
responsible for re-stocking the store
overnight. I had a team of about 40
people, including 2 Team Leaders, all
hourly employees. Again, these shifts
were staffed for me by the store’s
Human Resources manager.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL for Replenishment, and the number
and type of employees who worked at the
declarant’s store in New Jersey, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California are provided shift
schedules as the declarant allegedly was,
and to further infer some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for concluding that all of his team
members were hourly employees.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 46 of 109 Page ID #:5218
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
70. “As ETL for Replenishment, I would
receive a print out at the start of my
shift from Target that told me how
many units of each product had been
sold that day, how many new units
were in the store’s back stock and
how many new units (if any) would
be arriving that evening by truck
from the distribution center. Target
also provided me with information
that told me how many ‘man hours’
were required to stock merchandise
in each department of the store. My
job was to assign the appropriate
number of team members, based on
these guidelines, to each department
that was being re-stocked that night
and ensure that the merchandise was
stocked in the correct location. I had
no discretion as to where to place
merchandise in the store.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). First, tasks that the declarant
performed or did not perform as ETL for
Replenishment are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on
guidelines of estimated labor hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
71. “When I first arrived at the start of
my ETL Replenishment shifts, I
would physically clean the back
room, removing broken pallets or
littered packing materials and putting
away any stock that had been left out
during the day. When my team
arrived, I would oversee the
unloading of the truck (this took
about two hours) and then I would
assign team members to different
areas of the store, based on the
guidelines from Target and the day’s
report, to re-stock merchandise. I
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Tasks that the declarant
performed as ETL for Replenishment are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
The declarant also fails to explain how
much time he allegedly spent performing
each of the listed tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 47 of 109 Page ID #:5219
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
would then walk the store, making
sure team members were doing their
assignments correctly and helping
people out when they were getting
behind.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 19.
violation or to class certification.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks based on guidelines is
irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California perform the same tasks as
the declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
72. “As ETL for Replenishment, I
estimate I spent about 50% of my
time working alongside my team
members, doing tasks identical to
those of the people I supervised.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
as ETL for Replenishment at his particular
store is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the tasks he and his team
members allegedly performed, or the
circumstances under which he allegedly
spent 50% of his time on such tasks.
Without such basis, the declarant’s
statement is irrelevant to whether there is
any common policy or practice that gives
rise to a wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 48 of 109 Page ID #:5220
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
73. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I would attend a weekly
meeting of all store ETLS where the
store manager would inform us of
any upcoming promotions or issues
relevant to our store. We would also
discuss any issues we perceived with
team members and get direction from
the store manager about how to
address those issues.” Boyle Decl.,
¶ 21.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at his particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
did and, based on that, to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
74. “When I was an ETL for Sales Floor
(Hardlines), my Store Team Leader
would assign me approximately 4
shifts per week as the Leader of the
Day (‘LOD’). Each LOD shift was
approximately 7 hours.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 22.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 49 of 109 Page ID #:5221
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
75. “During these shifts, I was essentially
and extra pair of hands in the store.
My responsibilities as LOD were:
walking the store to identify any
areas needing cleaning or re-
stocking; making sure all store team
members had work to do and were
actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; ‘zoning’
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise,
collecting carts or checking out
customers at the registers. As LOD I
would also make sure the back room
was running smoothly and that
merchandise was being moved to the
sales floor and stocked properly. I
often physically re-stocked and
moved merchandise myself.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 23.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as LOD at his particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
76. “As an ETL, I was asked to complete
reviews of my team members twice a
year. I reviewed my team members
based upon a checklist and matrix
provided by Target and presented this
to my Store Manager and Human
Resources for review. Both of these
individuals had the authority to
override my reviews and often did.
There were several times when either
my Store Manager or HR manager
changed the review so much that I
didn’t agree with the final review that
was presented to the team member.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 24.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have similar involvement
in the review process as the declarant did,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 50 of 109 Page ID #:5222
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
and to further infer some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
77. “As an ETL, I did not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members. I was not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor did I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member may be
scheduled in a given week.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 25.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
78. “On occasion, my store manager
would ask me to participate in the
team member hiring process at Target
by interviewing an applicant. I had no
role in deciding whether an applicant
would be interviewed; that decision
was made by Target or by Human
Resources. After the interview, I
could make a recommendation to the
store manager or Human Resources
manager, but my recommendation
was not given any greater weight
than theirs. The store manager and
HR manager had the final say over
whether or not to hire an applicant.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 26.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP and was not employed
at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 51 of 109 Page ID #:5223
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that his
recommendation was “not given any greater
weight” than the store manager or human
resources manager, or that those individuals
had the “final say” over whether to hire an
applicant. Likewise, the declarant fails to
explain whether the store manager or
human resources manager ever declined to
follow his recommendation. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement regarding
the scope of his authority in the hiring
process thus lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
79. “Although I could recommend to my
store manager that a team member be
promoted, I had no authority to make
a promotion happen. Promotion
decisions were made by the store
manager and Human Resources
manager.” Boyle Decl., ¶ 27.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight his recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 52 of 109 Page ID #:5224
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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 MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
80. “I was not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from both my store manager and a
Human Resources representative. I
could raise issues with Human
Resources and they would determine
whether or not to write up a
corrective action that I would issue to
the team member.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 28.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
representative were required to approve of
disciplinary actions against team members.
Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether the store manager or
human resources ever declined to follow his
recommendation for disciplinary action.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of his
authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 53 of 109 Page ID #:5225
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-53-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
BOYLE DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 37)
Testimony Objections
81. “Similarly, I was not permitted to
terminate a team member without
prior approval from either the store
manager or Human Resources.”
Boyle Decl., ¶ 29.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager or human resources must
approve of any termination
recommendations. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the store
manager or human resources ever declined
to follow his recommendation for
termination. Without such explanation, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the termination process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 54 of 109 Page ID #:5226
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-54-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
82. “As an ETL, I work 5 days per
week, as assigned by my store
manager, including working
alternating weekends. The store
manager assigns me to either the
opening shift (6 a.m. - 4 p.m.) or the
closing shift (1 p.m. - 11 p.m.).
