Neda Faraji et al v. Target Corporation et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Gifford Complaint and Declarations Submitted With Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Request for Judicial Notice 47

C.D. Cal.November 1, 2017

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