meet-confer-deficient-responses.docx

1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Discovery/Class Action

meet-confer-deficient-responses.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

64 / 150 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 486-7000 Facsimile: (213) 486-7001 www.calderwoodharkness.com

April 7, 2023

VIA EMAIL

Marco Castellano, Esq. Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90025

Re: Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated) Deficient Responses to AMA's First Set of Special Interrogatories

Dear Marco:

We write on behalf of our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), regarding the responses served by each of the three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — to AMA's First Set of Special Interrogatories. AMA served its First Set of Special Interrogatories on each named plaintiff (Nos. 1–35) on February 24, 2023. AMA received the responses from all three plaintiffs on April 3, 2023, at 5:47 p.m. We appreciate your office's efforts in coordinating the simultaneous production of the three sets of responses.

Having now had the opportunity to review the responses in full, we have identified a number of deficiencies that we believe must be addressed before AMA can meaningfully evaluate the named plaintiffs' individual claims, assess their typicality and adequacy as putative class representatives, and prepare its defense. Several of the responses fail to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, which mandates that each answer be "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits," and further requires that a responding party "make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations." We detail these deficiencies below.

This letter is sent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, which requires that counsel engage in a good-faith effort to informally resolve discovery disputes before seeking court intervention. We are hopeful that the issues identified herein can be resolved through supplemental responses without the need for motion practice.

I. Deficiency Category 1: Specific Instances of Alleged Missed Meal Periods (Interrogatory Nos. 5–8)

Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 5 through 8, propounded to each of the three named plaintiffs, asked each plaintiff to identify the specific dates, shifts, time periods, or approximate frequency during which she or he alleges she or he was denied a compliant 30-minute meal period, as required under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512. The interrogatories further asked each plaintiff to identify, for each such instance: (a) the AMA production facility at which she or he was working at the time; (b) the show unit to which she or he was assigned; and (c) the name and title of the supervisor on duty during the relevant shift or time period. These interrogatories are designed to elicit the basic factual foundation of each named plaintiff's individual meal period claim — which is, of course, the core of this putative class action.

Fuentes's Response (Nos. 5–8). Ms. Fuentes responded to each of these interrogatories with substantially identical language: "Plaintiff was regularly denied meal periods throughout her employment at AMA." Ms. Fuentes did not identify a single specific date, shift, time period, or even an approximate frequency of the alleged meal period violations. She did not identify the facility or facilities at which the alleged violations occurred, the show unit or units to which she was assigned during the relevant time periods, or the name of any supervisor who was on duty when a meal period was allegedly missed or shortened.

Halloran's Response (Nos. 5–8). Mr. Halloran responded with similar generality: "Plaintiff was frequently denied timely meal periods during crunch periods." Mr. Halloran did not identify any specific dates, shifts, or time periods. He did not identify any facility, show unit, or supervisor. While the reference to "crunch periods" gestures at some temporal specificity, the term is undefined, and the response provides no factual detail from which AMA could determine which "crunch periods" are at issue, how many shifts were allegedly affected, or which supervisory personnel were responsible.

Padilla's Response (Nos. 5–8). Ms. Padilla responded: "Plaintiff was regularly denied meal periods during live event productions and during pre-production periods." Again, no specific dates, shifts, or time periods were identified. No facility, show unit, or supervisor was named. While the reference to "live event productions" and "pre-production periods" provides marginally more context than the other responses, it remains far too vague to constitute a complete and straightforward answer.

Deficiency. Each of these responses is insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(a), which requires that each answer be "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." Vague, boilerplate assertions that a plaintiff was "regularly" or "frequently" denied meal periods — without any effort to identify dates, shifts, time periods, facilities, show units, or supervisors — do not satisfy this standard. Each named plaintiff is a putative class representative who bears the burden of establishing her or his individual claims, typicality, and adequacy. AMA is entitled to know the factual basis of each plaintiff's individual allegations with sufficient specificity to evaluate those claims and to mount a defense. General assertions of "regular" or "frequent" violations, standing alone, provide AMA with no information it did not already have from the face of the Consolidated Complaint.

Moreover, each named plaintiff worked at specific AMA facilities — Ms. Fuentes worked primarily at Facility 2 (Studio City), Mr. Halloran at Facility 5 (Hollywood), and Ms. Padilla at Facility 4 (Burbank) — and was assigned to specific show units during specific time periods. Each plaintiff should be able to provide at least approximate dates, time periods, or frequencies based on her or his own personal knowledge and recollection. If a plaintiff's recollection is limited, she or he is nevertheless required to provide whatever information is reasonably available, including through the review of her or his own time records, pay stubs, calendars, text messages, and other personal documents. A blanket assertion of "regular" violations, with no effort to provide any supporting detail, does not reflect the reasonable and good-faith effort that Section 2030.220(c) requires.

Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 5 through 8 identifying, to the best of her or his recollection and based on a reasonable inquiry into available records:

(a) the approximate dates or time periods during which the plaintiff alleges she or he was denied a compliant 30-minute meal period (or, if exact dates cannot be recalled, the approximate frequency of such denials during identified time periods, such as a particular month, quarter, or production cycle);

(b) the AMA production facility at which each alleged meal period violation occurred;

(d) the name and title of the supervisor on duty during the relevant shift or time period.

II. Deficiency Category 2: Identity of Supervisors Who Allegedly Required or Permitted Work Through Breaks (Interrogatory Nos. 12–15)

Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 12 through 15 asked each named plaintiff to identify, by name and title, the specific supervisors who allegedly directed, required, or permitted each plaintiff to work through meal or rest periods during her or his employment at AMA. These interrogatories are squarely targeted at the question of which supervisory personnel are alleged to have been responsible for the meal and rest period violations at the heart of this case.

Fuentes's Response (Nos. 12–15). Ms. Fuentes responded: "All supervisors during plaintiff's employment at AMA."

Halloran's Response (Nos. 12–15). Mr. Halloran responded: "All supervisors during plaintiff's employment at AMA."

Padilla's Response (Nos. 12–15). Ms. Padilla responded: "All supervisors during plaintiff's employment at AMA."

Deficiency. Each of these responses is non-responsive. The interrogatories do not ask for a general description of the category of persons who may have been involved in the alleged violations. They ask for the identity of the specific supervisors who allegedly directed, required, or permitted each plaintiff to work through meal or rest periods. A blanket reference to "all supervisors" — without naming a single individual — does not answer the question.

Each named plaintiff worked at a specific AMA production facility and was assigned to specific show units during her or his employment. Each plaintiff worked under the direction of specific Unit Production Managers ("UPMs"), Line Producers, and department heads at those facilities and show units. The interrogatories ask which of those individuals was responsible for the alleged violations. The responses, as served, tell AMA nothing about which supervisors are actually at issue.

This information is critically important to AMA's defense, including its defense against class certification. AMA operates seven California production facilities and fourteen distinct show units, each of which has its own supervisory structure, scheduling practices, and operational protocols. A central component of AMA's certification defense is that supervisory practices varied significantly across show units and facilities, such that the question of whether any individual employee was denied a compliant meal or rest period depends on individualized inquiries into the practices of the particular supervisors and the particular facility and show unit at issue. Identification of the specific supervisors whom each named plaintiff contends were responsible for the alleged violations is essential to AMA's ability to present this defense and to demonstrate the predominance of individualized issues.

Furthermore, the blanket assertion that "all supervisors" were responsible is facially implausible. Not every supervisor at AMA could have been responsible for denying meal or rest periods to every named plaintiff. Each plaintiff worked under a finite number of supervisors at a finite number of facilities and show units. A response that attributes responsibility to "all supervisors" — without any differentiation — suggests either that the plaintiffs have not made a reasonable effort to identify the individuals involved or that the responses were drafted without meaningful input from the plaintiffs themselves. Either way, the responses are deficient.

Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 12 through 15 identifying:

(a) each supervisor, by name and title, whom the plaintiff contends directed, required, or permitted the plaintiff to work through meal or rest periods;

(b) the AMA production facility and show unit at which each identified supervisor worked;

(d) a description of the specific conduct by each identified supervisor that the plaintiff contends constituted a direction, requirement, or permission to work through a meal or rest period.

III. Deficiency Category 3: Use of the TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation Feature (Interrogatory Nos. 22–25)

Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 22 through 25 asked each named plaintiff whether she or he was aware of the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" Missed Meal Attestation feature — a function within AMA's timekeeping system that allowed employees to override the automatic 30-minute meal period deduction and report a missed or shortened meal period — during her or his employment at AMA. The interrogatories further asked whether each plaintiff ever used the feature and, if she or he did not, the reason for not doing so.

The Missed Meal Attestation feature is a central factual issue in this litigation. It is the mechanism by which AMA's employees could report missed or shortened meal periods, triggering the payment of meal period premium wages. The availability, communication, and usage of this feature bear directly on AMA's affirmative defense that it maintained a lawful meal period policy and that any meal period violations resulted from employees' voluntary decisions rather than from AMA's policies or practices. The responses served to date are inadequate.