Frequently, I work hours beyond my
scheduled shifts. This is often the
case on Mondays, when we have our
store-wide ETL meetings, and on
days when I am scheduled as Leader
of the Day (“LOD”), as serving as
LOD prevents me from doing many
of my ordinary ETL tasks.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 3.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked beyond
his scheduled shifts; his statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. Likewise, he
provides no explanation of his duties as
LOD, and fails to provide any basis for his
statement that serving as LOD prevented
him from performing ETL tasks.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s work hours and
tasks some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
83. “On average, I work 60 hours per
week.” Harris Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly worked 60 hours
per week; his statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory. To the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 55 of 109 Page ID #:5227
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-55-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
lacks foundation and is speculative.
84. “Target classifies me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
means that neither I nor any other
ETL receive overtime pay for hours
we work beyond 40 per week.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how he was paid are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for his
understanding of how ETLs other than
himself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
85. “I regularly work through lunch. On
occasion, I come into the store on my
scheduled days off to help out if the
store is short-staffed. I often (5 – 10
hours per week) take work home with
me at night and on the weekends,
such as filling out paperwork, making
schedules and scanning internet sites
for signs of store employees selling
stolen merchandise.” Harris Decl.,
¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
and duties are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP at
a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which he allegedly works through his
lunch; his statement lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff invites the
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 56 of 109 Page ID #:5228
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-56-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
Court to infer from the declarant’s work
hours and duties some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
86. “At the Kelso, WA Target, I work
alongside approximately 4 other
ETLs. Based upon my observations
of and interactions with other Target
ETLs, I understand that many of their
job responsibilities (scheduling team
members, assigning tasks and staffing
LOD shifts) are similar to my own.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs at the
declarant’s store in Washington is irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for his understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. He explains
neither how often and in what capacity he
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
87. “As a Target ETL, my primary
responsibilities are: scheduling team
members, assigning tasks to team
members, reviewing reports
generated by Target, attending
weekly ETL meetings and staffing
Leader of the Day (‘LOD’) shifts.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP at
a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spends performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 57 of 109 Page ID #:5229
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-57-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
88. “As ETL, I assign tasks to team
members, according to a list of
duties provided to me by Target.
These tasks include: securing the
store, accounting for merchandise,
watching for suspicious customers
and preventing thefts. I am not
permitted to assign team members to
tasks that have not been identified
for me by Target.” Harris Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant does or does
not do as ETL at his particular store is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, that the declarant may decide
how to delegate and accomplish necessary
tasks is irrelevant to whether a common
policy or practice gives rise to a wage-and-
hour violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same types of
responsibilities as the declarant does, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 58 of 109 Page ID #:5230
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-58-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
89. “Target also provides me with
instruction as to how many of my
team members I can schedule per
shift and the hours for these shifts.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant does or does
not do as ETL at his particular store is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, that the declarant may make
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 or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same types of
responsibilities as the declarant does, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
90. “I have no control over my
department’s budget and I am not
permitted to assign team members
overtime hours.” Harris Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant does or does
not do at his particular store is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may be
responsible for making 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 or to class certification in this
action.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 59 of 109 Page ID #:5231
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-59-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same types of
responsibilities as the declarant does, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
91. “Every day that I am not scheduled as
an LOD, I work alongside my Asset
Protection team members performing
the same tasks they perform: making
sure the store is secure, accounting
for merchandise and watching for
suspicious customers. These tasks
account for approximately 50% of
my time. I am also responsible for
reviewing surveillance videos and
checking access points (parts of the
store with controlled access) for any
evidence of theft.” Harris Decl.,
¶ 12.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent his time
at his particular store in Washington is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which he allegedly spent half his time
performing such tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
92. “Once a year, I am required to review
the performance of my three team
members according to a matrix
provided to me by Target. Both my
store manager and a representative
from Human Resources sign off on
these reviews before they are
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store in Washington
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 60 of 109 Page ID #:5232
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-60-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
presented to the team member. If
either the store manager or the
Human Resources representative
disagree with my evaluation, they
will override me and re-write the
review.” Harris Decl., ¶ 13.
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
representative were required to approve all
reviews. Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether the store manager or
human resources representative ever
disagreed with the declarant’s
recommendations and re-wrote his reviews.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of his
authority in the review process lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
93. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I attend a weekly meeting
of all store ETLS where the store
manager informs us of any upcoming
promotions or issues relevant to our
store. We also discuss any issues we
perceive with team members and get
direction from the store manager
about how to address those issues.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at his particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
does and, based on that, to further infer
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 61 of 109 Page ID #:5233
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-61-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
94. “Each week, the Store Team Leader
(my manager) schedules me for 3 – 4
shifts as the LOD. Each LOD shift is
approximately 10 hours.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
95. “During these shifts, I am essentially
and extra pair of hands in the store.
My responsibilities as LOD are;
walking the store to identify any
areas needing cleaning or re-
stocking; making sure all store team
members had work to do and were
actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; ‘zoning’
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise
or checking out customers at the
registers.” Harris Decl., ¶ 16.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as LOD at his particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time he allegedly
spends performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly does, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 62 of 109 Page ID #:5234
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-62-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
96. “As an ETL, I do not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members. I am not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor do I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member may be
scheduled for in a given week.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP at
a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant allegedly does,
and to further infer some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
97. “I sometimes participate in the team
member hiring process at Target by
interviewing an applicant. Based on
that interview, I can make a
recommendation to the store
manager, but my recommendation is
not given any greater weight than the
manager’s own opinion or the
opinion of the other ETL(s) with
whom the applicant also interviews. I
do not select candidates to be
interviewed nor am I involved in the
final determination as to whether or
not an applicant will be offered a
job.” Harris Decl., ¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in his declaration, the declarant did not
work as an ETL-AP at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant allegedly does, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that his
recommendation was given no greater
weight than the opinion of the store
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 63 of 109 Page ID #:5235
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-63-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
manager or other ETLs; his statement thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
98. “Although I can recommend to my
store manager that a team member be
promoted, I have no authority to
make a promotion happen. Team
members apply for promotion with
the store manager and are
interviewed by a group of store
ETLs, selected by the manager.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 19.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant allegedly does, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight his recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
99. “As an ETL, I am permitted to
provide verbal ‘coaching’ to my team
members. This usually consists of me
suggesting another way completing a
task or showing the team member, by
physical example, how a task should
be completed.” Harris Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities, and how he accomplished
those tasks, is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in his declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP at
a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 64 of 109 Page ID #:5236
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-64-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
100. “I am not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from my store manager, store Human
Resources representative, district
team leader and district Human
Resources representative. If I have a
concern about a member on my team,
I am required to raise it first with my
store manager and Human Resources
representative, to whom I present a
draft written counseling memo. Both
my store manager and store HR
representative review and revise this
memo and then present it to the
district manager (or District Team
Leader) and the district HR
representative for their feedback and
approval. Once both levels have
signed off on the written warning, I
may present it to the team member.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 21.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
the store manager, human resources
representative, district team leader, and
district human resources representative are
all required to approve of any disciplinary
action taken against a team member.
Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether those individuals
ever declined to adopt or follow the
declarant’s recommendation regarding
disciplinary action. Without such
explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of his authority lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 65 of 109 Page ID #:5237
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-65-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
HARRIS DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 38)
Testimony Objections
101. “Similarly, I am not permitted to
terminate a team member without
prior approval from both the store
manager and Human Resources.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 22.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
must approve of any termination
recommendations. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the store
manager or human resources ever declined
to follow his recommendation for
termination. Without such explanation, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
his authority in the termination process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
102. “When I was first hired by Target, I
attended ‘Target Business College.’
This consisted of two to three weeks
of classes related to the operations of
Target stores. Each day of the
training period, the classes lasted
between 10 – 12 hours.”
Harris Decl., ¶ 23.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s experience
during his training is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in his
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP at a Target store in California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 66 of 109 Page ID #:5238
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-66-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
103. “While an ETL, I worked 5 days per
week, as assigned by my store
manager. The store manager assigns
me to either the opening shift
(6 a.m. – 4 p.m.) or the closing shift
(1p.m. – 11 p.m.). Frequently, I
worked hours beyond my scheduled
shifts. This was often the case on
Mondays, when we have our store-
wide ETL meetings, and on days
when I am scheduled as Leader of the
Day (‘LOD’), as serving as LOD
prevents me from doing many of my
ordinary ETL tasks.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 3.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs (Asset Protection) in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked beyond
her scheduled shifts; her statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. Likewise, she
provides no explanation of her duties as
LOD, and fails to provide any basis for her
statement that serving as LOD prevented
her from performing ETL tasks.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s work hours and
tasks some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
104. “On average, I worked 55 hours per
week in the store.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked 55 hours
per week; her statement lacks foundation
and is conclusory. To the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 67 of 109 Page ID #:5239
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-67-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
lacks foundation and is speculative.
105. “Target classified me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
meant that neither I nor any other
ETL received overtime pay for hours
we worked beyond 40 per week. I
was a salaried employee.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how she was paid are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for her
understanding of how ETLs other than
herself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
106. “I regularly brought work home with
me at the end of my shift, and
estimate I worked an additional 5 –7
hours a week from home. During this
time, I would read paperwork and
policies from Target, work on team
schedules and work on the monthly
reviews I was asked to write for my
team members.” LaFever Decl., ¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
and duties are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked from
home; her statement lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 68 of 109 Page ID #:5240
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-68-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s work
hours some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
107. “At the Kelso, Washington store, I
worked alongside approximately 5
other ETLs. There were about 120
employees at the store.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs and other
employees at the declarant’s store in
Washington is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
108. “My job responsibilities, as described
below, were the same in all the ETL
positions I held. Based upon my
observations of and interactions with
other Target ETLs, I understand that
their job responsibilities were very
similar to my own.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities as ETL at the Washington
store where she worked are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for her understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. She explains
neither how often and in what capacity she
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 69 of 109 Page ID #:5241
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-69-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
109. “As a Target ETL, my primary
responsibilities were: scheduling
team members, assigning tasks to
team members, reviewing reports
generated by Target, attending
weekly ETL meetings and staffing
Leader of the Day (‘LOD’) shifts.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
110. “At the Kelso, Washington store, I
was part of a team of approximately
30 employees assigned to Guest
Services. There were also two Team
Leaders assigned to my team and two
Guest Service Associates. These team
members were all hourly employees.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store in Washington are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for
concluding that all of her team members
were hourly employees.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 70 of 109 Page ID #:5242
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-70-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
111. “As ETL of Guest Services, I would
schedule team members according to
directions provided by Target. I was
instructed as to how many team
members to staff to the various
available shifts. I had no control over
my department budget. I was not
permitted to schedule employees for
overtime without prior approval of
the store manager, nor was I
permitted to staff additional team
members to a shift without prior
approval. I was not permitted to
assign team members to tasks that
had not been identified for me by
Target.” LaFever Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant did or did not
do as ETL of Guest Services is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to offer any basis for
knowing that the store manager’s approval
was required to make certain scheduling
decisions, and whether the store manager
ever declined to approve the declarant’s
scheduling recommendations. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement regarding
the scope of her authority lacks foundation
and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 71 of 109 Page ID #:5243
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-71-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
112. “My other ETL duties included:
reviewing reports generated by
Target on the store’s performance,
making sure the registers weren’t
getting backed up, helping handle
customer service issues, and
reviewing planograms created by
Target, which are detailed maps of
what the store should look like and
where merchandise should be placed,
to ensure that the store was set up
according to the planogram.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 12.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
113. “As ETL for Guest Services, I
estimate that I spent more than 50%
of my time performing tasks identical
to those of the team members I
supervised. This included checking
customers out, working the customer
service desk and straightening
shelves. Because I so many of my
shifts were LOD shifts, I also spent a
lot of my time folding clothes, re-
stocking merchandise, picking up
items that had fallen, cleaning the
floors and generally walking the store
to make sure there were no messes or
gaps in merchandise.”
