SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF MARISOL FUENTES
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND SPECIFICALLY TO:
Marisol Fuentes, through her attorneys of record:
Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP Marco Castellano, Esq. Diane Salas, Esq. Trevor Kim, Esq. 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025
Veltrano Employment Law Group PC Sandra Higuera, Esq. 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), by and through its counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, hereby gives notice that it will take the oral deposition of Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.010 et seq.
The deposition will be taken as follows:
Date: May 2, 2023
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017
Officer: The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter ("CSR") duly authorized to administer oaths in the State of California. The deposition will be recorded stenographically and may also be recorded by videography pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(c). AMA reserves the right to utilize real-time transcript services during the proceedings.
Duration: The deposition is expected to last no more than seven (7) hours of testimony, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.290(a). The seven-hour limitation applies to the actual time of examination and does not include breaks, recesses, or time spent reviewing or discussing documents.
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220(a)(4), Plaintiff Fuentes is hereby requested to bring to the deposition and produce for inspection and copying all documents and tangible things described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
AREAS OF EXAMINATION
The examination of Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes will cover, but is not limited to, the following topics and subject areas:
Topic 1: Personal Background and Employment History
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's educational background, including all secondary and post-secondary institutions attended, degrees or certifications obtained, and any specialized training or coursework relevant to her position at AMA. Examination will also cover Fuentes's complete employment history prior to her employment at AMA, including all employers, positions held, dates of employment, reasons for separation, and compensation received at each position.
Examination will further address the circumstances of Fuentes's hiring by AMA, including how she became aware of the position, the application and interview process, and the terms of her offer of employment. Specifically, the deposition will inquire into the following:
(a) Fuentes's position at AMA as Production Coordinator within the Unscripted Programming Division;
(b) Her date of hire, which is understood to be March 14, 2019;
(c) Her date of separation from AMA, which is understood to be August 5, 2022;
(d) Her hourly rate of compensation at the time of separation, which is understood to be $28.50 per hour;
(e) The AMA facilities at which she performed work during her employment, with particular attention to the Studio City facility located at 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City, California 91604, identified in AMA records as "Facility 2";
(f) The show unit or show units to which Fuentes was assigned during the putative class period (November 1, 2018 through the present), noting that Fuentes's employment at AMA commenced on March 14, 2019;
(g) All supervisors under whom Fuentes worked during her employment at AMA, including their names, titles, and the reporting relationships and chain of command applicable to her position;
(h) Fuentes's job duties and day-to-day responsibilities as Production Coordinator, including the typical tasks she performed on shooting days as compared to office or pre-production days, her interaction with other departments and personnel, and the scope of her authority and discretion in performing her duties.
Topic 2: Meal Period Experiences
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's personal experience regarding first meal periods during her employment at AMA, including but not limited to the following:
(a) The frequency with which Fuentes received compliant, uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods, as required by California Labor Code section 512 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order;
(b) The frequency with which Fuentes alleges she was denied a meal period or was unable to take a compliant, uninterrupted thirty-minute meal period;
(c) Specific dates, shifts, show units, or time periods during which Fuentes alleges meal period violations occurred, including whether such alleged violations were sporadic, periodic, or continuous throughout her employment;
(d) Whether Fuentes's meal period experiences differed on shooting days (i.e., days when her assigned show unit was actively filming or taping) as compared to office days, pre-production days, or other non-shooting days;
(e) The identity of any supervisors, managers, or other AMA personnel who Fuentes alleges directed, required, encouraged, pressured, or permitted her to work through or shorten her meal periods, including the specific instructions or communications she received from such individuals;
(f) Whether Fuentes was relieved of all duties during her meal periods or whether she was required to remain "on call," carry a radio or communication device, or remain available to respond to production needs during her meal periods;
(g) Fuentes's experience with second meal periods on shifts exceeding ten (10) hours, including the frequency with which she worked shifts in excess of ten hours, whether she was provided a second meal period on such shifts, and, if not, the circumstances that prevented her from taking a second meal period;
(h) Whether Fuentes ever voluntarily waived or shortened a meal period for her own personal convenience or reasons unrelated to any direction, requirement, or pressure from AMA, and the circumstances of any such voluntary waiver or shortening.