Fuentes's Response (Nos. 22–25). Ms. Fuentes responded: "Plaintiff does not recall."

Halloran's Response (Nos. 22–25). Mr. Halloran responded: "Plaintiff was not aware of this feature."

Padilla's Response (Nos. 22–25). Ms. Padilla responded: "Plaintiff does not recall."

Deficiency. These responses are inadequate for several reasons.

First, the responses of Ms. Fuentes and Ms. Padilla — "Plaintiff does not recall" — are ambiguous. A plaintiff who "does not recall" whether she was aware of a particular feature may mean that she was not aware of it, that she was aware of it but does not recall the details, or that she simply has not made a reasonable effort to refresh her recollection. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires a complete and straightforward response, and a vague assertion of failed recollection does not satisfy this requirement where, as here, the feature at issue is central to the claims and defenses in this case.

Second, none of the responses addresses the follow-up components of the interrogatories, which asked (i) whether each plaintiff ever used the Missed Meal Attestation feature, and (ii) if not, why not. If any plaintiff used the feature, she or he should identify the approximate dates and circumstances. If any plaintiff did not use it, she or he should explain the reason — whether because she or he was unaware of it, because she or he was discouraged from using it by a supervisor or coworker, because the feature was not available at her or his facility, or for some other reason.

Third, and importantly, the factual record indicates that the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not uniformly available across all of AMA's California facilities. The feature was activated at four of AMA's seven California production facilities: Facility 1 (Culver City), Facility 3 (Santa Monica), Facility 5 (Hollywood), and Facility 6 (Glendale). The feature was not activated at Facility 2 (Studio City), Facility 4 (Burbank), or Facility 7 (El Segundo). This distinction is directly relevant to the named plaintiffs' responses:

• Ms. Fuentes worked primarily at Facility 2 (Studio City), where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated. Her response that she "does not recall" whether she was aware of the feature may simply reflect the fact that the feature was not available at her facility — but this should be stated clearly rather than left ambiguous.

• Ms. Padilla worked primarily at Facility 4 (Burbank), where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was likewise not activated. The same observation applies to her "does not recall" response.

• Mr. Halloran worked primarily at Facility 5 (Hollywood), where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was activated and available to employees. Mr. Halloran's response that he "was not aware of this feature" is therefore particularly significant — it suggests that the feature was available at his facility but was not communicated to him. AMA is entitled to explore this issue further, including whether Mr. Halloran was provided with training or informational materials regarding the feature, whether he was ever informed of the feature by a supervisor or coworker, and the specific circumstances of his claimed lack of awareness.

Each plaintiff's relationship to the Missed Meal Attestation feature — including whether the feature was even available at her or his facility — is directly relevant to AMA's defense, to the question of whether AMA maintained a lawful policy, and to the question of whether the named plaintiffs' experiences are typical of the putative class. The current responses do not provide AMA with sufficient information to evaluate any of these issues.

Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 22 through 25 clearly stating:

(a) whether the plaintiff was aware of the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation feature during her or his employment at AMA;

(b) if the plaintiff was aware of the feature, whether she or he ever used it, and if so, the approximate dates and circumstances of each use;

(c) if the plaintiff did not use the feature, the specific reason for not doing so — including, without limitation, whether the plaintiff was unaware of the feature, was discouraged from using it by a supervisor, manager, or coworker, found it unavailable at her or his facility, or had some other reason; and

(d) whether any supervisor, manager, trainer, or coworker at AMA ever informed the plaintiff about the Missed Meal Attestation feature, and if so, the identity of that person and the approximate date and circumstances of the communication.

IV. Deficiency Category 4: Individual Damages (Interrogatory Nos. 30–35)

Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 30 through 35 asked each named plaintiff to state her or his individual damages claim, including the amount of unpaid meal period premiums, rest period premiums, overtime wages, and other compensation she or he contends is owed, together with the factual basis for each calculation. These are standard contention interrogatories designed to elicit each named plaintiff's own understanding of, and contentions regarding, the damages she or he personally suffered.

Fuentes's Response (Nos. 30–35). Ms. Fuentes responded to each of these interrogatories with the same answer: "See expert report to be produced at a later date."

Halloran's Response (Nos. 30–35). Mr. Halloran responded identically: "See expert report to be produced at a later date."