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent her time
as ETL for Guest Services at her particular
store is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which she allegedly spent more than half
her time performing such tasks. Without
such basis, the declarant’s statement is
irrelevant to whether there is any common
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 72 of 109 Page ID #:5244
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-72-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
LaFever Decl., ¶ 13. policy or practice that gives rise to a wage-
and-hour violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
114. “Once a month, I was required to
complete a review of the Guest
Service Team Leaders, according to a
matrix provided by Target. These
reviews had to be signed off on by
the store manager, who had the
authority to override my input. Once
a year, I participated in the
performance reviews of the team
members, along with Guest Service
Team Leaders. Again, these reviews
had to be signed off on by the store
manager. Annual reviews also had to
be approved by the district Human
Resources manager. Both of these
individuals had the ability to override
my contributions to the review, and
my opinions were given no greater
weight than the store manager’s.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
manager were able to “override” her input,
or that her opinion was given no greater
weight than the store manager’s opinion.
Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether the store manager or
human resources manager ever declined to
follow her recommendation. Without such
explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of her authority in the
review process lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 73 of 109 Page ID #:5245
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-73-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
115. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I would attend a weekly
meeting of all store ETLS where the
store manager would inform us of
any upcoming promotions or issues
relevant to our store. We would also
discuss any issues we perceived with
team members and get direction from
the store manager about how to
address those issues.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at her particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
did and, based on that, to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
116. “Each week, the Store Team Leader
(my manager) would schedule me for
4 – 5 shifts as the LOD. Each LOD
shift was approximately 10 hours.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 16.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 74 of 109 Page ID #:5246
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-74-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
117. “During these shifts, I was essentially
and extra pair of hands in the store.
My responsibilities as LOD were:
walking the store to identify any
areas needing cleaning or re-
stocking; making sure all store team
members had work to do and were
actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; “zoning”
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise,
collecting carts or checking out
customers at the registers.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as LOD at her particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
118. “As an ETL for the Sales Floor
(Hardlines and Softlines), my daily
responsibilities included reviewing
planograms created by Target
mapping out what the store should
look like and where merchandise
should be placed and executing these
planograms with my team. I would
ensure that my departments were
stocked, that the aisles were neat, and
that the merchandise was correctly
labeled and priced according to
Target’s directions.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL for Sales Floor at her particular
store are irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 75 of 109 Page ID #:5247
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-75-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
119. “I led a team of about 15 Sales Floor
team members, including four Team
Leaders; all of these employees were
paid on an hourly basis.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 19.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store in Washington are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for
concluding that all of the employees on her
team were paid on an hourly basis.
120. “As an ETL for the Sales Floor, I
spent nearly all of my day performing
the same tasks as the rest of my team
members: stocking shelves, cleaning
aisles, folding clothes, building end
caps and ‘zoning’ (straightening the
shelves).” LaFever Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent her time
as ETL for Sales Floor at her particular
store is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which she allegedly spent most of her time
performing the listed tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 76 of 109 Page ID #:5248
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-76-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California spend their time
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
121. “As an ETL, I did not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members. I was not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor did I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member could be
scheduled in a given week.”
LaFever Decl., ¶ 21.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
122. “On occasion, I would participate in
the team member hiring process at
Target by interviewing an applicant.
After the interview, I could make a
recommendation to the store
manager, but my recommendation
was not given any particular weight.
All hiring decisions were made by
my store manager and Human
Resources manager. I had no
authority to determine how much an
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 77 of 109 Page ID #:5249
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-77-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
employee would be paid, or how
many hours he would be assigned. I
was not permitted to check the
applicant’s references or negotiate
pay.” LaFever Decl., ¶ 22.
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that the store
manager and human resources manager
made the final hiring decision, or how much
weight her recommendation was given in
the hiring decision. Likewise, the declarant
fails to explain whether the store manager
or human resources manager ever declined
to adopt or follow her hiring
recommendation. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority in the hiring process lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
123. “Although I could recommend to my
store manager that a team member be
promoted, I had no authority to make
a promotion happen. All promotions
were approved by the store
manager.” LaFever Decl., ¶ 23.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 78 of 109 Page ID #:5250
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-78-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight her recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
124. “I was not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from both my store manager and a
Human Resources representative.
Any discipline had to be signed off
on by the store manager and an HR
representative from outside the store,
at the district level.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 24.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
representative were required to approve of
disciplinary actions against team members.
Likewise, the declarant offers no
explanation of whether the store manager or
human resources ever declined to follow her
recommendation for disciplinary action.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of her
authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 79 of 109 Page ID #:5251
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-79-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
LaFEVER DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 39)
Testimony Objections
125. “Similarly, I was not permitted to
terminate a team member without
prior approval from my superiors.
Terminations had to be approved by
my store manager, the Human
Resources manager and either the
district manager or district HR
representative.” LaFever Decl., ¶ 25.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager, human resources
manager, and district manager or human
resources representative were required to
approve of any termination
recommendations. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether those
individuals ever declined to follow her
recommendation for termination. Without
such explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of her authority in the
termination process lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
126. “When I first started working for
Target, I attended 3 – 4 weeks of
training outside the store in a
classroom setting. I also had some
on-the-job training.” LaFever Decl.,
¶ 26.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s experience
during her training is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 80 of 109 Page ID #:5252
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-80-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
127. “While an ETL, I worked 5 days per
week, as assigned by my store
manager. The store manager assigns
me to either the opening shift
(7 a.m. – 5 p.m.) or the closing shift
(1p.m. – 11 p.m.). Frequently, I
worked hours beyond my scheduled
shifts. This was often the case on
days I was scheduled for the closing
shift; on those days, I almost never
left the store before midnight.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 4.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs (Asset Protection) in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked beyond
her scheduled shifts; her statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s work hours some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
128. “On average, I worked 55 hours per
week in the store; often I worked
more than 60 hours a week during the
fourth quarter of the year.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked 55 to
more than 60 hours per week; her statement
lacks foundation and is conclusory. To the
extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s work hours some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 81 of 109 Page ID #:5253
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-81-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
129. “Target classified me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
meant that neither I nor any other
ETL received overtime pay for hours
we worked beyond 40 per week.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how she was paid are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for her
understanding of how ETLs other than
herself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
130. “At the Orange, California store, I
worked alongside approximately 6-7
other ETLs.” Novak Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs at the
declarant’s store is irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 82 of 109 Page ID #:5254
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-82-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
131. “My job responsibilities, as described
below, were the same in all the
Target stores where I worked. Based
upon my observations of and
interactions with other Target ETLs, I
understand that their job
responsibilities were very similar to
my own.” Novak Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities as ETL are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for her understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. She explains
neither how often and in what capacity she
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
132. “As a Target ETL, my primary
responsibilities were: scheduling
team members, assigning tasks to
team members, reviewing reports
generated by Target, attending
weekly ETL meetings and staffing
Leader of the Day (‘LOD’) shifts.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
133. “At the Orange, California store, I
was part of a team of approximately
50 employees assigned to Guest
Services. Our department included
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store are irrelevant to this action, which
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 83 of 109 Page ID #:5255
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-83-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
cashiers, Guest Services (customer
service), the cash office, the photo
counter and Food Avenue, a place
where customers can buy prepared
food.” Novak Decl., ¶ 10.
