Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Trump's Evidentiary Objections re

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

- 1 3. E s s

E - 6F n

1 8

1 9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

26

2',7

28

JEFIF'REY W. COWAN, ESQ., SBN 157474The Cowan Law Firm1541 Ocean Avenue, Suite 200Santa Monica, California 90401Tel: (310) 394.1420Fax: (310) 394-1430Email: [email protected]

Attomeys for Plaintiff Lucy Messerschmidt'on be,half of herself and others similarly situated

ORSIIANSKY & YEREMIAN LLPAnthony J. Orshansky, Cal. Bar No. 199364anthony@oyllprcomDavid H. Yerernian, Cal. Bar No.226337Justin Kachadoorian, Cal. Bar No. [email protected] Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1245Encino, California 91436Telephone: (8T8) 205-1212Facsimile: (8 1 8) 205-1616

Atto:rneys for P[aintiff DAVE S. PERRY,on behalf of hirhself and others similarly situated

Lucv Messerschmidt. individually and onUetrlalf of all others similarly sitirated,

Plaintiff,vs.

VH Property Corporation dba Trump NationalGolf Club and DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants

Dave Perry, individually and on behalf of allothers similarlly situated,

Plaintiff,vs.

VH lProperty Cotp., a Delaware Corporationdoing business as TRIIMP NATIONAL GOLFCLUB; MICHAEL VANDERGOES ANdDOES 2 to 50, inclusive

Defendants

l1!i' f: cgln Exoe grive Ofi icerlClerkwffi$aa4#*&auoqw

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORIIIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

))

))))))))

))))))))))

))

CASE NO. BC 403 087

(Action filed on December 2,2008;consolidated with Case No. BC 408999;Assigned to Hon. Mark V. Mooney)

Plaintiffs' Jloint Response toDefendant's Evidentiary Objections reJoint Motion for Class Certification

Declaration of Jeffrey W. Cowan reDefendant's Evidentiary Obj ections

Date: November 13.2012Time: 1:30 p.m.Dept.: 68

Oci 3$ 20?z

plaintiffs' Jolnt Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class Certification" etc.

F

1

2

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 i

I 2

l 3

l 4

1 5

I 6

t 7

t 8

1 9

20

2 T

22

a aL)

24

25

26

27

Defendant VH Properly Corporation, dba Trump lVational Golf Club (,.Trump,,), has

objected to each of the declarations that Plaintiffs have submitted in support of their joint

motion for class certification. These objections - all57 pages of them - generally fall into

four categories. In the interests ofjudicial economy (i.e., creating less paper for the Court to

read), Plaintiffs will not address now all of these hundreds of objections one by one. Instead,

Plaintiffs address them generally (some can be dispensed with as a group) and some by

example to highlight their lack of merit. Plaintiffs will be pleased to address fryther any or all

of the objections at the hearing of their motion.

First, Trump objects (repeatedly) that certain statements by current and former

employees of Trump lack foundation and are conclusory. Such objections, however, ignore

preceding testimony in the same declaration (sometimes entire paragraphs) that establish the

requisite foundation.r Others confuse an absolute statement (e.g., "this never happened;,'

"Donald Trump never said X to me") with a legal conclusion.

Second, Trump repeatedly objects to certain testimony pursuant to the California Rules

of Court on the grounds that the moving papers lack specific citations to it. These technical

objections (arising from Plaintiffs' compliance with their brief s limit of 25 pages even though

they obtained26 unique declarations (none "fill in the blank;" each drafted after a careful

interview of the witness from current and former Trump employees)) lack merit because the

Appendix of Testimony that Plaintiffs have filed (as well as their reply brief) provides the

specific citations so that they are available to the extent the Court needs them. Moreover,

Courts exist to do justice. See Obregon v. Superior Court,67 Cal. App. 4,n 424, 435 fn I0

(1998) ("the objective of the court system remains the achievement ofjustice"). Because

1 In making these objections, Trump cites (repeatedly, without discussio n) Collins v. HertzCorp., 144 Cal. App. 4tn 64,7 5 n. 5 (2006) for the rule that a court may strike declarations based onunsupported statements. The subject footnote in Collins states the rule pertains to "unsupportedconclusory statements made without an adequate foundation." There is no discussion of *hatconstitutes such a lack of foundation - which is important because each of Plaintiffs, witnessdeclarations lays the requite foundation before testifying about her/6is experiences at Trump.