Padilla's Response (Nos. 30–35). Ms. Padilla likewise responded: "See expert report to be produced at a later date."

Deficiency. These responses are non-compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220. The interrogatories do not ask for expert analysis or an expert damages model. They ask for each named plaintiff's own contention regarding her or his individual damages — specifically, what categories of damages each plaintiff claims, the approximate dollar amount for each category, and the factual basis for each claim. A blanket referral to an as-yet-unproduced expert report is not a responsive answer to a contention interrogatory.

A responding party may not defer to a future expert report as a substitute for a contention interrogatory response. Each named plaintiff is required to state the facts supporting her or his individual damages claim to the extent currently known, based on personal knowledge and reasonable inquiry. As the Court of Appeal explained in Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783, a responding party must make a "reasonable effort to obtain information" and provide a "complete response." A plaintiff who brings a wage-and-hour action is expected to have at least a basic understanding of the damages she or he claims to have suffered — including, at minimum, an approximate calculation of the meal period premiums, rest period premiums, overtime wages, and other compensation she or he contends are owed, and the factual basis for that calculation (e.g., the approximate number of shifts on which meals were allegedly missed, the plaintiff's hourly rate, the estimated number of hours of alleged off-the-clock work).

We note that Plaintiffs' retained expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, subsequently filed his expert report on April 28, 2023, in which he estimates aggregate class-wide damages of approximately $38.6 million. However, Dr. Rennick's aggregate damages model — which relies on assumptions about class-wide violation rates derived from statistical sampling — does not and cannot substitute for the individual contention responses of each named plaintiff. AMA is entitled to know what each named plaintiff individually claims she or he is owed, and on what factual basis, independent of Dr. Rennick's aggregate analysis. This information is necessary not only for AMA's defense but also for evaluating the typicality and adequacy of each named plaintiff's claims relative to those of the putative class.

Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 30 through 35 providing:

(a) the specific categories of damages claimed by the plaintiff (e.g., meal period premiums, rest period premiums, overtime wages, minimum wages, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, or other categories);

(b) the approximate dollar amount claimed for each category of damages;

(c) the factual basis for each claim, including but not limited to the approximate number of shifts on which the plaintiff alleges she or he was denied a compliant meal or rest period, the plaintiff's average hourly rate during the relevant period, the estimated number of hours of alleged off-the-clock work, and any other facts supporting the calculation; and

(d) identification of all documents, records, or other sources of information upon which the plaintiff relies in calculating her or his damages, including but not limited to time records, pay stubs, schedules, calendars, and communications.

V. Summary and Request for Supplemental Responses

In summary, AMA has identified significant deficiencies in the responses served by each of the three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — to AMA's First Set of Special Interrogatories. As detailed above, the deficient responses fall into four categories:

1. Interrogatory Nos. 5–8 (specific instances of alleged missed meal periods) — responses consisting of vague, generalized assertions without any specificity as to dates, shifts, facilities, show units, or supervisors;

2. Interrogatory Nos. 12–15 (identity of supervisors who allegedly required or permitted work through breaks) — responses identifying "all supervisors" without naming a single individual;

3. Interrogatory Nos. 22–25 (awareness and use of the TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation feature) — responses that are ambiguous, incomplete, or fail to address the follow-up components of the interrogatories; and

4. Interrogatory Nos. 30–35 (individual damages) — responses consisting entirely of a deferral to a future expert report, without any individual contention as to the nature or amount of each plaintiff's damages.

We respectfully request that Plaintiffs serve supplemental responses to the deficient interrogatories identified in this letter within fifteen (15) days of the date of this correspondence — that is, by no later than April 22, 2023. We ask that the supplemental responses be verified and comply fully with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.

Calderwood & Harkness is committed to resolving discovery disputes informally wherever possible, and we remain available to meet and confer by telephone at your convenience should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter. We are hopeful that supplemental responses can be provided without the need for further correspondence or motion practice.

However, if the deficiencies identified herein cannot be resolved informally, AMA will have no choice but to file a motion to compel further responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, and will seek monetary sanctions pursuant to section 2030.300(d) against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel for any expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in connection with such motion. We trust that this will not be necessary.

We remain available to meet and confer by telephone at your convenience.