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
134. “As ETL of Guest Services, I would
schedule team members according to
directions provided by Target. I was
instructed as to how many team
members to staff to the various
available shifts. I had no control over
my department budget. I was not
permitted to schedule employees for
overtime without prior approval of
the store manager, nor was I
permitted to staff additional team
members to a shift without prior
approval. I was not permitted to
assign team members to tasks that
had not been identified for me by
Target.” Novak Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant did or did not
do as ETL of Guest Services is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to offer any basis for
knowing that the store manager’s approval
was required to make certain scheduling
decisions, and whether the store manager
ever declined to approve the declarant’s
scheduling recommendations. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement regarding
the scope of her authority lacks foundation
and is conclusory. To the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that ETL-APs in
California have the same responsibilities as
the declarant allegedly did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 84 of 109 Page ID #:5256
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-84-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
135. “My other ETL duties included:
monitoring that employees in my
department were doing their jobs and
that the registers weren’t backed up,
monitoring team members to see
whether they hit the goals set by
Target for how quickly customers
should be checked out, helping with
customer service issues, making sure
the money balanced at the end of the
day, making sure the cash office was
shut down and locked at the end of
the day, making sure the shelves were
neat and stocked, opening the trailers
in the back of the store when we
needed more stock, selling Target
credit cards to customers, and
monitoring how many Target credit
cards my team members sold.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 12.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
136. “As ETL for Guest Services, I
estimate that I spent more than 50%
of my time performing tasks identical
to those of the team members I
supervised. This included checking
customers out, working the customer
service desk, straightening shelves
(“zoning”), helping to build an
endcap and cleaning up messes.
Because I so many of my shifts were
LOD shifts, I also spent a lot of my
time re-stocking merchandise,
picking up items that had fallen,
cleaning the floors and generally
walking the store to make sure there
were no messes or gaps in
merchandise.” Novak Decl., ¶ 13.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent her time
as ETL for Guest Services at her particular
store is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which she allegedly spent more than half
her time performing such tasks. Without
such basis, the declarant’s statement is
irrelevant to whether there is any common
policy or practice that gives rise to a wage-
and-hour violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 85 of 109 Page ID #:5257
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-85-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
137. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I would attend a weekly
meeting of all store ETLS where the
store manager would inform us of
any upcoming promotions or issues
relevant to our store. We would also
discuss any issues we perceived with
team members and get direction from
the store manager about how to
address those issues.” Novak Decl.,
¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at her particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
did and, based on that, to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
138. “Each week, the Store Team Leader
(my manager) would schedule me for
4 – 5 shifts as the LOD. Initially,
LOD shifts were approximately 10
hours; during the end of my time at
Target, they were half day shifts,
approximately 7 hours.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP.
139. “During these shifts, I was essentially
and extra pair of hands in the store.
My responsibilities as LOD were:
walking the store to identify any
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as LOD at her particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 86 of 109 Page ID #:5258
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-86-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
areas needing cleaning or re-
stocking; making sure all store team
members had work to do and were
actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; “zoning”
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise,
collecting carts or checking out
customers at the registers.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 16.
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
140. “As an ETL, I did not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members. I was not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor did I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member could be
scheduled in a given week.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 87 of 109 Page ID #:5259
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-87-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
141. “Once a year, I participated in the
performance reviews of the Guest
Service Team Leaders. My store
manager had to sign off on all of the
reviews and had the authority to
override my input. The Team Leaders
were responsible for reviewing the
cashiers, also with the store
manager’s sign-off and override
authority. My opinions of my team
members’ performance were given
no greater weight than the store
manager’s.” Novak Decl., ¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant participated in
the review process at her particular store is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
the store manager was able to “override”
the declarant’s input and had to sign off on
all reviews, or that the declarant’s opinion
was given no greater weight than the store
manager’s opinion. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the store
manager ever declined to follow her
recommendation. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement regarding the
scope of her authority in the review process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
142. “On occasion, I would participate In
the team member hiring process at
Target by interviewing an applicant.
After the interview, I could make a
recommendation to the store
manager, but my recommendation
was not given any particular weight.
All hiring decisions were made by
my store manager and Human
Resources manager. I had no
authority to determine how much an
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 88 of 109 Page ID #:5260
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-88-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
employee would be paid, or how
many hours he would be assigned. I
was not permitted to check the
applicant’s references or negotiate
pay. Prior to 2005, I was permitted to
make hiring decisions, but, after
2005, Target took that authority away
from ETLs.” Novak Decl., ¶ 19.
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that the store
manager and human resources manager
made the final hiring decision, or how much
weight her recommendation was given in
the hiring decision. Likewise, the declarant
fails to explain whether the store manager
or human resources manager ever declined
to adopt or follow her hiring
recommendation. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority in the hiring process lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
Similarly, the declarant explains neither
how she allegedly was able to make hiring
decisions until 2005, nor the circumstances
under which the change allegedly occurred;
her statement lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
143. “Although I could recommend to my
store manager that a team member be
promoted, I had no authority to make
a promotion happen. All promotions
were approved by the store manager
and the Human Resources manager.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 89 of 109 Page ID #:5261
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-89-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight her recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
144. “I was not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from my Human Resources manager.
