This is an unofficial transcription of a scan of a court document, the original scanned document can be viewed here.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ΤΙΜΕ: 08:15:00 ΑΜ
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Gregory W Pollack
CLERK: Terry Ray REPORTER/ERM: Lois Mason Thompson CSR# 3685
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: L. Wilks
CASE NO: 37–2011-00102593-CU-OE-CTL
CASE INIT.DATE: 12/16/2011
CASE TITLE: Felczer vs. Apple Inc [IMAGED]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil – Unlimited
CASE TYPE. Other employment
Tyler J Belong, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s),
Jeffrey L Hogue, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Michael G Leggieri, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Julie A Dunne, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Ex-parte application for To Update Court on Review Status of 5% sampling requested by Defendant,
Ex-parte application for To Discuss Anti-Hacking requested by Plaintiff(s).
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is advanced to Nov. 20, 2015, (3) 10:00 a.m. from previous date of Jan. 16, 2016.
2. Parties have tentatively agreed that wage statements for the entire 5% sample have been produced by Apple. If this proves not to be the case, parties are to return to court.
3. Parties are to use One Legal for both filing and serving, which shall be done simultaneously. Such shall constitute same-day personal Service.
4. Apple’s counsel represents to the court that its server has never been hacked into. Class Counsel represents it has no knowledge that class information has been obtained through any hacking into its computer system.
5. Both sides agree that the court can rule on Apple’s motion for a protective order, presently scheduled for Sept. 18, 2015, at today’s hearing. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
The Court grants Apple’s request for a protective order, and, therefore, Apple is not required to respond to plaintiff’s Labor Code § 226 demand. In addition, the court denies all requests for monetary sanctions.
In so ruling, the Court finds the following to be most salient:
a. Class counsel, at this time, is only representing class members in their capacity within this class action lawsuit.
b. Apple has agreed that it does not, and will not, contend that plaintiffs need wage statements to prove their derivative wage statement claims.
c. Plaintiff’s wage statement claims in this case are all derivative and not direct.
d. On April 2, 2015, Judge Prager previously limited wage statement discovery to the 5% random sample.
e. Nothing in this ruling either precludes or authorizes plaintiffs’ counsel, with specific authority from Apple employees, to represent such employees in a separate action or make a Labor Code § 226 demand upon Apple on behalf of Apple employees.
Judge Gregory W. Pollack