Sincerely,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Devon Archer Senior Associate

cc: Sandra Higuera, Esq. (Veltrano Employment Law Group PC) Renata Vasquez (Calderwood & Harkness LLP)

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 486-7000 Facsimile: (213) 486-7001 www.calderwoodharkness.com
April 7, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Marco Castellano, Esq. Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90025
Re: Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated) Deficient Responses to AMA's First Set of Special Interrogatories
Dear Marco:
We write on behalf of our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), regarding the responses served by each of the three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — to AMA's First Set of Special Interrogatories. AMA served its First Set of Special Interrogatories on each named plaintiff (Nos. 1–35) on February 24, 2023. AMA received the responses from all three plaintiffs on April 3, 2023, at 5:47 p.m. We appreciate your office's efforts in coordinating the simultaneous production of the three sets of responses.
Having now had the opportunity to review the responses in full, we have identified a number of deficiencies that we believe must be addressed before AMA can meaningfully evaluate the named plaintiffs' individual claims, assess their typicality and adequacy as putative class representatives, and prepare its defense. Several of the responses fail to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, which mandates that each answer be "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits," and further requires that a responding party "make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations." We detail these deficiencies below.
This letter is sent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, which requires that counsel engage in a good-faith effort to informally resolve discovery disputes before seeking court intervention. We are hopeful that the issues identified herein can be resolved through supplemental responses without the need for motion practice.
I. Deficiency Category 1: Specific Instances of Alleged Missed Meal Periods (Interrogatory Nos. 5–8)
Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 5 through 8, propounded to each of the three named plaintiffs, asked each plaintiff to identify the specific dates, shifts, time periods, or approximate frequency during which she or he alleges she or he was denied a compliant 30-minute meal period, as required under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512. The interrogatories further asked each plaintiff to identify, for each such instance: (a) the AMA production facility at which she or he was working at the time; (b) the show unit to which she or he was assigned; and (c) the name and title of the supervisor on duty during the relevant shift or time period. These interrogatories are designed to elicit the basic factual foundation of each named plaintiff's individual meal period claim — which is, of course, the core of this putative class action.
Fuentes's Response (Nos. 5–8). Ms. Fuentes responded to each of these interrogatories with substantially identical language: "Plaintiff was regularly denied meal periods throughout her employment at AMA." Ms. Fuentes did not identify a single specific date, shift, time period, or even an approximate frequency of the alleged meal period violations. She did not identify the facility or facilities at which the alleged violations occurred, the show unit or units to which she was assigned during the relevant time periods, or the name of any supervisor who was on duty when a meal period was allegedly missed or shortened.
Halloran's Response (Nos. 5–8). Mr. Halloran responded with similar generality: "Plaintiff was frequently denied timely meal periods during crunch periods." Mr. Halloran did not identify any specific dates, shifts, or time periods. He did not identify any facility, show unit, or supervisor. While the reference to "crunch periods" gestures at some temporal specificity, the term is undefined, and the response provides no factual detail from which AMA could determine which "crunch periods" are at issue, how many shifts were allegedly affected, or which supervisory personnel were responsible.
Padilla's Response (Nos. 5–8). Ms. Padilla responded: "Plaintiff was regularly denied meal periods during live event productions and during pre-production periods." Again, no specific dates, shifts, or time periods were identified. No facility, show unit, or supervisor was named. While the reference to "live event productions" and "pre-production periods" provides marginally more context than the other responses, it remains far too vague to constitute a complete and straightforward answer.
Deficiency. Each of these responses is insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(a), which requires that each answer be "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." Vague, boilerplate assertions that a plaintiff was "regularly" or "frequently" denied meal periods — without any effort to identify dates, shifts, time periods, facilities, show units, or supervisors — do not satisfy this standard. Each named plaintiff is a putative class representative who bears the burden of establishing her or his individual claims, typicality, and adequacy. AMA is entitled to know the factual basis of each plaintiff's individual allegations with sufficient specificity to evaluate those claims and to mount a defense. General assertions of "regular" or "frequent" violations, standing alone, provide AMA with no information it did not already have from the face of the Consolidated Complaint.