Any discipline had to be signed off
on by the store HR representative.”
Novak Decl., ¶ 21.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the human resources manager was required
to approve of disciplinary actions against
team members. Likewise, the declarant
offers no explanation of whether the human
resources manager ever declined to follow
her recommendation for disciplinary action.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of her
authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
145. “Similarly, I was not permitted to Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 90 of 109 Page ID #:5262
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-90-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
NOVAK DECLARATION (ECF 47, Exh. 40)
Testimony Objections
terminate a team member without
prior approval from my superiors.
Terminations had to be approved by
my store manager and the Human
Resources manager.” Novak Decl.,
¶ 22.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
manager were required to approve of any
termination recommendations. Likewise,
the declarant offers no explanation of
whether those individuals ever declined to
follow her recommendation for termination.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of her
authority in the termination process lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
146. “While an ETL for Logistics, I
worked 5 days per week, as assigned
by my store manager. My day started
at 3:30 a.m. and ended at 2:30 p.m.,
except on Mondays when I was
required to attend a meeting of all
store ETLs, which ended around 5
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs (Asset Protection) in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 91 of 109 Page ID #:5263
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-91-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
p.m.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 4. California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s work hours some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
147. “On average, I worked at least 55
hours per week in the store.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 5.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
are irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked at least
55 hours per week; her statement lacks
foundation and is conclusory. To the extent
plaintiff invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s work hours some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
148. “Target classified me, and all ETLs,
as overtime-exempt employees. This
meant that neither I nor any other
ETL received overtime pay for hours
we worked beyond 40 per week. I
was a salaried employee.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 6.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s classification
status and how she was paid are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks personal knowledge (Fed. R. Evid.
602). The declarant does not establish
personal knowledge of how Target
classified “all ETLs” and how those ETLs
were paid.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 92 of 109 Page ID #:5264
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-92-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant does not provide any basis for her
understanding of how ETLs other than
herself were classified and how they were
paid. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff
invites the Court to infer from the
declarant’s statement that all ETLs at all
stores nationwide unlawfully did not
receive overtime pay, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
149. “I often worked through lunch and
very rarely took my breaks. For about
a half hour every night, I would
check and respond to my Target
emails from home. Twice a year,
when I had to do reviews, I would
work on those from home, and that
would usually take about six hours
during those weeks. I would also
sometimes take any reading material
provided by Target home to read
because I didn’t have time to do it
while I was in the store.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 7.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s hours of work
and duties are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to explain the circumstances
under which she allegedly worked through
her breaks and from home; her statement
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s work
hours and duties some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the statement
lacks foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 93 of 109 Page ID #:5265
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-93-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
150. “At the Baxter, Minnesota store, I
worked alongside approximately 4
other ETLs. The store employed
about 150 employees; approximately
35 in Logistics, 45 in Guest Services
and 70 on the Sales Floor, Pharmacy
or in Asset Protection.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 8.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number of ETLs and other
employees at the declarant’s store in
Minnesota is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
151. “My job responsibilities, as described
below, were the same at all Target
stores in which I worked. Based upon
my observations of and interactions
with other Target ETLs and my
experiences as an ETL for other
departments, I understand that their
job responsibilities were very similar
to my own.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 9.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities as ETL at the Minnesota
stores where she worked are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to establish sufficient
foundation for her understanding of other
ETLs’ job responsibilities. She explains
neither how often and in what capacity she
observed and interacted with other ETLs.
To the extent plaintiff invites the Court to
infer from the declarant’s statement that all
ETLs at all Target stores throughout the
nation—including ETL-APs in California—
had similar job responsibilities, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 94 of 109 Page ID #:5266
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-94-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
152. “As a Target ETL, my primary
responsibilities were: scheduling
team members, assigning tasks to
team members, reviewing reports
generated by Target, attending
weekly ETL meetings and staffing
Leader of the Day (‘LOD’) shifts.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 10.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
153. “At the Baxter, Minnesota store, I
was part of a team of approximately
35 employees assigned to Logistics.
There were two Team Leaders
assigned to my team: one for Flow
and one for Backroom.” Gifford
Decl., ¶ 11.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The number and type of
employees who worked at the declarant’s
store in Minnesota are irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 95 of 109 Page ID #:5267
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-95-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
154. “As an ETL of Logistics, I would
schedule team members according to
directions provided by Target. My
primary responsibility was to make
sure no team member worked more
than five days in a week and that no
one was schedule for overtime. I had
no control over my department
budget, nor was I permitted to
schedule employees for overtime
without prior approval of the store
manager.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 12.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). What the declarant did or did not
do as ETL of Logistics at her particular
store in Minnesota is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant fails to offer any basis for
knowing that the store manager’s approval
was required to schedule overtime, and
whether the store manager ever declined to
approve overtime requests from the
declarant. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 96 of 109 Page ID #:5268
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-96-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
155. “My other ETL of Logistics duties
included: monitoring the condition of
the store for messes or gaps in stock;
making sure the trucks were unloaded
and merchandise stocked on the
floor; making sure back stock was
put away and off the floor; and
stocking the shelves throughout the
day. On occasion, if someone on my
team called in sick, I would also
physically unload the trucks. I was
also responsible for at least two hours
of “zoning” a day, which meant
walking the store and the stockroom
and straightening shelves.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 13.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
156. “As ETL of Logistics, I would assign
these tasks to members of my team,
who were hourly employees. I was
not permitted to assign team
members to tasks that had not been
identified for me by Target. I would
supervise team members as they
unloaded the trucks and moved
pallets out to the floor. Because
Logistics team members needed to be
off the sales floor by 8 a.m., I would
sometimes stock shelves myself to
make sure we met our deadline.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 14.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 97 of 109 Page ID #:5269
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-97-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
violation or to class certification.
Similarly, that the declarant may have made
scheduling decisions based on an allotted
number of payroll hours, and decided how
to delegate and accomplish necessary tasks,
is irrelevant to whether a common policy or
practice gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for concluding that all of her team
members were hourly employees.