28

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class Certification. etc.

1I

2aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 l

l 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

t 6

1 1

t 8

t 9

20

2 1

22

^ az)

. \AL A

25

26

) '7

28

F

Trump either deposed all of these persons or noticed their depositions before later cancelling

them, fairness requires that this motion be decided on the merits, with consideration of the

testimony that tells the same story again and againabout how Trump rushed or discouraged its

employees from taking the breaks the law requires.

Third' Trump objects that some witness testimony is contradicted by their testimony at

deposition. Not so. Trump's arguments either rest on taking the declaration testimony out of

context (eg ignorin g that an initial section of declaration testimony refers to the ,,pre-2009,,

policies - while later admitting that things changed in2009, after the 2nd lawsuit was filed in

four months o'ver meal and rest breaks), or "spin" nuances in the testimony that are not

material (e.g., claiming that an admission of having received the Trump employee handbook

contradicts testimony of never having received "instruction" or "training,' about breaks), or fail

to acknowledge distinctions between receiving too short a break versus taking no break at all,

or ignore clarifications that witnesses gave atdeposition when examined by plaintiffs' counsel

after Trump's lawyer had finished her examination. In other instances, Trump ignores

testimony on the next line of the transcript that clarifies a prior statement and makes clear that

no inconsistency exists.

Fourth, many of Trump's objections fall into the category of - there is no gentle way to

say this - frivolous. For example, Trump objects that Plaintiff Dave Perry's testimony about

what Trump general manager David Conforti said when Mr. Perry complained about not being

allowed to take breaks is "inadmissible hearsay." (Objection 19 re Perry Decl.) One can hardly

imagine a more textbook case of a parry admission that comes in per Evidence Code $ 1220.

Trump also objects to the testimony by former restaurant manager Sue Kwiatkowski

that when she hired as a manager she received no training or meal or rest breaks. Trump

argues that this testimony is not relevant to "certification" even though Ms. Kwiatkowski has

testified she did not know she was supposed to allow 30 minute meal breaks or 10 minute rest

breaks and multiple employees have testified that Ms. Kwiatkowski was one of the many

managers who regularly rushed them to keep their breaks as short as possible. Not relevant?

Plaintiffls' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class Certification. etc.

E

E - aF

i l

z

1J

+

5

6

-

8

9

i 0

l 1

1 2

t 3

l 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

I 9

20

2 l

22

Z J

24

25

26

27

28

Such testimony could not be more relevant because it expiains whyhostesses, servers and

other employees (like bussers) were being denied their breaks as required by law: their

managers did not know what was required. isuch testimony is also consistent with the

testimony of Chuck West about how the HR managers incorrectly thought that 30 minute meal

breaks were not required because Trump paid for the time and provided free food.]

Trump also argues (Objection 1 re Cowan Declaration) that cited pages from Donald

Trump's autobiography (Ex. D) that discuss the lack of value that he places on taking time for

Iunch are "not evidence." Really? Of course they are - admissions from the president and

principal of the corporation that owns and runs the golf club with his name. Tnump fipther

argues (Objection 10 re Cowan Decl) that Mr. Cowan's testimony authenticating his own letter

to Trump lawysl Jill Manin lacks personal knowledge and foundation, is hearsay and is

"irrelevant" to class certification. Please. There is no one with better knowledge of the letter,s

authenticity than its author Mr. Cowan, and the letter is relevant to the issue of .witness

tampering that Trump surely wishes would go away but need to be addressed. [Imagine how

many more declarations Plaintiffs might have if Trump managers were not threatening

putative class rnembers "trouble" if they talked to plaintiffs' counsel.]