Moreover, each named plaintiff worked at specific AMA facilities — Ms. Fuentes worked primarily at Facility 2 (Studio City), Mr. Halloran at Facility 5 (Hollywood), and Ms. Padilla at Facility 4 (Burbank) — and was assigned to specific show units during specific time periods. Each plaintiff should be able to provide at least approximate dates, time periods, or frequencies based on her or his own personal knowledge and recollection. If a plaintiff's recollection is limited, she or he is nevertheless required to provide whatever information is reasonably available, including through the review of her or his own time records, pay stubs, calendars, text messages, and other personal documents. A blanket assertion of "regular" violations, with no effort to provide any supporting detail, does not reflect the reasonable and good-faith effort that Section 2030.220(c) requires.
Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 5 through 8 identifying, to the best of her or his recollection and based on a reasonable inquiry into available records:
(a) the approximate dates or time periods during which the plaintiff alleges she or he was denied a compliant 30-minute meal period (or, if exact dates cannot be recalled, the approximate frequency of such denials during identified time periods, such as a particular month, quarter, or production cycle);
(b) the AMA production facility at which each alleged meal period violation occurred;
(c) the show unit to which the plaintiff was assigned at the time of each alleged violation; and
(d) the name and title of the supervisor on duty during the relevant shift or time period.
II. Deficiency Category 2: Identity of Supervisors Who Allegedly Required or Permitted Work Through Breaks (Interrogatory Nos. 12–15)
Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 12 through 15 asked each named plaintiff to identify, by name and title, the specific supervisors who allegedly directed, required, or permitted each plaintiff to work through meal or rest periods during her or his employment at AMA. These interrogatories are squarely targeted at the question of which supervisory personnel are alleged to have been responsible for the meal and rest period violations at the heart of this case.
Fuentes's Response (Nos. 12–15). Ms. Fuentes responded: "All supervisors during plaintiff's employment at AMA."
Halloran's Response (Nos. 12–15). Mr. Halloran responded: "All supervisors during plaintiff's employment at AMA."
Padilla's Response (Nos. 12–15). Ms. Padilla responded: "All supervisors during plaintiff's employment at AMA."
Deficiency. Each of these responses is non-responsive. The interrogatories do not ask for a general description of the category of persons who may have been involved in the alleged violations. They ask for the identity of the specific supervisors who allegedly directed, required, or permitted each plaintiff to work through meal or rest periods. A blanket reference to "all supervisors" — without naming a single individual — does not answer the question.
Each named plaintiff worked at a specific AMA production facility and was assigned to specific show units during her or his employment. Each plaintiff worked under the direction of specific Unit Production Managers ("UPMs"), Line Producers, and department heads at those facilities and show units. The interrogatories ask which of those individuals was responsible for the alleged violations. The responses, as served, tell AMA nothing about which supervisors are actually at issue.
This information is critically important to AMA's defense, including its defense against class certification. AMA operates seven California production facilities and fourteen distinct show units, each of which has its own supervisory structure, scheduling practices, and operational protocols. A central component of AMA's certification defense is that supervisory practices varied significantly across show units and facilities, such that the question of whether any individual employee was denied a compliant meal or rest period depends on individualized inquiries into the practices of the particular supervisors and the particular facility and show unit at issue. Identification of the specific supervisors whom each named plaintiff contends were responsible for the alleged violations is essential to AMA's ability to present this defense and to demonstrate the predominance of individualized issues.
Furthermore, the blanket assertion that "all supervisors" were responsible is facially implausible. Not every supervisor at AMA could have been responsible for denying meal or rest periods to every named plaintiff. Each plaintiff worked under a finite number of supervisors at a finite number of facilities and show units. A response that attributes responsibility to "all supervisors" — without any differentiation — suggests either that the plaintiffs have not made a reasonable effort to identify the individuals involved or that the responses were drafted without meaningful input from the plaintiffs themselves. Either way, the responses are deficient.
Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 12 through 15 identifying:
(a) each supervisor, by name and title, whom the plaintiff contends directed, required, or permitted the plaintiff to work through meal or rest periods;
(b) the AMA production facility and show unit at which each identified supervisor worked;
(c) the approximate time period during which the plaintiff worked under each identified supervisor's direction; and
(d) a description of the specific conduct by each identified supervisor that the plaintiff contends constituted a direction, requirement, or permission to work through a meal or rest period.
III. Deficiency Category 3: Use of the TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation Feature (Interrogatory Nos. 22–25)
Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 22 through 25 asked each named plaintiff whether she or he was aware of the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" Missed Meal Attestation feature — a function within AMA's timekeeping system that allowed employees to override the automatic 30-minute meal period deduction and report a missed or shortened meal period — during her or his employment at AMA. The interrogatories further asked whether each plaintiff ever used the feature and, if she or he did not, the reason for not doing so.