157. “I would also schedule the team
members according to directions
provided to me by Target as to how
many employees should be scheduled
per shift. I was not permitted to
assign additional team members to a
shift without prior approval from my
store manager.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 15.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities are irrelevant to this action,
which relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Moreover, that the declarant may have
made scheduling decisions based on an
allotted number of payroll hours, and
decided how to delegate and accomplish
necessary tasks, is irrelevant to whether a
common policy or practice gives rise to a
wage-and-hour violation or to class
certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 98 of 109 Page ID #:5270
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-98-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
declarant fails to offer any basis for
knowing that the store manager’s approval
was required to make certain scheduling
decisions, and whether the store manager
ever declined to approve the declarant’s
scheduling requests. Without such basis, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
158. “As ETL for Logistics, I estimate that
I spent more than 50% of my time
performing tasks identical to those of
the team members I supervised. This
included stocking and straightening
shelves, cleaning up messes and
walking the floor to determine what
items needed to be re-stocked.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 16.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent her time
as ETL for Logistics at her particular store
is irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which she allegedly spent more than half
her time performing such tasks. Without
such basis, the declarant’s statement is
irrelevant to whether there is any common
policy or practice that gives rise to a wage-
and-hour violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 99 of 109 Page ID #:5271
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-99-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
159. “As ETL for Sales Floor (both
Softlines and Hardlines) my duties
included: reviewing planograms
(maps of the store provided by
Target) to make sure the merchandise
in my department matched the
planogram, making sure sales items
and end caps were fully stocked,
changing end caps when instructed,
making sure my department was
clean and all merchandise was
properly labeled, signed and priced
according to Target’s instructions. I
was also responsible for taking down
the seasonal displays when instructed
by Target and resetting those displays
for the next season in accordance
with planograms created by Target.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 17.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s job
responsibilities as ETL for Sales Floor are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
did, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 100 of 109 Page ID
#:5272
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-100-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
160. “As ETL for Sales Floor (both
Softlines and Hardlines), I estimate
that I spent about 50% of my time
performing tasks identical to those of
the team members I supervised. This
included: stocking and straightening
shelves, helping customers, folding
merchandise, building end caps,
labeling, signing, re-filling specially
advertised merchandise, cleaning up
messes and making sure the aisles
were neat and fully stocked.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 18.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). How the declarant spent her time
as ETL for Logistics at her particular store
is irrelevant to this action, which relates to
the claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of the circumstances under
which she allegedly spent half her time
performing such tasks. Without such basis,
the declarant’s statement is irrelevant to
whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California spend their time as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
161. “Twice a year, I was required to
participate in the performance
reviews of the Logistics team
members. For the Logistics Team
Leaders, I would meet with the store
manager and other ETLs to discuss
the performance of the Logistics
Team Leaders. My opinion was not
given any more weight than that of
the other people participating in the
review. I would then write up the
review, which my manager would
sign off on before I could present it to
the Team Leader.” Gifford Decl.,
¶ 19.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
her opinion was given no greater weight
than the opinions of the store manager and
other ETLs, or that the store manager
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 101 of 109 Page ID
#:5273
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-101-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
needed to sign off on the reviews. Likewise,
the declarant offers no explanation of
whether the store manager ever declined to
follow her recommendation. Without such
explanation, the declarant’s statement
regarding the scope of her authority in the
review process lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
162. “For team members, I met with the
Team Leaders and the store manager
to discuss each team members’
performance. Again, my opinion was
not given greater weight than the
store manager’s and, again, the store
manager signed off on these reviews
before they were presented to the
team member.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 20.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
as ETL and the review process at the
declarant’s particular store are irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant provides no basis for knowing that
her opinion was given no greater weight
than the opinions of the store manager, or
that the store manager needed to sign off on
the reviews. Likewise, the declarant offers
no explanation of whether the store
manager ever declined to follow her
recommendation. Without such explanation,
the declarant’s statement regarding the
scope of her authority in the review process
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 102 of 109 Page ID
#:5274
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-102-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
statement that ETL-APs in California have
similar involvement in the review process
as the declarant did, and to further infer
some wage-and-hour violation that would
give rise to class certification in this action,
the declarant’s statement lacks foundation
and is speculative.
163. “Once a week, usually on Monday
afternoons, I would attend a weekly
meeting of all store ETLS where the
store manager would inform us of
any upcoming promotions or issues
relevant to our store. We would also
discuss any issues we perceived with
team members and get direction from
the store manager about how to
address those issues.” Gifford Decl.,
¶ 21.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). Meetings that the declarant
attended at her particular store, and any
discussions during those meetings, are
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California participate in the same
types of meetings as the declarant allegedly
did and, based on that, to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
164. “Each week during the time I was an
ETL for Logistics, the store HR
manager, with my manager’s
approval, would schedule me for one
shift as the Leader of the Day
(‘LOD’). As an ETL for Sales Floor
(Softlines and Hardlines) I would
usually be scheduled for 3 LOD
shifts per week. Each LOD shift was
approximately 10 hours.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 22.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s work schedule is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
165. “During these shifts, I was essentially
and extra pair of hands in the store.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s responsibilities
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 103 of 109 Page ID
#:5275
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-103-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
My responsibilities as LOD were:
walking the store to identify any
areas needing cleaning or re-
stocking; making sure all store team
members had work to do and were
actively working; ensuring that
customers were moving through the
registers quickly and that the front of
the store wasn’t backed up; “zoning”
(straightening shelves); pitching-in
with whatever tasks needed to be
done, including stocking shelves,
cleaning aisles, folding merchandise,
collecting carts or checking out
customers at the registers.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 23.
as LOD at her particular store are irrelevant
to this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Moreover, the declarant fails to provide any
explanation of how much time she allegedly
spent performing such tasks. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement is irrelevant
to whether there is any common policy or
practice that gives rise to a wage-and-hour
violation or to class certification.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
that ETL-APs in California have the same
job responsibilities as the declarant
allegedly did, and to further infer based on
those responsibilities some wage-and-hour
violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
166. “As an ETL, I did not have authority
to hire, promote, discipline or
terminate team members. I was not
responsible for setting team
members’ rates of pay nor did I have
any discretion with respect to how
many hours a team member could be
scheduled in a given week.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 24.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority is irrelevant to this action, which
relates to the claims of ETL-APs in
California. As set forth in her declaration,
the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP
and was not employed at a Target store in
California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority as the declarant did, and to further
infer some wage-and-hour violation that
would give rise to class certification in this
action, the declarant’s statement lacks
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 104 of 109 Page ID
#:5276
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-104-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
foundation and is speculative.