Topic 3: Rest Period Experiences
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's personal experience regarding rest periods during her employment at AMA, specifically the ten-minute paid rest breaks to which she was entitled for every four (4) hours worked or major fraction thereof, including but not limited to the following:
(a) The frequency with which Fuentes received compliant, uninterrupted ten-minute rest periods during her employment at AMA;
(b) Specific instances, shifts, dates, or time periods during which Fuentes alleges rest periods were denied, shortened, or interrupted, and the circumstances surrounding each such instance;
(c) Whether Fuentes's rest period experiences varied depending on the show unit to which she was assigned, the production schedule for a given day or week, or the identity of the supervisor on duty;
(d) Whether Fuentes was authorized and permitted to take rest periods during her shifts, and, if so, the manner in which authorization was communicated and the practical ability she had to take such rest periods given the demands of her work.
Topic 4: NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro System and Missed Meal Attestation Feature
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's familiarity with and use of the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" electronic timekeeping system utilized by AMA during the relevant time period, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Fuentes's understanding of the TimeTrack Pro system, including how she clocked in and out, recorded her work hours, and interacted with the system on a daily basis;
(b) Fuentes's understanding of the auto-deduction feature within the TimeTrack Pro system, specifically the automatic deduction of thirty (30) minutes from an employee's recorded work time for shifts of six (6) hours or more, and whether she was made aware of this feature during her employment;
(c) Whether Fuentes was aware of the "Missed Meal Attestation" feature available within the TimeTrack Pro system, which was designed to allow employees to report a missed or shortened meal period so that the automatic thirty-minute deduction could be overridden and the employee could receive the applicable meal period premium;
(d) Whether Fuentes ever used or attempted to use the Missed Meal Attestation feature to report a missed or shortened meal period during her employment at AMA;
(e) Whether Fuentes received any training, instruction, written communication, email, memorandum, poster, or other notice from AMA regarding the existence and availability of the Missed Meal Attestation feature and how to use it;
(f) Fuentes's knowledge of the fact that the Missed Meal Attestation feature within the TimeTrack Pro system was not activated at the Studio City facility (Facility 2) where Fuentes was primarily assigned during her employment, and, if she had such knowledge, when and how she became aware of this fact;
(g) Whether Fuentes was informed by AMA of any alternative method or procedure for reporting missed or shortened meal periods in the absence of the Missed Meal Attestation feature, including whether she was instructed to notify a supervisor, submit a written report, contact the payroll department, or utilize any other channel to report such occurrences, consistent with AMA's written company policy.
Topic 5: Off-the-Clock Work
The deposition will address whether Plaintiff Fuentes performed work before her official clock-in time and/or after her official clock-out time, commonly referred to as "off-the-clock" work, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Whether Fuentes performed work prior to her scheduled or actual clock-in time, including pre-shift setup activities, and the nature of such work, which is alleged to include, among other things, setting up production equipment, preparing production materials and call sheets, logging into AMA computer systems and production software, checking and responding to emails, and attending informal pre-shift briefings;
(b) Whether Fuentes performed work after her scheduled or actual clock-out time, including post-shift wrap activities, and the nature of such work, which is alleged to include, among other things, wrapping and securing production equipment, logging footage and production data, completing paperwork and production reports, and communicating with crew members regarding the following day's schedule;
(c) The estimated duration of time Fuentes spent on alleged pre-shift work, which Plaintiffs have represented falls within an approximate range of thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minutes per shift, and the estimated duration of time Fuentes spent on alleged post-shift work, which Plaintiffs have represented falls within an approximate range of fifteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes per shift;
(d) Whether Fuentes was specifically directed, instructed, required, or expected by her supervisors or other AMA management personnel to perform pre-shift or post-shift tasks before clocking in or after clocking out, or whether Fuentes performed such work voluntarily, on her own initiative, or for her own convenience;
(e) Whether Fuentes reported or attempted to report off-the-clock work to her supervisors, the payroll department, Human Resources, or any other AMA department or representative, and, if so, the manner in which she reported such work and any response she received.
Topic 6: Compensation, Wage Statements, and Payroll
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's compensation during her employment at AMA and the accuracy of wage statements she received, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Fuentes's understanding of her compensation structure at AMA, including her hourly rate of pay, overtime rate, and any other forms of compensation she received during her employment;
(b) Whether Fuentes reviewed her wage statements (pay stubs) during her employment at AMA, how frequently she reviewed them, and the degree to which she scrutinized the information reflected thereon;
(c) Whether Fuentes identified any discrepancies, errors, or omissions on her wage statements at any time during her employment, including discrepancies in recorded hours, overtime calculations, meal period premium payments, or any other line item;
(d) Whether Fuentes received all wages owed to her at the time of her separation from AMA on August 5, 2022, including any accrued but unused vacation pay, and, if not, the specific wages she contends were not timely paid;
(e) Fuentes's general understanding of AMA's payroll practices, including the pay period schedule, the method of payment, and any complaints or concerns she raised regarding the accuracy or timeliness of her compensation.
Topic 7: Complaints and Grievances
The deposition will address whether Plaintiff Fuentes made any formal or informal complaints or grievances regarding the working conditions at issue in this litigation, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Whether Fuentes ever filed a formal or informal complaint with AMA's Human Resources department, including complaints directed to or received by Lorraine Okafor, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, or any other Human Resources representative, regarding meal periods, rest periods, overtime, off-the-clock work, compensation, or any other wage-and-hour issue;
(b) Whether Fuentes reported any wage-and-hour concerns through any internal channel available at AMA, including any employee hotline, email to management or Human Resources, written memorandum, or verbal complaint to a supervisor or manager;
(c) AMA's response, if any, to any such complaint or report made by Fuentes, including any investigation, corrective action, or communication directed to Fuentes in response to her complaint;
(d) Whether Fuentes was aware of complaints made by other AMA employees regarding similar wage-and-hour issues, including the identity of such employees, the nature of their complaints, and how Fuentes became aware of such complaints.
Topic 8: Communications with Counsel and Putative Class Members
The deposition will address the circumstances giving rise to this litigation and Fuentes's communications with other putative class members, including but not limited to the following:
(a) The circumstances under which Fuentes first came into contact with Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP or any attorney or law firm regarding the claims at issue in this litigation, including when such contact occurred and whether it was initiated by Fuentes or by counsel;
(b) Whether Fuentes was solicited, recruited, or contacted by Plaintiffs' counsel, any other attorney, or any other individual to serve as a named plaintiff or putative class representative in this action;
(c) Fuentes's communications with other current or former AMA employees who are putative class members in this action regarding working conditions at AMA, meal and rest break practices, overtime, compensation, or this litigation, including the identity of such individuals and the substance of such communications;
(d) Fuentes's communications with the other named Plaintiffs, Derek Halloran and Yesenia Padilla, regarding working conditions at AMA, their respective experiences as AMA employees, the decision to file or join this lawsuit, and the prosecution of this litigation;
(e) Fuentes's understanding of her role and obligations as a named plaintiff and putative class representative, including her understanding of her duty to represent the interests of all absent putative class members, her obligations regarding discovery and trial participation, and the time commitment required of her in that role.