The Missed Meal Attestation feature is a central factual issue in this litigation. It is the mechanism by which AMA's employees could report missed or shortened meal periods, triggering the payment of meal period premium wages. The availability, communication, and usage of this feature bear directly on AMA's affirmative defense that it maintained a lawful meal period policy and that any meal period violations resulted from employees' voluntary decisions rather than from AMA's policies or practices. The responses served to date are inadequate.
Fuentes's Response (Nos. 22–25). Ms. Fuentes responded: "Plaintiff does not recall."
Halloran's Response (Nos. 22–25). Mr. Halloran responded: "Plaintiff was not aware of this feature."
Padilla's Response (Nos. 22–25). Ms. Padilla responded: "Plaintiff does not recall."
Deficiency. These responses are inadequate for several reasons.
First, the responses of Ms. Fuentes and Ms. Padilla — "Plaintiff does not recall" — are ambiguous. A plaintiff who "does not recall" whether she was aware of a particular feature may mean that she was not aware of it, that she was aware of it but does not recall the details, or that she simply has not made a reasonable effort to refresh her recollection. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires a complete and straightforward response, and a vague assertion of failed recollection does not satisfy this requirement where, as here, the feature at issue is central to the claims and defenses in this case.
Second, none of the responses addresses the follow-up components of the interrogatories, which asked (i) whether each plaintiff ever used the Missed Meal Attestation feature, and (ii) if not, why not. If any plaintiff used the feature, she or he should identify the approximate dates and circumstances. If any plaintiff did not use it, she or he should explain the reason — whether because she or he was unaware of it, because she or he was discouraged from using it by a supervisor or coworker, because the feature was not available at her or his facility, or for some other reason.
Third, and importantly, the factual record indicates that the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not uniformly available across all of AMA's California facilities. The feature was activated at four of AMA's seven California production facilities: Facility 1 (Culver City), Facility 3 (Santa Monica), Facility 5 (Hollywood), and Facility 6 (Glendale). The feature was not activated at Facility 2 (Studio City), Facility 4 (Burbank), or Facility 7 (El Segundo). This distinction is directly relevant to the named plaintiffs' responses:
• Ms. Fuentes worked primarily at Facility 2 (Studio City), where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was not activated. Her response that she "does not recall" whether she was aware of the feature may simply reflect the fact that the feature was not available at her facility — but this should be stated clearly rather than left ambiguous.
• Ms. Padilla worked primarily at Facility 4 (Burbank), where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was likewise not activated. The same observation applies to her "does not recall" response.
• Mr. Halloran worked primarily at Facility 5 (Hollywood), where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was activated and available to employees. Mr. Halloran's response that he "was not aware of this feature" is therefore particularly significant — it suggests that the feature was available at his facility but was not communicated to him. AMA is entitled to explore this issue further, including whether Mr. Halloran was provided with training or informational materials regarding the feature, whether he was ever informed of the feature by a supervisor or coworker, and the specific circumstances of his claimed lack of awareness.
Each plaintiff's relationship to the Missed Meal Attestation feature — including whether the feature was even available at her or his facility — is directly relevant to AMA's defense, to the question of whether AMA maintained a lawful policy, and to the question of whether the named plaintiffs' experiences are typical of the putative class. The current responses do not provide AMA with sufficient information to evaluate any of these issues.
Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 22 through 25 clearly stating:
(a) whether the plaintiff was aware of the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation feature during her or his employment at AMA;
(b) if the plaintiff was aware of the feature, whether she or he ever used it, and if so, the approximate dates and circumstances of each use;
(c) if the plaintiff did not use the feature, the specific reason for not doing so — including, without limitation, whether the plaintiff was unaware of the feature, was discouraged from using it by a supervisor, manager, or coworker, found it unavailable at her or his facility, or had some other reason; and
(d) whether any supervisor, manager, trainer, or coworker at AMA ever informed the plaintiff about the Missed Meal Attestation feature, and if so, the identity of that person and the approximate date and circumstances of the communication.
IV. Deficiency Category 4: Individual Damages (Interrogatory Nos. 30–35)
Interrogatories at Issue. Interrogatory Nos. 30 through 35 asked each named plaintiff to state her or his individual damages claim, including the amount of unpaid meal period premiums, rest period premiums, overtime wages, and other compensation she or he contends is owed, together with the factual basis for each calculation. These are standard contention interrogatories designed to elicit each named plaintiff's own understanding of, and contentions regarding, the damages she or he personally suffered.
Fuentes's Response (Nos. 30–35). Ms. Fuentes responded to each of these interrogatories with the same answer: "See expert report to be produced at a later date."
Halloran's Response (Nos. 30–35). Mr. Halloran responded identically: "See expert report to be produced at a later date."
Padilla's Response (Nos. 30–35). Ms. Padilla likewise responded: "See expert report to be produced at a later date."