167. “On occasion, I would participate in
the team member hiring process at
Target by interviewing an applicant.
After the interview, I could make a
recommendation to the Human
Resources manager, but my
recommendation was not given any
particular weight. The applicant
would then be interviewed by Team
Leaders or other ETLs and the
Human Resources manager would
make the final decision. I had no
authority to determine how much an
employee would be paid, how many
or what hours they would be assigned
and I was not permitted to check the
applicant’s references or negotiate
pay.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 25.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
responsibilities in the hiring process is
irrelevant to this action, which relates to the
claims of ETL-APs in California. As set
forth in her declaration, the declarant did
not work as an ETL-AP and was not
employed at a Target store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
responsibilities in the hiring process as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not provide
any basis for knowing that the human
resources manager made the final hiring
decision, or how much weight her
recommendation was given in the hiring
decision. Likewise, the declarant fails to
explain whether the human resources
manager ever declined to adopt or follow
her hiring recommendation. Without such
basis, the declarant’s statement regarding
the scope of her authority in the hiring
process lacks foundation and is conclusory.
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 105 of 109 Page ID
#:5277
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-105-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
168. “Although I could recommend to my
store manager that a team member be
promoted, I had no authority to make
a promotion happen. All promotions
were approved by either the store
manager or the Human Resources
manager.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 26.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). To
the extent plaintiff invites the Court to infer
from the declarant’s statement that ETL-
APs in California have the same scope of
authority and responsibilities as the
declarant did, and to further infer some
wage-and-hour violation that would give
rise to class certification in this action, the
declarant’s statement lacks foundation and
is speculative.
Moreover, the declarant does not establish
any basis for knowing how team members
were selected for promotion, or how much
weight her recommendation was given. The
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority in the promotion process thus
lacks foundation and is conclusory.
169. “I was not permitted to discipline a
team member without prior approval
from my store manager and a Human
Resources representative. Any
discipline had to be signed off on by
the store manager, HR manager and
an HR district manager.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 27.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager and human resources
managers were required to approve of
disciplinary actions against team members.
Likewise, the declarant offers no
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 106 of 109 Page ID
#:5278
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-106-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
explanation of whether the store manager or
human resources managers ever declined to
follow her recommendation for disciplinary
action. Without such explanation, the
declarant’s statement regarding the scope of
her authority lacks foundation and is
conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
responsibilities as the declarant did, and to
further infer some wage-and-hour violation
that would give rise to class certification in
this action, the declarant’s statement lacks
foundation and is speculative.
170. “Similarly, I was not permitted to
terminate a team member without
prior approval from either the store
manager or Human Resources.”
Gifford Decl., ¶ 28.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The scope of the declarant’s
authority and responsibilities is irrelevant to
this action, which relates to the claims of
ETL-APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
Lacks foundation, conclusory,
speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The
declarant offers no basis for knowing that
the store manager or human resources
manager were required to approve of any
termination recommendations. Likewise,
the declarant offers no explanation of
whether those individuals ever declined to
follow her recommendation for termination.
Without such explanation, the declarant’s
statement regarding the scope of her
authority in the termination process lacks
foundation and is conclusory.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff invites the
Court to infer from the declarant’s
statement that ETL-APs in California have
the same scope of authority and
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 107 of 109 Page ID
#:5279
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-107-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
GIFFORD DECLARATION (ECF ECF 47, Exh. 41)
Testimony Objections
responsibilities as the declarant allegedly
does, and to further infer some wage-and-
hour violation that would give rise to class
certification in this action, the declarant’s
statement lacks foundation and is
speculative.
171. “When I first became an ETL for
Logistics, I spent three days
shadowing another ETL for Logistics
at another Target store in
Minnesota.” Gifford Decl., ¶ 29.
Irrelevant and immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402). The declarant’s experience
during her training is irrelevant to this
action, which relates to the claims of ETL-
APs in California. As set forth in her
declaration, the declarant did not work as an
ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target
store in California.
V. ALSO IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SHOULD THE COURT CONSIDER THE
SEVEN DECLARATIONS PLAINTIFF CHERRY-PICKED FROM
GIFFORD, IT ALSO SHOULD CONSIDER THE 359 DECLARATIONS
TARGET GATHERED IN GIFFORD
If the Court declines to strike the Gifford declarations submitted by plaintiff, then it
also should also consider the 359 declarations that Target gathered from ETLs in
opposition to class certification in Gifford. (See Wohl Decl., ¶ 11; Compendium of
Defendant Target Corporation’s Gifford Declarations in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification.) In these declarations, 359 Target ETLs attest to spending more
than 50% of their time on managerial duties. Compared to the relatively few declarations
from Gifford that plaintiff seeks to introduce, these 359 declarations conclusively
demonstrate that, at minimum, there are individualized issues about what job duties ETLs
perform and how they perform them. Just as the declarations and other evidence Target
presents in opposition to class certification show, these 359 declarations provide
overwhelming evidence that the case cannot be tried as a class action and certification
should be denied.
///
Case 5:17-cv-00155-ODW-SP Document 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 108 of 109 Page ID
#:5280
LEGAL_US_W # 91712677.2
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
-108-
TARGET’S MOTION TO STRIKE & OBJECTIONS TO
GIFFORD COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS
U.S.D.C., C.D. CAL., NO. 5:17-CV-00155-ODW-SP
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Target requests that the Court strike the Gifford
complaint and the related seven declarations in their entirety. Alternatively, the Court
should sustain Target’s objections to specific portions of the declarants’ testimony as set
forth above and consider the 359 Gifford declarations Target submits with this motion to
strike.
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 72 Filed 11/01/17 Page 109 of 109 Page ID
#:5281