Topic 9: Adequacy and Typicality as Class Representative
The deposition will address whether Plaintiff Fuentes is an adequate and typical class representative for the approximately 1,850 putative class members employed by AMA across its California production operations, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Whether Fuentes believes her personal experiences regarding meal periods, rest periods, off-the-clock work, and compensation are representative of the experiences of all approximately 1,850 putative class members across AMA's seven (7) California production facilities and fourteen (14) show units;
(b) Whether Fuentes has any conflicts of interest with absent putative class members, including any personal disputes, financial entanglements, or other circumstances that could compromise her ability to fairly and adequately represent the class;
(c) Whether Fuentes is aware that putative class members worked in different divisions within AMA — specifically, the Unscripted Programming Division, the Post-Production Division, the Live Events Division, and the Digital Content Division — at different facilities throughout California, and under different supervisors, and whether she acknowledges that the working conditions, policies, and practices may have varied across these divisions, facilities, and supervisors;
(d) Whether Fuentes understands that her specific experiences at the Studio City facility (Facility 2) may differ materially from the experiences of employees at other AMA facilities, including, in particular, the fact that the Missed Meal Attestation feature within the TimeTrack Pro system was activated and available to employees at other facilities but was not activated at Facility 2;
(e) Fuentes's willingness and ability to continue to serve as a class representative throughout the duration of this litigation, including her availability for future depositions, hearings, trial, and other proceedings, and whether any personal or professional circumstances might limit her ability to fulfill her obligations as a class representative.
Topic 10: Damages
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's contention regarding the individual damages she claims to have suffered as a result of AMA's alleged wage-and-hour violations, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Fuentes's calculation or estimate of unpaid meal period premiums she claims she is owed under California Labor Code section 226.7, including the number of missed or non-compliant meal periods, the applicable premium rate, and the total amount claimed;
(b) Fuentes's calculation or estimate of unpaid rest period premiums she claims she is owed under California Labor Code section 226.7, including the number of missed or non-compliant rest periods, the applicable premium rate, and the total amount claimed;
(c) Fuentes's calculation or estimate of unpaid overtime wages or off-the-clock wages she claims she is owed, including the number of hours of uncompensated work, the applicable overtime rate, and the total amount claimed;
(d) Any other categories of damages Fuentes contends she suffered as a result of AMA's alleged practices, including but not limited to waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203, statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements under Labor Code section 226, and any claim for interest or attorneys' fees;
(e) Whether Fuentes has consulted with any expert, advisor, economist, or other professional regarding the calculation or estimation of her individual damages or the damages of the putative class, other than class counsel and their retained expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, who has been disclosed in Plaintiffs' expert designations.
Topic 11: Post-Separation Employment and Mitigation
The deposition will address Plaintiff Fuentes's employment and earnings since her separation from AMA on August 5, 2022, including but not limited to the following:
(a) All employment Fuentes has held since separating from AMA, including the identity of each employer, the position held, the dates of employment, the rate of compensation, and the nature of the work performed;
(b) Whether Fuentes has sought and obtained employment comparable to her position as Production Coordinator at AMA, and, if not, the reasons she has been unable to obtain comparable employment;
(c) Fuentes's current employment status, including the identity of her current employer (if applicable), her current position and title, and her current rate of compensation.
EXHIBIT A
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2025.220(a)(4)
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220(a)(4), Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes is hereby requested to produce at the deposition the following documents and tangible things for inspection and copying. As used herein, "documents" shall have the meaning set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.020 and shall include all writings, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and all electronically stored information, including but not limited to emails, text messages, instant messages, social media messages, voicemails, photographs, and metadata.
REQUEST NO. 1: All personal calendars, planners, scheduling applications, or scheduling records, whether in physical or electronic form, reflecting Plaintiff Fuentes's work schedule at AMA during the period of her employment from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022.
REQUEST NO. 2: All text messages, emails, instant messages, direct messages, or other electronic communications between Plaintiff Fuentes and any AMA supervisor, manager, or other AMA management representative regarding meal periods, rest periods, work schedules, overtime, off-the-clock work, or any other wage-and-hour issue during the period of Fuentes's employment from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022.