Deficiency. These responses are non-compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220. The interrogatories do not ask for expert analysis or an expert damages model. They ask for each named plaintiff's own contention regarding her or his individual damages — specifically, what categories of damages each plaintiff claims, the approximate dollar amount for each category, and the factual basis for each claim. A blanket referral to an as-yet-unproduced expert report is not a responsive answer to a contention interrogatory.
A responding party may not defer to a future expert report as a substitute for a contention interrogatory response. Each named plaintiff is required to state the facts supporting her or his individual damages claim to the extent currently known, based on personal knowledge and reasonable inquiry. As the Court of Appeal explained in Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783, a responding party must make a "reasonable effort to obtain information" and provide a "complete response." A plaintiff who brings a wage-and-hour action is expected to have at least a basic understanding of the damages she or he claims to have suffered — including, at minimum, an approximate calculation of the meal period premiums, rest period premiums, overtime wages, and other compensation she or he contends are owed, and the factual basis for that calculation (e.g., the approximate number of shifts on which meals were allegedly missed, the plaintiff's hourly rate, the estimated number of hours of alleged off-the-clock work).
We note that Plaintiffs' retained expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, subsequently filed his expert report on April 28, 2023, in which he estimates aggregate class-wide damages of approximately $38.6 million. However, Dr. Rennick's aggregate damages model — which relies on assumptions about class-wide violation rates derived from statistical sampling — does not and cannot substitute for the individual contention responses of each named plaintiff. AMA is entitled to know what each named plaintiff individually claims she or he is owed, and on what factual basis, independent of Dr. Rennick's aggregate analysis. This information is necessary not only for AMA's defense but also for evaluating the typicality and adequacy of each named plaintiff's claims relative to those of the putative class.
Request. We respectfully request that each named plaintiff serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 30 through 35 providing:
(a) the specific categories of damages claimed by the plaintiff (e.g., meal period premiums, rest period premiums, overtime wages, minimum wages, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, or other categories);
(b) the approximate dollar amount claimed for each category of damages;
(c) the factual basis for each claim, including but not limited to the approximate number of shifts on which the plaintiff alleges she or he was denied a compliant meal or rest period, the plaintiff's average hourly rate during the relevant period, the estimated number of hours of alleged off-the-clock work, and any other facts supporting the calculation; and
(d) identification of all documents, records, or other sources of information upon which the plaintiff relies in calculating her or his damages, including but not limited to time records, pay stubs, schedules, calendars, and communications.
V. Summary and Request for Supplemental Responses
In summary, AMA has identified significant deficiencies in the responses served by each of the three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — to AMA's First Set of Special Interrogatories. As detailed above, the deficient responses fall into four categories:
1. Interrogatory Nos. 5–8 (specific instances of alleged missed meal periods) — responses consisting of vague, generalized assertions without any specificity as to dates, shifts, facilities, show units, or supervisors;
2. Interrogatory Nos. 12–15 (identity of supervisors who allegedly required or permitted work through breaks) — responses identifying "all supervisors" without naming a single individual;
3. Interrogatory Nos. 22–25 (awareness and use of the TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation feature) — responses that are ambiguous, incomplete, or fail to address the follow-up components of the interrogatories; and
4. Interrogatory Nos. 30–35 (individual damages) — responses consisting entirely of a deferral to a future expert report, without any individual contention as to the nature or amount of each plaintiff's damages.
We respectfully request that Plaintiffs serve supplemental responses to the deficient interrogatories identified in this letter within fifteen (15) days of the date of this correspondence — that is, by no later than April 22, 2023. We ask that the supplemental responses be verified and comply fully with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.
Calderwood & Harkness is committed to resolving discovery disputes informally wherever possible, and we remain available to meet and confer by telephone at your convenience should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter. We are hopeful that supplemental responses can be provided without the need for further correspondence or motion practice.
However, if the deficiencies identified herein cannot be resolved informally, AMA will have no choice but to file a motion to compel further responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, and will seek monetary sanctions pursuant to section 2030.300(d) against Plaintiffs and/or their counsel for any expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in connection with such motion. We trust that this will not be necessary.
We remain available to meet and confer by telephone at your convenience.
Sincerely,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer Senior Associate
cc: Sandra Higuera, Esq. (Veltrano Employment Law Group PC) Renata Vasquez (Calderwood & Harkness LLP)

VIA EMAIL

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts