1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Class Certification

declaration-makhija-certification.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

18 / 150 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT

Date: June 14, 2023

Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 34 Trial Date: None Set

DECLARATION OF DR. RAJESH MAKHIJA

I, Dr. Rajesh Makhija, declare as follows:

I. QUALIFICATIONS AND IDENTITY

1. My name is Dr. Rajesh Makhija. I am a Principal and Senior Consultant at Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC, located at 444 Castro Street, Suite 800, Mountain View, California 94041. I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.

I hold a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, awarded in 2001. I also hold a Master of Arts degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the same institution, awarded in 1998, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from the University of California, Davis, awarded in 1996. My doctoral dissertation focused on the impact of organizational structure on scheduling compliance in multi-site service operations.

I have over twenty years of professional experience in industrial/organizational consulting, with a specialization in workplace scheduling practices, organizational behavior, and workforce analytics. My work has been concentrated in the media, entertainment, and hospitality industries, where I have developed particular expertise in analyzing how organizational variability—including differences in supervisory structures, production types, facility characteristics, and operational demands—affects employment practices such as meal and rest break compliance, timekeeping accuracy, and overtime management.

Over the course of my career, I have served as an expert witness or consultant in more than thirty-five employment class action matters in both California state courts and federal courts, with particular expertise in analyzing issues of commonality, typicality, and predominance as they relate to workplace policies and practices. I have been qualified as an expert witness in the Superior Courts of the State of California in Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, and Orange County. I have also been qualified as an expert in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and the Northern District of California, as well as in private arbitration proceedings administered by JAMS and the American Arbitration Association.

I am the author of multiple peer-reviewed articles published in leading journals in the field of industrial/organizational psychology, including articles addressing workplace scheduling variability, meal and rest break compliance in multi-site operations, and the methodological challenges of analyzing employment practices across heterogeneous workforces. A complete list of my publications, prior testimony, and professional affiliations is set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

II. RETENTION AND SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT

2. I was retained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, counsel for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA" or "Defendant"), pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 1, 2023. The purpose of my retention was to analyze and opine on the following topics in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification:

(a) The degree of variability in working conditions, scheduling practices, meal and rest break implementation, and supervisory discretion across AMA's seven California production facilities and fourteen show units during the putative class period of November 1, 2018 through the present;

(b) Whether the experiences of the three named Plaintiffs—Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla—are typical of the experiences of the putative class of approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees; and

(c) Whether common questions of fact regarding AMA's meal and rest break practices predominate over individual questions, or whether the resolution of the putative class members' claims would require predominantly individualized inquiry.

My compensation for this engagement is billed at a rate of $650.00 per hour for time spent on all aspects of the engagement, including review and analysis of documents, data analysis, preparation of my expert report, and preparation of this declaration. My compensation is in no way contingent upon the opinions I express or the outcome of this litigation.

My full expert report, dated May 19, 2023, is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 1. This declaration summarizes the key findings and opinions set forth in that report. To the extent any inconsistency exists between this declaration and my full expert report, the expert report controls.

III. MATERIALS REVIEWED

3. In forming my opinions, I reviewed and analyzed a comprehensive set of documents, data, and other materials, including but not limited to the following:

(a) AMA organizational charts and staffing records for all seven California production facilities (Facilities 1 through 7), covering the class period of November 1, 2018 through the present;

(b) NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping data for the class period, consisting of approximately 12 million individual punch records for approximately 1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees across all seven facilities;

(c) Missed Meal Attestation records generated through the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system at the four facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was activated—specifically, Facilities 1, 3, 5, and 6—together with system activation logs confirming that the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated at Facilities 2, 4, and 7;

(d) Production schedules, daily call sheets, and wrap reports for all fourteen show units that were active during the class period, spanning scripted development, unscripted programming, post-production, digital content, live events, field production, and e-commerce studio operations;

(e) AMA's Employee Handbook (revised March 2021), with particular focus on Section 4.3 (Meal Periods), Section 4.4 (Rest Periods), and Section 4.7 (Timekeeping);

(f) AMA's standalone Meal and Rest Break Policy, effective January 1, 2019;

(g) Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 12-2001 (Motion Picture Industry), as applicable to AMA's California operations;

(h) Deposition transcripts for the following witnesses: Marisol Fuentes (May 2, 2023), Derek Halloran (May 9, 2023), Yesenia Padilla (May 16, 2023), Lorraine Okafor (Person Most Knowledgeable, May 4, 2023), Celine Arroyo (Human Resources Director, May 11, 2023), Karen Fong (Payroll Manager, May 18, 2023), Marcus Yee (Director of Production Operations, May 5, 2023), and depositions of three Unit Production Managers conducted in May 2023;

(i) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed April 14, 2023, and all supporting declarations and exhibits submitted therewith;

(j) The expert report of Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, dated April 28, 2023, submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

(k) AMA's Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Special Interrogatories, and AMA's Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Special Interrogatories;

(l) Personnel files and supervisory records for the three named Plaintiffs—Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla; and

(m) Notes and summaries from my interviews with AMA operational personnel, including facility managers, production supervisors, and payroll administrators, conducted during March and April 2023.

A complete list of materials reviewed is set forth in Appendix A to my expert report (Exhibit 1).

IV. OVERVIEW OF AMA'S CALIFORNIA OPERATIONS

4. To provide context for my findings, I set forth below an overview of AMA's organizational structure and California operations as they existed during the class period.

AMA is a wholly owned United States subsidiary of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, a publicly traded company organized under the laws of England and Wales. AMA operates in the media, entertainment, and e-commerce sectors. As of the end of the class period, AMA employed approximately 3,200 employees in the United States, of whom approximately 2,400 were based in the State of California. The putative class in this action consists of approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who worked at AMA's California production facilities during the period from November 1, 2018 through the present.

During the class period, AMA operated seven distinct production facilities in California, each serving a different operational function within AMA's broader production ecosystem. The facilities are as follows:

Facility 1 — 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. This facility serves as AMA's corporate headquarters and its primary post-production hub, housing editorial suites, audio mixing stages, color correction bays, and administrative offices.

Facility 2 — 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City, California 91604. This facility houses two production stages (Stage A and Stage B) dedicated primarily to unscripted programming, including competition and reality-format shows.

Facility 3 — 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. This facility is devoted to digital content production, including short-form video, social media content, and streaming-platform originals.

Facility 4 — 3800 West Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. This facility serves as the coordination hub for AMA's live events division and field production operations, including remote and location-based shoots.

Facility 5 — 1438 North Gower Street, Hollywood, California 90028. This facility houses AMA's scripted development operations, including writers' rooms, development offices, and production support for pilot and series development.

Facility 6 — 2120 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404. This facility operates as AMA's e-commerce studio, producing product photography, lifestyle video content, and branded entertainment for AMA's e-commerce clients.

Facility 7 — 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245. This facility serves as a post-production annex, handling overflow editorial work, visual effects compositing, and archival operations.

During the class period, AMA operated fourteen distinct production or show units across these seven facilities. All of AMA's California production operations are governed by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 12-2001 (Motion Picture Industry). Each show unit operated under the day-to-day direction of a different Unit Production Manager ("UPM") or Line Producer, who was responsible for scheduling production activities, managing crew assignments, and—critically for this matter—scheduling meal and rest breaks for the non-exempt, hourly employees assigned to that unit. The decentralized nature of this supervisory structure is a central finding of my analysis, as discussed in detail below.

V. METHODOLOGY

5. My analysis employed a multi-method approach, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques, consistent with the standards of the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The specific methods I employed are as follows:

(a) Quantitative Analysis of TimeTrack Pro Data. I conducted a statistical examination of the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping data for the full class period, encompassing approximately 12 million individual punch records for approximately 1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees. This analysis included examination of shift length distributions, overtime frequency, meal period timing, and Missed Meal Attestation usage rates. All metrics were disaggregated by facility and by show unit to permit identification of patterns and variability across AMA's decentralized operational structure.

(b) Organizational Analysis. I reviewed AMA's organizational charts, staffing records, and supervisory structures for each of the fourteen show units. This review focused on identifying the chains of command relevant to break scheduling decisions, staffing ratios (ratio of supervisory to non-supervisory employees), and the degree of operational autonomy exercised by each UPM or Line Producer.

(c) Comparative Scheduling Analysis. I examined production schedules, daily call sheets, and wrap reports for each of the fourteen show units to identify structural differences in scheduling patterns across show types, including studio-based productions, field-based productions, live events, post-production operations, digital content production, and e-commerce studio operations.

(d) Deposition Testimony Analysis. I conducted a systematic comparison of the testimony provided by the three named Plaintiffs, the AMA Person Most Knowledgeable witnesses, and the three Unit Production Managers who were deposed in this matter. This comparison focused on actual break practices as described by each witness, and on the degree to which those practices varied across show units, facilities, and production types.

(e) Statistical Testing. I employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests to determine whether the differences in shift lengths, overtime frequency, meal period timing, and attestation usage rates observed across facilities and show units were statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using Beaumont Services Inc. (Version 29) and R (Version 4.3.0). The significance level for all tests was set at p < 0.05, consistent with standard practice in the social sciences.

The detailed methodology, including all data cleaning procedures, variable definitions, and analytical protocols, is set forth in Section III of my expert report (Exhibit 1).

VI. FINDINGS

A. Finding 1: Significant Variability in Shift Lengths Across Show Units

6. My analysis of the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro data reveals substantial and statistically significant differences in average shift lengths across AMA's fourteen show units during the class period. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing mean shift lengths across the fourteen show units yielded an F-statistic of 47.3 with a p-value of less than 0.001, indicating that the observed differences are highly unlikely to have occurred by chance and are statistically significant at any conventional threshold.

To illustrate the nature and magnitude of the variability, I present representative findings for each of the six principal show-unit types:

Studio-based shows (e.g., "Kitchen Clash," filmed at Facility 1, West Hollywood): Employees assigned to studio-based shows worked an average shift of 9.2 hours, with a standard deviation of 1.1 hours. Only 8.4% of total shifts exceeded 10 hours in length. These shows benefited from the predictability of a controlled studio environment, with fixed stage times and relatively stable day-to-day schedules.

Field-based shows (e.g., "Summit Challenge," coordinated from Facility 4, Burbank, and filmed at various outdoor locations throughout Southern California and beyond): Employees assigned to field-based shows worked an average shift of 13.7 hours, with a standard deviation of 2.3 hours. A striking 78.2% of all shifts exceeded 10 hours in length. Field productions are inherently subject to variability driven by location access, transportation logistics, weather conditions, permitting constraints, and the creative demands of remote shooting.

Live events shows (coordinated from Facility 4, Burbank): Employees assigned to live events worked an average shift of 11.4 hours, with a standard deviation of 2.8 hours. Approximately 52.1% of shifts exceeded 10 hours. The timing and duration of live event shifts were driven by the event schedule itself—including load-in, rehearsal, performance, and load-out—over which the UPM had limited flexibility.

Post-production operations (Facilities 1, 5, and 7): Employees assigned to post-production worked an average shift of 8.6 hours, with a standard deviation of 0.9 hours. Only 3.2% of shifts exceeded 10 hours. Post-production environments are office-based, with work consisting of editing, sound mixing, color correction, and related tasks that are generally not subject to the real-time production pressures that characterize studio, field, and live event operations.

Digital content production (Facility 3, Sherman Oaks): Employees assigned to digital content production worked an average shift of 9.8 hours, with a standard deviation of 1.6 hours. These employees often worked hybrid schedules combining office-based content development with shorter studio shoots, resulting in moderate variability.

E-commerce studio operations (Facility 6, Santa Monica): Employees assigned to e-commerce studio operations worked the most regular schedules, with an average shift length of 8.3 hours and a standard deviation of only 0.7 hours. E-commerce studio work—primarily product photography and short-form branded content—follows a highly structured, repetitive production model with minimal day-to-day schedule variation.

These differences in shift length are not trivial. They fundamentally affect the frequency and timing of meal period obligations under California law, the applicability of second meal period requirements for shifts exceeding ten hours, and the extent of each employee's overtime exposure. An employee working on "Summit Challenge" with an average shift of 13.7 hours has a fundamentally and qualitatively different meal and rest break experience than an employee in post-production working an average shift of 8.6 hours. These are not minor variations around a common mean; they are structurally different work experiences arising from structurally different production environments. The summary data tables supporting this finding are set forth in Exhibit 3.

B. Finding 2: Significant Variability in Overtime Frequency

7. Overtime frequency—defined as the percentage of shifts in which the employee's recorded hours exceeded eight hours in a single workday—also varied significantly across AMA's show units during the class period. A chi-square test comparing overtime frequency across show-unit types yielded a chi-square statistic of 312.7 with a p-value of less than 0.001, confirming that the observed differences are statistically significant.

The overtime frequency rates by show-unit type were as follows:

• Studio-based shows: 34.2% of shifts involved overtime hours.

• Field-based shows: 91.6% of shifts involved overtime hours.

• Live events: 72.4% of shifts involved overtime hours.

• Post-production: 18.7% of shifts involved overtime hours.

• Digital content: 41.3% of shifts involved overtime hours.

• E-commerce studio: 11.9% of shifts involved overtime hours.

These differences in overtime frequency are directly relevant to Plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims, which allege that AMA failed to compensate employees for pre-shift and post-shift work. The volume and economic significance of any such uncompensated time differs materially depending on whether the employee is already working overtime. An employee on a field-based show who is already working 13.7 hours per day—and who is therefore already in overtime for the vast majority of shifts—faces a different compensatory landscape than an e-commerce studio employee who works 8.3 hours per day and rarely, if ever, enters overtime territory. Any class-wide calculation of damages for off-the-clock claims would need to account for these material differences in baseline overtime exposure. The summary data tables supporting this finding are set forth in Exhibit 4.

C. Finding 3: Significant Variability in Meal Period Timing and Practices

8. I analyzed the timing of first meal periods across AMA's show units by examining the interval between each employee's shift start time and the recorded time of the first meal period, as reflected by either the auto-deduction timing in the TimeTrack Pro system or, where available, the employee's actual clock-out punch for meal. This analysis revealed significant variability in both the timing and consistency of meal periods across show-unit types.

Studio-based shows: The first meal period typically occurred between the 5.0- and 5.5-hour mark of the shift, consistent with the requirements of IWC Wage Order 12-2001 (which requires a meal period before the end of the fifth hour of work, subject to applicable exemptions and waivers). The regularity of meal period timing was high, as reflected by a coefficient of variation of 0.08—indicating that the timing of the first meal period was highly consistent from day to day and from employee to employee within these show units.

Field-based shows: The timing of the first meal period varied widely, with a coefficient of variation of 0.31. The first meal period ranged from as early as the 4.0-hour mark of the shift to as late as the 7.5-hour mark, depending on shooting conditions, the accessibility of the filming location, the availability of catering services at remote sites, and the creative demands of the production. This high degree of variability reflects the inherent unpredictability of field production environments, where break scheduling is constrained by factors outside the UPM's direct control.

Live events: Meal periods were not scheduled according to a standardized time-of-shift framework. Instead, they were clustered before or after the live event itself, with the timing dictated entirely by the event schedule. Pre-show meals, typically provided by catering, served as the primary meal break for crew members, while post-show meals were described in deposition testimony as "optional" and were not consistently provided.

Post-production: Meal periods were taken at relatively consistent times, typically between the 4.5- and 5.0-hour mark of the shift, with a coefficient of variation of 0.06—indicating extremely high consistency. This regularity is consistent with the office-based nature of post-production work, where employees were free to leave their workstations and take uninterrupted meal breaks in designated break areas.

The variability in meal period timing across show units demonstrates that the implementation of AMA's written meal period policy was driven by the specific operational needs of each show unit and the discretion exercised by each UPM or Line Producer, not by a single, monolithic, company-wide practice or pattern. While AMA's written Meal and Rest Break Policy (effective January 1, 2019) established uniform standards on paper, the actual execution of those standards was mediated by the decentralized supervisory structure and the diverse operational demands of AMA's production environment. The detailed meal period timing analysis is set forth in Exhibit 5.

D. Finding 4: Missed Meal Attestation Usage Rates Vary by Facility and Show Unit

9. The NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system includes a Missed Meal Attestation feature that, when activated, prompts employees to indicate at the time of clock-out whether they received a compliant meal period during their shift. My analysis of the system activation logs and attestation records revealed that this feature was activated at only four of AMA's seven California facilities—specifically, Facility 1 (West Hollywood), Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks), Facility 5 (Hollywood), and Facility 6 (Santa Monica). The Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated at Facility 2 (Studio City), Facility 4 (Burbank), or Facility 7 (El Segundo). Employees at those three facilities had no electronic mechanism within the timekeeping system to report missed or shortened meal periods and would have been required to report any such issues to their supervisors through manual, informal channels.

At the four facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was active, the usage rates during the class period were as follows:

• Facility 1 (West Hollywood HQ): 2.3% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.

• Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks): 4.1% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.

• Facility 5 (Hollywood): 1.8% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.

• Facility 6 (Santa Monica): 3.7% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.

Even within the four facilities where the attestation feature was active, usage rates varied meaningfully by show unit. Show units with studio-based, office-like schedules—such as the post-production units at Facility 1 and the scripted development unit at Facility 5—had attestation rates below 2%, consistent with employees generally receiving compliant meal periods. By contrast, show units with field or live production schedules—to the extent those units were housed at or coordinated from facilities with the attestation feature—had attestation rates in the range of 4% to 6%, suggesting a higher incidence of missed or shortened meal periods in those operational contexts.

The attestation data provides powerful evidence that the meal period experience was not uniform across the putative class. Rather, it was highly dependent on the specific show unit, the specific facility, and the type of production in which the employee was engaged. Moreover, the complete absence of the attestation feature at three of AMA's seven facilities means that employees at those facilities cannot be evaluated using the same data source as employees at the other four facilities—a further barrier to class-wide analysis. The attestation usage data is summarized in Exhibit 6.

E. Finding 5: Supervisory Discretion Varied Materially Across Show Units

10. Each of AMA's fourteen show units operated under the direction of a different Unit Production Manager or Line Producer. My interviews with AMA operational personnel and my review of the deposition testimony in this matter revealed that these UPMs exercised significant and materially varying degrees of discretion regarding the scheduling and implementation of meal and rest breaks during production days. Specifically, the areas of discretion included:

• The timing of meal and rest breaks during production days, including whether breaks were scheduled at fixed times or on a flexible, as-conditions-permit basis;

• Whether to schedule "walking meals"—meals taken on set during ongoing production activity, rather than off-duty, duty-free breaks taken away from the production environment—versus traditional duty-free break periods;

• Whether to adjust daily call times (i.e., the time at which the crew is required to report to the production location) to accommodate break scheduling requirements, or whether to prioritize production continuity and creative momentum over break scheduling;

• How to handle individual requests from crew members regarding the timing or duration of their breaks, including requests to shift break times to accommodate personal needs or production tasks.

The deposition testimony and production records I reviewed illustrate the breadth of this supervisory variability. I highlight three specific examples:

"Kitchen Clash" (studio-based show, Facility 1, West Hollywood): The UPM for this show testified at deposition that meal breaks were scheduled at a fixed time each day—specifically, 12:00 p.m.—with the full crew breaking simultaneously. The UPM described the breaks as consistently 30 minutes in duration and fully duty-free, with crew members free to leave the stage and eat in designated break areas. The UPM attributed this consistency to the predictable nature of studio-based cooking competition production, which follows a structured daily shooting schedule with natural break points built into the format.

"Summit Challenge" (field-based show, Facility 4, Burbank): The UPM for this show described meal break scheduling as "variable" and driven by location access, weather conditions, and creative demands. The UPM testified that breaks ranged from "full 30-minute sit-downs" on days when conditions permitted to "grab and go" arrangements on "challenging shoot days" when the crew was working at remote or difficult-to-access locations. The UPM acknowledged that "sometimes it was hard to get everyone a full break on remote locations," particularly when the production was working under tight daylight constraints or when the crew was deployed across multiple positions at a single location.

Live events operations (Facility 4, Burbank): The UPM responsible for live events described pre-show meals—provided by on-site catering—as the primary meal break for crew members. The timing of these pre-show meals was dictated entirely by the event schedule, not by a standardized break policy. Post-show meals were described as "optional" and were not consistently provided, particularly when events ran late or when load-out operations required immediate attention following the conclusion of the event.

This supervisory variability is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of a single, company-wide practice of denying meal periods. Rather, the evidence demonstrates a decentralized operational structure in which individual supervisors made individualized decisions about break scheduling based on the unique demands of their respective show units. The question of whether any given employee was "provided" a compliant meal period within the meaning of California law therefore turns on the specific practices of that employee's specific UPM—not on any company-wide policy or uniform course of conduct.

F. Finding 6: Named Plaintiffs' Experiences Are Not Typical of the Class

11. I analyzed the employment context and deposition testimony of each of the three named Plaintiffs to assess whether their experiences are typical of the approximately 1,850 members of the putative class. My analysis demonstrates that each named Plaintiff worked in a different division, at a different facility, under a different supervisor, with materially different job responsibilities and materially different break experiences. No single named Plaintiff's experience is representative of the class as a whole.

Marisol Fuentes. Ms. Fuentes held the title of Production Coordinator in AMA's Unscripted Programming Division. She was employed by AMA from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022, at an hourly rate of $28.50 at the time of her separation. Her primary work location was Facility 2 (4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City)—a facility at which the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro system was not activated during Ms. Fuentes's entire tenure.

At her deposition on May 2, 2023, Ms. Fuentes testified that she "rarely" received a full 30-minute meal period during shooting days. She estimated that she received a compliant meal break on "maybe one out of every three or four shoot days." She was unaware of the existence of the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the timekeeping system—which is consistent with the fact that the feature was not activated at her facility. Ms. Fuentes did acknowledge, however, that on non-shooting days—i.e., office days and prep days, which she estimated constituted approximately 40% of her workdays—she typically received full meal and rest breaks without interruption.

Ms. Fuentes's experience is atypical of the putative class for several reasons. She worked at a facility where the attestation feature was not available, meaning that she had no electronic mechanism to report missed meals—a circumstance shared by employees at Facilities 2, 4, and 7, but not by employees at the remaining four facilities. She worked in the Unscripted Programming Division, which—as documented in my shift length and overtime analyses—was characterized by more variable and less predictable schedules than the post-production, digital content, or e-commerce divisions. And her own testimony confirms that her break experience was bifurcated between shooting days and non-shooting days—a distinction that requires individualized analysis and cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.

Derek Halloran. Mr. Halloran held the title of Post-Production Assistant in AMA's Digital Content Division. He was employed by AMA from June 1, 2020 through November 30, 2022, at an hourly rate of $24.75 at the time of his separation. His primary work location was Facility 5 (1438 North Gower Street, Hollywood)—a facility at which the Missed Meal Attestation feature was activated.

At his deposition on May 9, 2023, Mr. Halloran testified that he was "usually" able to take a meal break during his shifts. He described his typical workday as consisting of editing and post-production tasks performed at a workstation in an office environment. He stated that during "crunch periods"—which he estimated occurred for two to three weeks before each delivery deadline, approximately four to six times per year—he worked through his meal periods to meet deadlines. He acknowledged that he was aware of the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the timekeeping system but stated that he "never used it because nobody else did and I didn't want to cause problems."

Mr. Halloran's experience is atypical in a different direction from Ms. Fuentes's. His testimony indicates that he generally received compliant meal breaks, with violations limited to periodic crunch periods. This is fundamentally different from Ms. Fuentes's testimony that she "rarely" received compliant breaks on shoot days. Moreover, Mr. Halloran's post-production role involved office-based work with regular, predictable schedules—an entirely different work environment from the field-based and live production settings in which many putative class members were employed. His decision not to use the available attestation feature—despite being aware of it—raises individual questions about voluntary forfeiture that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.

Yesenia Padilla. Ms. Padilla held the title of Segment Coordinator in AMA's Live Events Division. She was employed by AMA from January 10, 2018 through May 17, 2022, at an hourly rate of $31.00 at the time of her separation. Her primary work location was Facility 4 (3800 West Alameda Avenue, Burbank)—a facility at which the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated.

At her deposition on May 16, 2023, Ms. Padilla testified that live events required crews to be "on their feet and ready the entire show." She stated that meal breaks were "practically impossible" during live productions and described a workplace culture in which "everyone knew you didn't get breaks during a show, and nobody complained because that's just how it worked." Her testimony painted a picture of a work environment in which the exigencies of live production—including the need for continuous crew availability during performances—effectively precluded compliant meal periods.

Ms. Padilla's experience is uniquely atypical because it is specific to the live events context. Live events represent a small subset of AMA's total production output and involve scheduling constraints—dictated by the timing of live performances, load-in and load-out schedules, and the requirements of live broadcast or streaming—that are categorically different from those faced by employees in studio-based, field-based, post-production, digital content, or e-commerce operations. The live events division employed a fraction of the putative class, and the break-scheduling dynamics Ms. Padilla described cannot be extrapolated to the broader class of 1,850 employees.

Summary of Named Plaintiff Atypicality. The three named Plaintiffs worked in three different divisions (Unscripted Programming, Digital Content/Post-Production, and Live Events), at three different facilities (Facility 2, Facility 5, and Facility 4), under different supervisors, with different job responsibilities, different shift lengths, different overtime exposure, and—most critically—different break experiences. Ms. Fuentes's experience of frequent meal period violations on shoot days is not shared by Mr. Halloran, who usually received breaks. Mr. Halloran's experience of occasional crunch-period violations in a post-production office environment is not shared by Ms. Padilla, who described a total absence of compliant breaks during live productions. And Ms. Padilla's live-events experience is not shared by the majority of the putative class, who worked in non-live-event production contexts. No single named Plaintiff's experience can be said to be "typical" of the experiences of 1,850 class members working across 14 show units and 7 facilities.

G. Finding 7: Individualized Inquiry Predominates

12. Based on the totality of my analysis, it is my opinion that the question of whether AMA "provided" compliant meal and rest periods to each putative class member—within the meaning of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004—is predominantly an individualized inquiry that depends on a constellation of factors specific to each employee's circumstances. These factors include, but are not limited to:

(1) The specific show unit to which the employee was assigned during the relevant portion of the class period;

(2) The type of production in which the employee was engaged (studio-based, field-based, live events, post-production, digital content, or e-commerce);

(3) The specific facility at which the employee worked, including whether the Missed Meal Attestation feature was available to that employee;

(4) The identity and practices of the employee's UPM or Line Producer, including that supervisor's approach to scheduling breaks, managing "walking meals," and responding to employee requests regarding break timing;

(5) The production schedule and daily call sheet for each specific workday during the class period, including whether the employee was working a shooting day, a prep day, or an office day;

(6) The specific circumstances of each workday, including weather conditions (for field productions), event timing (for live events), and deadline pressures (for post-production); and

(7) The employee's individual actions, including whether the employee chose to forego a break, whether the employee utilized the Missed Meal Attestation feature (if available), or whether the employee reported a missed break to a supervisor through informal channels.

While the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro auto-deduction system was applied uniformly across all seven California facilities, the auto-deduction is a timekeeping mechanism—it records the passage of time attributed to a meal period, but it does not determine whether each individual employee was actually "provided" a compliant meal period. The substantive liability question—whether each employee was given a meaningful opportunity to take an uninterrupted, duty-free, 30-minute meal period—cannot be answered on a class-wide basis because the answer depends on the individualized factors enumerated above.

The statistically significant differences in shift lengths (F = 47.3, p < 0.001), overtime frequency (chi-square = 312.7, p < 0.001), meal period timing (coefficients of variation ranging from 0.06 to 0.31), attestation usage rates (ranging from 1.8% to 4.1% across facilities, and from below 2% to 4–6% across show-unit types), and supervisory practices across the fourteen show units and seven facilities collectively demonstrate that AMA's California workforce is not a homogeneous group subject to a single, uniform practice. Rather, it is a diverse collection of employees working in materially different environments, under materially different supervisors, subject to materially different operational constraints, and having materially different break experiences. Any attempt to adjudicate the meal and rest break claims on a class-wide basis would require the trier of fact to engage in precisely the kind of individualized, employee-by-employee analysis that the class certification device is designed to avoid.

VII. RESPONSE TO DR. RENNICK'S METHODOLOGY

13. Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, retained by Plaintiffs, submitted an expert report dated April 28, 2023 in which he calculated aggregate damages of $38.6 million for the putative class. Dr. Rennick's damages model is predicated on the assumption that every auto-deducted meal period recorded in the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system during the class period constitutes a "missed" meal period for which AMA owes a one-hour meal period premium under California Labor Code section 226.7.

This foundational assumption is fundamentally flawed from an organizational and operational perspective, for the following reasons:

First, the auto-deduction in the TimeTrack Pro system was designed to record the time consumed by a compliant meal period—that is, to deduct from the employee's compensable hours the 30 minutes during which the employee was relieved of duty and was free to use the time for personal purposes. The auto-deduction is a timekeeping convention; it does not document a violation. An employee who takes a full 30-minute, duty-free meal break in compliance with California law will have the same auto-deduction applied to his or her time record as an employee who misses a break entirely or who works through a meal period. The auto-deduction is, by its nature, neutral and cannot be used as affirmative proof that a meal period violation occurred.

Second, Dr. Rennick's model treats all fourteen show units and all seven facilities as a homogeneous population, applying a single violation rate uniformly across the entire putative class. This approach ignores the significant variability documented in my analysis—variability that is statistically significant and operationally meaningful. As I have demonstrated, the shift lengths, overtime frequencies, meal period timing, attestation usage rates, and supervisory practices differ materially across show units and facilities. A damages model that fails to account for these differences is not a reliable basis for estimating class-wide harm.

Third, Dr. Rennick assumed a 50% rest period violation rate based solely on the deposition testimony and declarations of the three named Plaintiffs. This extrapolation is methodologically unsound. The three named Plaintiffs worked in three different divisions, at three different facilities, with three materially different break experiences. None of the three Plaintiffs' experiences can be validly extrapolated to the full class of 1,850 employees, much less aggregated into a single violation rate that purports to represent the class as a whole. The use of a small, non-representative sample to generate a class-wide estimate violates basic principles of statistical inference and would not be accepted as valid in the field of industrial/organizational psychology or in any related social science discipline.

Fourth, the actual Missed Meal Attestation data from the four facilities where the attestation feature was active directly contradicts the assumptions underlying Dr. Rennick's model. The attestation rates at those facilities ranged from only 1.8% to 4.1% of eligible shifts—far below the 100% violation rate that Dr. Rennick's auto-deduction-based model implicitly assumes. While I acknowledge that attestation rates may understate the true incidence of missed meals (for reasons including employee reluctance to use the feature, as described by Mr. Halloran), the gulf between the attestation data and Dr. Rennick's assumption is so large as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of his model.

Fifth, the variation in attestation rates by show-unit type—below 2% for studio-based and office-based show units versus 4% to 6% for field and live production show units—further demonstrates that the violation rate, to the extent violations occurred, was not uniform across the class. This inter-unit variation cannot be captured by a single, class-wide damages figure and instead requires individualized analysis of each employee's show-unit assignment, facility, and production type.

In sum, Dr. Rennick's methodology does not account for the operational realities of AMA's multi-facility, multi-show-unit production environment. His damages model rests on assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical data and that treat a heterogeneous workforce as homogeneous. His $38.6 million figure is, accordingly, unreliable as a basis for class-wide damages estimation.

VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS

14. Based on my analysis, and for the reasons set forth in this declaration and in my full expert report (Exhibit 1), I hold the following opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty:

Opinion 1: Working conditions, scheduling practices, and meal period implementation vary significantly—and to a statistically significant degree—across AMA's fourteen show units and seven California production facilities. These differences are driven by the type of production (studio, field, live events, post-production, digital content, e-commerce), the physical characteristics and operational demands of each facility, and the decentralized supervisory structure under which each show unit operates.

Opinion 2: Supervisory discretion in scheduling meal and rest breaks was exercised differently by each Unit Production Manager or Line Producer, resulting in materially different break experiences across show units. Some UPMs maintained highly structured, consistent break schedules; others adopted flexible, conditions-dependent approaches that produced significant variability in break timing and duration.

Opinion 3: The experiences of the three named Plaintiffs—Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla—are not typical of the putative class. Each Plaintiff worked in a different division, at a different facility, under different supervisors, with different break outcomes. Their experiences illustrate the variability within AMA's workforce rather than a common, shared experience.

Opinion 4: The question of whether AMA "provided" compliant meal and rest periods to each putative class member is predominantly individualized and depends on the employee's show unit, facility, production type, supervisor, production schedule, workday type, and individual circumstances.

Opinion 5: A class-wide determination of liability on the meal and rest break claims is not feasible without individualized inquiry into the circumstances of each class member's employment. The significant inter-unit and inter-facility variability documented in my analysis precludes resolution of liability through common proof.

Opinion 6: Dr. Rennick's assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period is unsupported by the operational data and is inconsistent with the actual experiences of employees across AMA's diverse production operations. His damages model of $38.6 million rests on methodologically unsound assumptions and does not account for the documented variability in working conditions, break practices, and attestation rates across AMA's workforce.

IX. BASIS OF OPINIONS

15. The opinions expressed in this declaration are based on my education, training, and over twenty years of professional experience in industrial/organizational psychology and workforce analytics. They are further based on my comprehensive review and analysis of the materials identified in Paragraph 3 above, including the approximately 12 million timekeeping records, the deposition transcripts, the production documents, and all other materials set forth therein.

My opinions are rendered to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, consistent with the standards and accepted methodologies of the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The full methodology, data tables, statistical analyses, variable definitions, and supporting documentation underlying my opinions are set forth in detail in my expert report dated May 19, 2023, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference.

I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions should additional data, documents, or testimony become available prior to trial.

X. DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

16. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 14th day of June, 2023, in Mountain View, California.

________________________________________

Dr. Rajesh Makhija, Ph.D. Principal and Senior Consultant Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC 444 Castro Street, Suite 800 Mountain View, California 94041

EXHIBIT LIST

The following exhibits are attached to and submitted with this Declaration:

MARISOL FUENTES, DEREK HALLORAN, and YESENIA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

(Consolidated with 22STCV39501)

Plaintiffs,

AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Exhibit No.	Description
Exhibit 1	Expert Report of Dr. Rajesh Makhija, dated May 19, 2023
Exhibit 2	Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Rajesh Makhija
Exhibit 3	Summary Data Tables — Shift Length Distribution by Show Unit (ANOVA Results)
Exhibit 4	Summary Data Tables — Overtime Frequency by Show Unit (Chi-Square Results)
Exhibit 5	Summary Data Tables — Meal Period Timing Analysis by Show Unit (Coefficient of Variation Analysis)
Exhibit 6	Summary Data Tables — Missed Meal Attestation Usage Rates by Facility and Show Unit
Exhibit 7	Organizational Chart — AMA California Production Operations (14 Show Units / 7 Facilities)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
Date: June 14, 2023
Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 34 Trial Date: None Set
DECLARATION OF DR. RAJESH MAKHIJA
I, Dr. Rajesh Makhija, declare as follows:
I. QUALIFICATIONS AND IDENTITY
1.  My name is Dr. Rajesh Makhija. I am a Principal and Senior Consultant at Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC, located at 444 Castro Street, Suite 800, Mountain View, California 94041. I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
I hold a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, awarded in 2001. I also hold a Master of Arts degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the same institution, awarded in 1998, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from the University of California, Davis, awarded in 1996. My doctoral dissertation focused on the impact of organizational structure on scheduling compliance in multi-site service operations.
I have over twenty years of professional experience in industrial/organizational consulting, with a specialization in workplace scheduling practices, organizational behavior, and workforce analytics. My work has been concentrated in the media, entertainment, and hospitality industries, where I have developed particular expertise in analyzing how organizational variability—including differences in supervisory structures, production types, facility characteristics, and operational demands—affects employment practices such as meal and rest break compliance, timekeeping accuracy, and overtime management.
Over the course of my career, I have served as an expert witness or consultant in more than thirty-five employment class action matters in both California state courts and federal courts, with particular expertise in analyzing issues of commonality, typicality, and predominance as they relate to workplace policies and practices. I have been qualified as an expert witness in the Superior Courts of the State of California in Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, and Orange County. I have also been qualified as an expert in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and the Northern District of California, as well as in private arbitration proceedings administered by JAMS and the American Arbitration Association.
I am the author of multiple peer-reviewed articles published in leading journals in the field of industrial/organizational psychology, including articles addressing workplace scheduling variability, meal and rest break compliance in multi-site operations, and the methodological challenges of analyzing employment practices across heterogeneous workforces. A complete list of my publications, prior testimony, and professional affiliations is set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
II. RETENTION AND SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
2.  I was retained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, counsel for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA" or "Defendant"), pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 1, 2023. The purpose of my retention was to analyze and opine on the following topics in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification:
(a) The degree of variability in working conditions, scheduling practices, meal and rest break implementation, and supervisory discretion across AMA's seven California production facilities and fourteen show units during the putative class period of November 1, 2018 through the present;
(b) Whether the experiences of the three named Plaintiffs—Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla—are typical of the experiences of the putative class of approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees; and
(c) Whether common questions of fact regarding AMA's meal and rest break practices predominate over individual questions, or whether the resolution of the putative class members' claims would require predominantly individualized inquiry.
My compensation for this engagement is billed at a rate of $650.00 per hour for time spent on all aspects of the engagement, including review and analysis of documents, data analysis, preparation of my expert report, and preparation of this declaration. My compensation is in no way contingent upon the opinions I express or the outcome of this litigation.
My full expert report, dated May 19, 2023, is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 1. This declaration summarizes the key findings and opinions set forth in that report. To the extent any inconsistency exists between this declaration and my full expert report, the expert report controls.
III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
3.  In forming my opinions, I reviewed and analyzed a comprehensive set of documents, data, and other materials, including but not limited to the following:
(a) AMA organizational charts and staffing records for all seven California production facilities (Facilities 1 through 7), covering the class period of November 1, 2018 through the present;
(b) NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping data for the class period, consisting of approximately 12 million individual punch records for approximately 1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees across all seven facilities;
(c) Missed Meal Attestation records generated through the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system at the four facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was activated—specifically, Facilities 1, 3, 5, and 6—together with system activation logs confirming that the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated at Facilities 2, 4, and 7;
(d) Production schedules, daily call sheets, and wrap reports for all fourteen show units that were active during the class period, spanning scripted development, unscripted programming, post-production, digital content, live events, field production, and e-commerce studio operations;
(e) AMA's Employee Handbook (revised March 2021), with particular focus on Section 4.3 (Meal Periods), Section 4.4 (Rest Periods), and Section 4.7 (Timekeeping);
(f) AMA's standalone Meal and Rest Break Policy, effective January 1, 2019;
(g) Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 12-2001 (Motion Picture Industry), as applicable to AMA's California operations;
(h) Deposition transcripts for the following witnesses: Marisol Fuentes (May 2, 2023), Derek Halloran (May 9, 2023), Yesenia Padilla (May 16, 2023), Lorraine Okafor (Person Most Knowledgeable, May 4, 2023), Celine Arroyo (Human Resources Director, May 11, 2023), Karen Fong (Payroll Manager, May 18, 2023), Marcus Yee (Director of Production Operations, May 5, 2023), and depositions of three Unit Production Managers conducted in May 2023;
(i) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed April 14, 2023, and all supporting declarations and exhibits submitted therewith;
(j) The expert report of Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, dated April 28, 2023, submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
(k) AMA's Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Special Interrogatories, and AMA's Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Special Interrogatories;
(l) Personnel files and supervisory records for the three named Plaintiffs—Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla; and
(m) Notes and summaries from my interviews with AMA operational personnel, including facility managers, production supervisors, and payroll administrators, conducted during March and April 2023.
A complete list of materials reviewed is set forth in Appendix A to my expert report (Exhibit 1).
IV. OVERVIEW OF AMA'S CALIFORNIA OPERATIONS
4.  To provide context for my findings, I set forth below an overview of AMA's organizational structure and California operations as they existed during the class period.
AMA is a wholly owned United States subsidiary of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, a publicly traded company organized under the laws of England and Wales. AMA operates in the media, entertainment, and e-commerce sectors. As of the end of the class period, AMA employed approximately 3,200 employees in the United States, of whom approximately 2,400 were based in the State of California. The putative class in this action consists of approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who worked at AMA's California production facilities during the period from November 1, 2018 through the present.
During the class period, AMA operated seven distinct production facilities in California, each serving a different operational function within AMA's broader production ecosystem. The facilities are as follows:
Facility 1 — 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. This facility serves as AMA's corporate headquarters and its primary post-production hub, housing editorial suites, audio mixing stages, color correction bays, and administrative offices.
Facility 2 — 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City, California 91604. This facility houses two production stages (Stage A and Stage B) dedicated primarily to unscripted programming, including competition and reality-format shows.
Facility 3 — 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. This facility is devoted to digital content production, including short-form video, social media content, and streaming-platform originals.
Facility 4 — 3800 West Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. This facility serves as the coordination hub for AMA's live events division and field production operations, including remote and location-based shoots.
Facility 5 — 1438 North Gower Street, Hollywood, California 90028. This facility houses AMA's scripted development operations, including writers' rooms, development offices, and production support for pilot and series development.
Facility 6 — 2120 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404. This facility operates as AMA's e-commerce studio, producing product photography, lifestyle video content, and branded entertainment for AMA's e-commerce clients.
Facility 7 — 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245. This facility serves as a post-production annex, handling overflow editorial work, visual effects compositing, and archival operations.
During the class period, AMA operated fourteen distinct production or show units across these seven facilities. All of AMA's California production operations are governed by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 12-2001 (Motion Picture Industry). Each show unit operated under the day-to-day direction of a different Unit Production Manager ("UPM") or Line Producer, who was responsible for scheduling production activities, managing crew assignments, and—critically for this matter—scheduling meal and rest breaks for the non-exempt, hourly employees assigned to that unit. The decentralized nature of this supervisory structure is a central finding of my analysis, as discussed in detail below.
V. METHODOLOGY
5.  My analysis employed a multi-method approach, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques, consistent with the standards of the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The specific methods I employed are as follows:
(a) Quantitative Analysis of TimeTrack Pro Data. I conducted a statistical examination of the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping data for the full class period, encompassing approximately 12 million individual punch records for approximately 1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees. This analysis included examination of shift length distributions, overtime frequency, meal period timing, and Missed Meal Attestation usage rates. All metrics were disaggregated by facility and by show unit to permit identification of patterns and variability across AMA's decentralized operational structure.
(b) Organizational Analysis. I reviewed AMA's organizational charts, staffing records, and supervisory structures for each of the fourteen show units. This review focused on identifying the chains of command relevant to break scheduling decisions, staffing ratios (ratio of supervisory to non-supervisory employees), and the degree of operational autonomy exercised by each UPM or Line Producer.
(c) Comparative Scheduling Analysis. I examined production schedules, daily call sheets, and wrap reports for each of the fourteen show units to identify structural differences in scheduling patterns across show types, including studio-based productions, field-based productions, live events, post-production operations, digital content production, and e-commerce studio operations.
(d) Deposition Testimony Analysis. I conducted a systematic comparison of the testimony provided by the three named Plaintiffs, the AMA Person Most Knowledgeable witnesses, and the three Unit Production Managers who were deposed in this matter. This comparison focused on actual break practices as described by each witness, and on the degree to which those practices varied across show units, facilities, and production types.
(e) Statistical Testing. I employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests to determine whether the differences in shift lengths, overtime frequency, meal period timing, and attestation usage rates observed across facilities and show units were statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using Beaumont Services Inc. (Version 29) and R (Version 4.3.0). The significance level for all tests was set at p < 0.05, consistent with standard practice in the social sciences.
The detailed methodology, including all data cleaning procedures, variable definitions, and analytical protocols, is set forth in Section III of my expert report (Exhibit 1).
VI. FINDINGS
A. Finding 1: Significant Variability in Shift Lengths Across Show Units
6.  My analysis of the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro data reveals substantial and statistically significant differences in average shift lengths across AMA's fourteen show units during the class period. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing mean shift lengths across the fourteen show units yielded an F-statistic of 47.3 with a p-value of less than 0.001, indicating that the observed differences are highly unlikely to have occurred by chance and are statistically significant at any conventional threshold.
To illustrate the nature and magnitude of the variability, I present representative findings for each of the six principal show-unit types:
Studio-based shows (e.g., "Kitchen Clash," filmed at Facility 1, West Hollywood): Employees assigned to studio-based shows worked an average shift of 9.2 hours, with a standard deviation of 1.1 hours. Only 8.4% of total shifts exceeded 10 hours in length. These shows benefited from the predictability of a controlled studio environment, with fixed stage times and relatively stable day-to-day schedules.
Field-based shows (e.g., "Summit Challenge," coordinated from Facility 4, Burbank, and filmed at various outdoor locations throughout Southern California and beyond): Employees assigned to field-based shows worked an average shift of 13.7 hours, with a standard deviation of 2.3 hours. A striking 78.2% of all shifts exceeded 10 hours in length. Field productions are inherently subject to variability driven by location access, transportation logistics, weather conditions, permitting constraints, and the creative demands of remote shooting.
Live events shows (coordinated from Facility 4, Burbank): Employees assigned to live events worked an average shift of 11.4 hours, with a standard deviation of 2.8 hours. Approximately 52.1% of shifts exceeded 10 hours. The timing and duration of live event shifts were driven by the event schedule itself—including load-in, rehearsal, performance, and load-out—over which the UPM had limited flexibility.
Post-production operations (Facilities 1, 5, and 7): Employees assigned to post-production worked an average shift of 8.6 hours, with a standard deviation of 0.9 hours. Only 3.2% of shifts exceeded 10 hours. Post-production environments are office-based, with work consisting of editing, sound mixing, color correction, and related tasks that are generally not subject to the real-time production pressures that characterize studio, field, and live event operations.
Digital content production (Facility 3, Sherman Oaks): Employees assigned to digital content production worked an average shift of 9.8 hours, with a standard deviation of 1.6 hours. These employees often worked hybrid schedules combining office-based content development with shorter studio shoots, resulting in moderate variability.
E-commerce studio operations (Facility 6, Santa Monica): Employees assigned to e-commerce studio operations worked the most regular schedules, with an average shift length of 8.3 hours and a standard deviation of only 0.7 hours. E-commerce studio work—primarily product photography and short-form branded content—follows a highly structured, repetitive production model with minimal day-to-day schedule variation.
These differences in shift length are not trivial. They fundamentally affect the frequency and timing of meal period obligations under California law, the applicability of second meal period requirements for shifts exceeding ten hours, and the extent of each employee's overtime exposure. An employee working on "Summit Challenge" with an average shift of 13.7 hours has a fundamentally and qualitatively different meal and rest break experience than an employee in post-production working an average shift of 8.6 hours. These are not minor variations around a common mean; they are structurally different work experiences arising from structurally different production environments. The summary data tables supporting this finding are set forth in Exhibit 3.
B. Finding 2: Significant Variability in Overtime Frequency
7.  Overtime frequency—defined as the percentage of shifts in which the employee's recorded hours exceeded eight hours in a single workday—also varied significantly across AMA's show units during the class period. A chi-square test comparing overtime frequency across show-unit types yielded a chi-square statistic of 312.7 with a p-value of less than 0.001, confirming that the observed differences are statistically significant.
The overtime frequency rates by show-unit type were as follows:
•  Studio-based shows: 34.2% of shifts involved overtime hours.
•  Field-based shows: 91.6% of shifts involved overtime hours.
•  Live events: 72.4% of shifts involved overtime hours.
•  Post-production: 18.7% of shifts involved overtime hours.
•  Digital content: 41.3% of shifts involved overtime hours.
•  E-commerce studio: 11.9% of shifts involved overtime hours.
These differences in overtime frequency are directly relevant to Plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims, which allege that AMA failed to compensate employees for pre-shift and post-shift work. The volume and economic significance of any such uncompensated time differs materially depending on whether the employee is already working overtime. An employee on a field-based show who is already working 13.7 hours per day—and who is therefore already in overtime for the vast majority of shifts—faces a different compensatory landscape than an e-commerce studio employee who works 8.3 hours per day and rarely, if ever, enters overtime territory. Any class-wide calculation of damages for off-the-clock claims would need to account for these material differences in baseline overtime exposure. The summary data tables supporting this finding are set forth in Exhibit 4.
C. Finding 3: Significant Variability in Meal Period Timing and Practices
8.  I analyzed the timing of first meal periods across AMA's show units by examining the interval between each employee's shift start time and the recorded time of the first meal period, as reflected by either the auto-deduction timing in the TimeTrack Pro system or, where available, the employee's actual clock-out punch for meal. This analysis revealed significant variability in both the timing and consistency of meal periods across show-unit types.
Studio-based shows: The first meal period typically occurred between the 5.0- and 5.5-hour mark of the shift, consistent with the requirements of IWC Wage Order 12-2001 (which requires a meal period before the end of the fifth hour of work, subject to applicable exemptions and waivers). The regularity of meal period timing was high, as reflected by a coefficient of variation of 0.08—indicating that the timing of the first meal period was highly consistent from day to day and from employee to employee within these show units.
Field-based shows: The timing of the first meal period varied widely, with a coefficient of variation of 0.31. The first meal period ranged from as early as the 4.0-hour mark of the shift to as late as the 7.5-hour mark, depending on shooting conditions, the accessibility of the filming location, the availability of catering services at remote sites, and the creative demands of the production. This high degree of variability reflects the inherent unpredictability of field production environments, where break scheduling is constrained by factors outside the UPM's direct control.
Live events: Meal periods were not scheduled according to a standardized time-of-shift framework. Instead, they were clustered before or after the live event itself, with the timing dictated entirely by the event schedule. Pre-show meals, typically provided by catering, served as the primary meal break for crew members, while post-show meals were described in deposition testimony as "optional" and were not consistently provided.
Post-production: Meal periods were taken at relatively consistent times, typically between the 4.5- and 5.0-hour mark of the shift, with a coefficient of variation of 0.06—indicating extremely high consistency. This regularity is consistent with the office-based nature of post-production work, where employees were free to leave their workstations and take uninterrupted meal breaks in designated break areas.
The variability in meal period timing across show units demonstrates that the implementation of AMA's written meal period policy was driven by the specific operational needs of each show unit and the discretion exercised by each UPM or Line Producer, not by a single, monolithic, company-wide practice or pattern. While AMA's written Meal and Rest Break Policy (effective January 1, 2019) established uniform standards on paper, the actual execution of those standards was mediated by the decentralized supervisory structure and the diverse operational demands of AMA's production environment. The detailed meal period timing analysis is set forth in Exhibit 5.
D. Finding 4: Missed Meal Attestation Usage Rates Vary by Facility and Show Unit
9.  The NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system includes a Missed Meal Attestation feature that, when activated, prompts employees to indicate at the time of clock-out whether they received a compliant meal period during their shift. My analysis of the system activation logs and attestation records revealed that this feature was activated at only four of AMA's seven California facilities—specifically, Facility 1 (West Hollywood), Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks), Facility 5 (Hollywood), and Facility 6 (Santa Monica). The Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated at Facility 2 (Studio City), Facility 4 (Burbank), or Facility 7 (El Segundo). Employees at those three facilities had no electronic mechanism within the timekeeping system to report missed or shortened meal periods and would have been required to report any such issues to their supervisors through manual, informal channels.
At the four facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was active, the usage rates during the class period were as follows:
•  Facility 1 (West Hollywood HQ): 2.3% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.
•  Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks): 4.1% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.
•  Facility 5 (Hollywood): 1.8% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.