REQUEST NO. 3: All text messages, emails, instant messages, direct messages, or other electronic communications between Plaintiff Fuentes and any current or former AMA employee who is a putative class member in this action, regarding working conditions at AMA, meal or rest break policies or practices, overtime, compensation, or this litigation, from November 1, 2018 through the present.
REQUEST NO. 4: All communications between Plaintiff Fuentes and Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, Veltrano Employment Law Group PC, or any other attorney or law firm regarding this litigation or the underlying claims asserted herein, excluding any communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. This request specifically encompasses any retainer agreements, engagement letters, or fee agreements between Fuentes and counsel.
REQUEST NO. 5: All diaries, journals, logs, notes, personal records, or other documents, whether in physical or electronic form, reflecting Plaintiff Fuentes's actual hours worked, meal periods taken or missed, rest periods taken or missed, off-the-clock work, or any other aspect of her work schedule or working conditions at AMA during the period of her employment from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022.
REQUEST NO. 6: All documents reflecting Plaintiff Fuentes's employment since her separation from AMA on August 5, 2022, including but not limited to offer letters, employment agreements, compensation summaries, pay stubs, W-2 forms, and 1099 forms from any employer.
REQUEST NO. 7: All documents reflecting any complaint, grievance, report, or communication made by Plaintiff Fuentes to AMA — including to Human Resources, management, supervisors, or any internal reporting channel — regarding wages, hours, meal breaks, rest breaks, overtime, off-the-clock work, or working conditions, during the period of her employment from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022.
REQUEST NO. 8: All wage statements, pay stubs, and payroll records received by Plaintiff Fuentes from AMA during the period of her employment from March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022, to the extent such documents are in Fuentes's possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST NO. 9: All documents reflecting damages Plaintiff Fuentes contends she suffered as a result of AMA's alleged wage-and-hour violations, including but not limited to any personal calculations, spreadsheets, summaries, or compilations prepared by Fuentes or at her direction.
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS
This deposition will be conducted in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.010 through 2025.620 and all applicable provisions of the California Civil discovery Act.
Any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information that may be discussed during the course of this deposition shall be subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on February 15, 2023 (the "Protective Order"). All parties, counsel, and the deposition officer are directed to comply with the terms of the Protective Order with respect to the handling, use, and disclosure of any information designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" during the deposition.
Defendant AMA hereby reserves the right to continue the deposition of Plaintiff Fuentes to a subsequent date or dates if the seven (7) hours of examination permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.290(a) proves insufficient to complete the examination on the topics and subject areas identified herein. Any such continuation shall be subject to further stipulation of the parties or order of the Court.
Defendant AMA further reserves the right to designate the deposition testimony of Plaintiff Fuentes, in whole or in part, for use at trial or in connection with any motion filed in this action, including the pending motion for class certification and any opposition thereto, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620 and all other applicable provisions of law.
Dated: April 3, 2023
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer (SBN 301462) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7238 Facsimile: (213) 555-7239
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Defendant AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I, the undersigned, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017.
On April 3, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF MARISOL FUENTES on the interested parties in this action as follows:
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be transmitted via electronic mail to each of the persons listed below at their respective email addresses, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and the agreement of the parties to accept electronic service.
BY U.S. MAIL: I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, and placed the envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices at my place of business. I am readily familiar with the business practice of Calderwood & Harkness LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
Marco Castellano, Esq. Diane Salas, Esq. Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025
Email: mcastellano@inlawlaw.com
Email: dsalas@inlawlaw.com
Sandra Higuera, Esq. Veltrano Employment Law Group PC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071
Email: shiguera@ridgemontlaw.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 3, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Veronica Cheng
MARISOL FUENTES, DEREK HALLORAN, and YESENIA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
(Consolidated with 22STCV39501)
Plaintiffs,
Assigned for All Purposes to the
| v. | Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34 |
| AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, | NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF MARISOL FUENTES |
| Defendants. | Date: May 2, 2023 |
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: 777 S. Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017