•  Facility 6 (Santa Monica): 3.7% of eligible shifts generated a Missed Meal Attestation.
Even within the four facilities where the attestation feature was active, usage rates varied meaningfully by show unit. Show units with studio-based, office-like schedules—such as the post-production units at Facility 1 and the scripted development unit at Facility 5—had attestation rates below 2%, consistent with employees generally receiving compliant meal periods. By contrast, show units with field or live production schedules—to the extent those units were housed at or coordinated from facilities with the attestation feature—had attestation rates in the range of 4% to 6%, suggesting a higher incidence of missed or shortened meal periods in those operational contexts.
The attestation data provides powerful evidence that the meal period experience was not uniform across the putative class. Rather, it was highly dependent on the specific show unit, the specific facility, and the type of production in which the employee was engaged. Moreover, the complete absence of the attestation feature at three of AMA's seven facilities means that employees at those facilities cannot be evaluated using the same data source as employees at the other four facilities—a further barrier to class-wide analysis. The attestation usage data is summarized in Exhibit 6.
E. Finding 5: Supervisory Discretion Varied Materially Across Show Units
10.  Each of AMA's fourteen show units operated under the direction of a different Unit Production Manager or Line Producer. My interviews with AMA operational personnel and my review of the deposition testimony in this matter revealed that these UPMs exercised significant and materially varying degrees of discretion regarding the scheduling and implementation of meal and rest breaks during production days. Specifically, the areas of discretion included:
•  The timing of meal and rest breaks during production days, including whether breaks were scheduled at fixed times or on a flexible, as-conditions-permit basis;
•  Whether to schedule "walking meals"—meals taken on set during ongoing production activity, rather than off-duty, duty-free breaks taken away from the production environment—versus traditional duty-free break periods;
•  Whether to adjust daily call times (i.e., the time at which the crew is required to report to the production location) to accommodate break scheduling requirements, or whether to prioritize production continuity and creative momentum over break scheduling;
•  How to handle individual requests from crew members regarding the timing or duration of their breaks, including requests to shift break times to accommodate personal needs or production tasks.
The deposition testimony and production records I reviewed illustrate the breadth of this supervisory variability. I highlight three specific examples:
"Kitchen Clash" (studio-based show, Facility 1, West Hollywood): The UPM for this show testified at deposition that meal breaks were scheduled at a fixed time each day—specifically, 12:00 p.m.—with the full crew breaking simultaneously. The UPM described the breaks as consistently 30 minutes in duration and fully duty-free, with crew members free to leave the stage and eat in designated break areas. The UPM attributed this consistency to the predictable nature of studio-based cooking competition production, which follows a structured daily shooting schedule with natural break points built into the format.
"Summit Challenge" (field-based show, Facility 4, Burbank): The UPM for this show described meal break scheduling as "variable" and driven by location access, weather conditions, and creative demands. The UPM testified that breaks ranged from "full 30-minute sit-downs" on days when conditions permitted to "grab and go" arrangements on "challenging shoot days" when the crew was working at remote or difficult-to-access locations. The UPM acknowledged that "sometimes it was hard to get everyone a full break on remote locations," particularly when the production was working under tight daylight constraints or when the crew was deployed across multiple positions at a single location.
Live events operations (Facility 4, Burbank): The UPM responsible for live events described pre-show meals—provided by on-site catering—as the primary meal break for crew members. The timing of these pre-show meals was dictated entirely by the event schedule, not by a standardized break policy. Post-show meals were described as "optional" and were not consistently provided, particularly when events ran late or when load-out operations required immediate attention following the conclusion of the event.
This supervisory variability is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of a single, company-wide practice of denying meal periods. Rather, the evidence demonstrates a decentralized operational structure in which individual supervisors made individualized decisions about break scheduling based on the unique demands of their respective show units. The question of whether any given employee was "provided" a compliant meal period within the meaning of California law therefore turns on the specific practices of that employee's specific UPM—not on any company-wide policy or uniform course of conduct.
F. Finding 6: Named Plaintiffs' Experiences Are Not Typical of the Class
11.  I analyzed the employment context and deposition testimony of each of the three named Plaintiffs to assess whether their experiences are typical of the approximately 1,850 members of the putative class. My analysis demonstrates that each named Plaintiff worked in a different division, at a different facility, under a different supervisor, with materially different job responsibilities and materially different break experiences. No single named Plaintiff's experience is representative of the class as a whole.
Marisol Fuentes.  Ms. Fuentes held the title of Production Coordinator in AMA's Unscripted Programming Division. She was employed by AMA from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022, at an hourly rate of $28.50 at the time of her separation. Her primary work location was Facility 2 (4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City)—a facility at which the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro system was not activated during Ms. Fuentes's entire tenure.
At her deposition on May 2, 2023, Ms. Fuentes testified that she "rarely" received a full 30-minute meal period during shooting days. She estimated that she received a compliant meal break on "maybe one out of every three or four shoot days." She was unaware of the existence of the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the timekeeping system—which is consistent with the fact that the feature was not activated at her facility. Ms. Fuentes did acknowledge, however, that on non-shooting days—i.e., office days and prep days, which she estimated constituted approximately 40% of her workdays—she typically received full meal and rest breaks without interruption.
Ms. Fuentes's experience is atypical of the putative class for several reasons. She worked at a facility where the attestation feature was not available, meaning that she had no electronic mechanism to report missed meals—a circumstance shared by employees at Facilities 2, 4, and 7, but not by employees at the remaining four facilities. She worked in the Unscripted Programming Division, which—as documented in my shift length and overtime analyses—was characterized by more variable and less predictable schedules than the post-production, digital content, or e-commerce divisions. And her own testimony confirms that her break experience was bifurcated between shooting days and non-shooting days—a distinction that requires individualized analysis and cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
Derek Halloran.  Mr. Halloran held the title of Post-Production Assistant in AMA's Digital Content Division. He was employed by AMA from June 1, 2020 through November 30, 2022, at an hourly rate of $24.75 at the time of his separation. His primary work location was Facility 5 (1438 North Gower Street, Hollywood)—a facility at which the Missed Meal Attestation feature was activated.
At his deposition on May 9, 2023, Mr. Halloran testified that he was "usually" able to take a meal break during his shifts. He described his typical workday as consisting of editing and post-production tasks performed at a workstation in an office environment. He stated that during "crunch periods"—which he estimated occurred for two to three weeks before each delivery deadline, approximately four to six times per year—he worked through his meal periods to meet deadlines. He acknowledged that he was aware of the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the timekeeping system but stated that he "never used it because nobody else did and I didn't want to cause problems."
Mr. Halloran's experience is atypical in a different direction from Ms. Fuentes's. His testimony indicates that he generally received compliant meal breaks, with violations limited to periodic crunch periods. This is fundamentally different from Ms. Fuentes's testimony that she "rarely" received compliant breaks on shoot days. Moreover, Mr. Halloran's post-production role involved office-based work with regular, predictable schedules—an entirely different work environment from the field-based and live production settings in which many putative class members were employed. His decision not to use the available attestation feature—despite being aware of it—raises individual questions about voluntary forfeiture that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
Yesenia Padilla.  Ms. Padilla held the title of Segment Coordinator in AMA's Live Events Division. She was employed by AMA from January 10, 2018 through May 17, 2022, at an hourly rate of $31.00 at the time of her separation. Her primary work location was Facility 4 (3800 West Alameda Avenue, Burbank)—a facility at which the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated.
At her deposition on May 16, 2023, Ms. Padilla testified that live events required crews to be "on their feet and ready the entire show." She stated that meal breaks were "practically impossible" during live productions and described a workplace culture in which "everyone knew you didn't get breaks during a show, and nobody complained because that's just how it worked." Her testimony painted a picture of a work environment in which the exigencies of live production—including the need for continuous crew availability during performances—effectively precluded compliant meal periods.
Ms. Padilla's experience is uniquely atypical because it is specific to the live events context. Live events represent a small subset of AMA's total production output and involve scheduling constraints—dictated by the timing of live performances, load-in and load-out schedules, and the requirements of live broadcast or streaming—that are categorically different from those faced by employees in studio-based, field-based, post-production, digital content, or e-commerce operations. The live events division employed a fraction of the putative class, and the break-scheduling dynamics Ms. Padilla described cannot be extrapolated to the broader class of 1,850 employees.
Summary of Named Plaintiff Atypicality.  The three named Plaintiffs worked in three different divisions (Unscripted Programming, Digital Content/Post-Production, and Live Events), at three different facilities (Facility 2, Facility 5, and Facility 4), under different supervisors, with different job responsibilities, different shift lengths, different overtime exposure, and—most critically—different break experiences. Ms. Fuentes's experience of frequent meal period violations on shoot days is not shared by Mr. Halloran, who usually received breaks. Mr. Halloran's experience of occasional crunch-period violations in a post-production office environment is not shared by Ms. Padilla, who described a total absence of compliant breaks during live productions. And Ms. Padilla's live-events experience is not shared by the majority of the putative class, who worked in non-live-event production contexts. No single named Plaintiff's experience can be said to be "typical" of the experiences of 1,850 class members working across 14 show units and 7 facilities.
G. Finding 7: Individualized Inquiry Predominates
12.  Based on the totality of my analysis, it is my opinion that the question of whether AMA "provided" compliant meal and rest periods to each putative class member—within the meaning of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004—is predominantly an individualized inquiry that depends on a constellation of factors specific to each employee's circumstances. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(1) The specific show unit to which the employee was assigned during the relevant portion of the class period;
(2) The type of production in which the employee was engaged (studio-based, field-based, live events, post-production, digital content, or e-commerce);
(3) The specific facility at which the employee worked, including whether the Missed Meal Attestation feature was available to that employee;
(4) The identity and practices of the employee's UPM or Line Producer, including that supervisor's approach to scheduling breaks, managing "walking meals," and responding to employee requests regarding break timing;
(5) The production schedule and daily call sheet for each specific workday during the class period, including whether the employee was working a shooting day, a prep day, or an office day;
(6) The specific circumstances of each workday, including weather conditions (for field productions), event timing (for live events), and deadline pressures (for post-production); and
(7) The employee's individual actions, including whether the employee chose to forego a break, whether the employee utilized the Missed Meal Attestation feature (if available), or whether the employee reported a missed break to a supervisor through informal channels.
While the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro auto-deduction system was applied uniformly across all seven California facilities, the auto-deduction is a timekeeping mechanism—it records the passage of time attributed to a meal period, but it does not determine whether each individual employee was actually "provided" a compliant meal period. The substantive liability question—whether each employee was given a meaningful opportunity to take an uninterrupted, duty-free, 30-minute meal period—cannot be answered on a class-wide basis because the answer depends on the individualized factors enumerated above.
The statistically significant differences in shift lengths (F = 47.3, p < 0.001), overtime frequency (chi-square = 312.7, p < 0.001), meal period timing (coefficients of variation ranging from 0.06 to 0.31), attestation usage rates (ranging from 1.8% to 4.1% across facilities, and from below 2% to 4–6% across show-unit types), and supervisory practices across the fourteen show units and seven facilities collectively demonstrate that AMA's California workforce is not a homogeneous group subject to a single, uniform practice. Rather, it is a diverse collection of employees working in materially different environments, under materially different supervisors, subject to materially different operational constraints, and having materially different break experiences. Any attempt to adjudicate the meal and rest break claims on a class-wide basis would require the trier of fact to engage in precisely the kind of individualized, employee-by-employee analysis that the class certification device is designed to avoid.
VII. RESPONSE TO DR. RENNICK'S METHODOLOGY
13.  Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, retained by Plaintiffs, submitted an expert report dated April 28, 2023 in which he calculated aggregate damages of $38.6 million for the putative class. Dr. Rennick's damages model is predicated on the assumption that every auto-deducted meal period recorded in the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system during the class period constitutes a "missed" meal period for which AMA owes a one-hour meal period premium under California Labor Code section 226.7.
This foundational assumption is fundamentally flawed from an organizational and operational perspective, for the following reasons:
First, the auto-deduction in the TimeTrack Pro system was designed to record the time consumed by a compliant meal period—that is, to deduct from the employee's compensable hours the 30 minutes during which the employee was relieved of duty and was free to use the time for personal purposes. The auto-deduction is a timekeeping convention; it does not document a violation. An employee who takes a full 30-minute, duty-free meal break in compliance with California law will have the same auto-deduction applied to his or her time record as an employee who misses a break entirely or who works through a meal period. The auto-deduction is, by its nature, neutral and cannot be used as affirmative proof that a meal period violation occurred.
Second, Dr. Rennick's model treats all fourteen show units and all seven facilities as a homogeneous population, applying a single violation rate uniformly across the entire putative class. This approach ignores the significant variability documented in my analysis—variability that is statistically significant and operationally meaningful. As I have demonstrated, the shift lengths, overtime frequencies, meal period timing, attestation usage rates, and supervisory practices differ materially across show units and facilities. A damages model that fails to account for these differences is not a reliable basis for estimating class-wide harm.
Third, Dr. Rennick assumed a 50% rest period violation rate based solely on the deposition testimony and declarations of the three named Plaintiffs. This extrapolation is methodologically unsound. The three named Plaintiffs worked in three different divisions, at three different facilities, with three materially different break experiences. None of the three Plaintiffs' experiences can be validly extrapolated to the full class of 1,850 employees, much less aggregated into a single violation rate that purports to represent the class as a whole. The use of a small, non-representative sample to generate a class-wide estimate violates basic principles of statistical inference and would not be accepted as valid in the field of industrial/organizational psychology or in any related social science discipline.
Fourth, the actual Missed Meal Attestation data from the four facilities where the attestation feature was active directly contradicts the assumptions underlying Dr. Rennick's model. The attestation rates at those facilities ranged from only 1.8% to 4.1% of eligible shifts—far below the 100% violation rate that Dr. Rennick's auto-deduction-based model implicitly assumes. While I acknowledge that attestation rates may understate the true incidence of missed meals (for reasons including employee reluctance to use the feature, as described by Mr. Halloran), the gulf between the attestation data and Dr. Rennick's assumption is so large as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of his model.
Fifth, the variation in attestation rates by show-unit type—below 2% for studio-based and office-based show units versus 4% to 6% for field and live production show units—further demonstrates that the violation rate, to the extent violations occurred, was not uniform across the class. This inter-unit variation cannot be captured by a single, class-wide damages figure and instead requires individualized analysis of each employee's show-unit assignment, facility, and production type.
In sum, Dr. Rennick's methodology does not account for the operational realities of AMA's multi-facility, multi-show-unit production environment. His damages model rests on assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical data and that treat a heterogeneous workforce as homogeneous. His $38.6 million figure is, accordingly, unreliable as a basis for class-wide damages estimation.
VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
14.  Based on my analysis, and for the reasons set forth in this declaration and in my full expert report (Exhibit 1), I hold the following opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty:
Opinion 1: Working conditions, scheduling practices, and meal period implementation vary significantly—and to a statistically significant degree—across AMA's fourteen show units and seven California production facilities. These differences are driven by the type of production (studio, field, live events, post-production, digital content, e-commerce), the physical characteristics and operational demands of each facility, and the decentralized supervisory structure under which each show unit operates.
Opinion 2: Supervisory discretion in scheduling meal and rest breaks was exercised differently by each Unit Production Manager or Line Producer, resulting in materially different break experiences across show units. Some UPMs maintained highly structured, consistent break schedules; others adopted flexible, conditions-dependent approaches that produced significant variability in break timing and duration.
Opinion 3: The experiences of the three named Plaintiffs—Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla—are not typical of the putative class. Each Plaintiff worked in a different division, at a different facility, under different supervisors, with different break outcomes. Their experiences illustrate the variability within AMA's workforce rather than a common, shared experience.
Opinion 4: The question of whether AMA "provided" compliant meal and rest periods to each putative class member is predominantly individualized and depends on the employee's show unit, facility, production type, supervisor, production schedule, workday type, and individual circumstances.
Opinion 5: A class-wide determination of liability on the meal and rest break claims is not feasible without individualized inquiry into the circumstances of each class member's employment. The significant inter-unit and inter-facility variability documented in my analysis precludes resolution of liability through common proof.
Opinion 6: Dr. Rennick's assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period is unsupported by the operational data and is inconsistent with the actual experiences of employees across AMA's diverse production operations. His damages model of $38.6 million rests on methodologically unsound assumptions and does not account for the documented variability in working conditions, break practices, and attestation rates across AMA's workforce.
IX. BASIS OF OPINIONS
15.  The opinions expressed in this declaration are based on my education, training, and over twenty years of professional experience in industrial/organizational psychology and workforce analytics. They are further based on my comprehensive review and analysis of the materials identified in Paragraph 3 above, including the approximately 12 million timekeeping records, the deposition transcripts, the production documents, and all other materials set forth therein.
My opinions are rendered to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, consistent with the standards and accepted methodologies of the field of industrial/organizational psychology. The full methodology, data tables, statistical analyses, variable definitions, and supporting documentation underlying my opinions are set forth in detail in my expert report dated May 19, 2023, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference.
I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions should additional data, documents, or testimony become available prior to trial.
X. DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
16.  I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 14th day of June, 2023, in Mountain View, California.
________________________________________
Dr. Rajesh Makhija, Ph.D. Principal and Senior Consultant Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC 444 Castro Street, Suite 800 Mountain View, California 94041
EXHIBIT LIST
The following exhibits are attached to and submitted with this Declaration:
MARISOL FUENTES, DEREK HALLORAN, and YESENIA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, | Lead Case No. 22STCV38214
(Consolidated with 22STCV39501)
Plaintiffs, | Assigned to Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34
v.
AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, | DECLARATION OF DR. RAJESH MAKHIJA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Defendants.
Exhibit No. | Description
Exhibit 1 | Expert Report of Dr. Rajesh Makhija, dated May 19, 2023
Exhibit 2 | Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Rajesh Makhija
Exhibit 3 | Summary Data Tables — Shift Length Distribution by Show Unit (ANOVA Results)
Exhibit 4 | Summary Data Tables — Overtime Frequency by Show Unit (Chi-Square Results)
Exhibit 5 | Summary Data Tables — Meal Period Timing Analysis by Show Unit (Coefficient of Variation Analysis)
Exhibit 6 | Summary Data Tables — Missed Meal Attestation Usage Rates by Facility and Show Unit
Exhibit 7 | Organizational Chart — AMA California Production Operations (14 Show Units / 7 Facilities)