Similarly, Trump argues that fl 10 of Chuck West's declaration - setting forth how he

always communicated to hostesses that they should "hurry up" when he covered for them on a

break and how he watched other managers do the same thinglack foundation or personal

knowledge, are conclusory, hearsay and "irrelevant to class certification." Nonsense. Mr.

West is testifying about what he himseif said or observed, so he has personal knowledge, and

statements by other Trump managers are pafi admissions (Evidence Code $ 1220). Because

this lawsuit pertains to employees being denied or intimidated from taking their breaks, the

testimony could not be more relevant.

Likewise, Trump objects (#3,p.5, lines 2-5)thatMr. West'stestimonythathenever

told hostesses that they were entitled to take full 10 minute rest breaks (or saw another

manager do that) somehow lacks personal knowledge. Trump firrther argues (Objection #6,p.

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class Certification, etc

E - a

. 1

2aJ

4

5

6

8

9

l 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 At +

1 5

1 6

I I

1 8

1 9

20

2 T

22

^ az)

24

25

26

1'7

28

6) thattrlr. West's testimony of hearing other restaurantmanagers tell employees to ,,make it

fast" when asked to take abreaklacks foundation or personal knowledge or is irrelevant.

Absurd. How could Mr. West lack personal knowledge of what he said, did, or observed?

fThere is a practice among some lawyers to object to virtually everything during

motion ptactice with the hope that the Court surely will sustain something. euery whether that

has occurred here.]

Plaintiffs now address in brief some of Tnxnp's objections to the other witness

declarations (with the goal of giving the Court efficient guidance on these issues). plaintiffs

will be pleased at the hearing to address any specific objections that the Court deems worthy

of consideration.

Ms. Gomzalez's declaration is relevant to the issue of witness tampering(i.e., Trump

threatening its employees with retaliation if they talk to Plaintiffs' la.wyers about the case).

Ms' Gonzalez' testimony about her understanding that she working with a law clerk who is

admitted to practice law in two other jurisdictions is relevant to explaining what she was doing

while helping The Cowan Law Firm communicate with putative class members (and not for

the truth of the matter asserted therein as to whether Mr. Cowan's former assistaLnt is licensed

to practice law in New York and Florida); and is also admissible eittrer as a declaration against

interest (vis a vis statements by persons on the phone) or because it is not for the truth of the

matter but to explain the actions of Plaintiffs' counsel and his staff. Plus, to the extent the

persons are Trurnp employees, the statements are pafi admrssions (Jividence Code $ 1220), or

authorized adoptions by persons speaking on their behalf in English (S l2z2).

Cynthia Reyes (sous chef)

The testimony of sous chef Cynthia Reyes about not knowing about a break room at

the golf club is relevant to proving the absence of a "real" policy that allowed employees to

take their breaks. Her testimony about not receiving any training or instruction zLbout breaks is

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class Certification, etc.

F

I

-z.

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

t 0

1 1

1 1' L

1 aI J

1 4

1 5

t 6

t 7

l 8

I 9

20

2 l

22

^ aZ J

24

25

26

27

28

not contradicted by her deposition testimony that she received an employee ha'dbook. The

receipt of such a document (a"dead" document as discussed in this and other declarations) is

neither "training" nor "instruction" - each of which commonly means teaching from a person.

Ms. Reyes' statements about not being relieved to take breaks or being told when to take

breaks (Obj. #8) or being too busy to take a break without affecting the level of'customer

service (Obj' #9) are not legal conclusions or otherwise improperly conclusory; they are

statements that summarize or charactenze the totality of her experience working at Trump.

Such statements do not violate the rules of evidence.

Equally meritless is the objection (#11) that testimony about never being asked

whether she received her break is "Irrelevant." Given the lawsuit's allegations of an employer

whose culture and practice was to discourage or limit breaks in violation of the law because of

a focus on providing "top service" consistent with the imagine Donald Trump seeks to project,

the objection not only is meritless but violates the "red face,'test.

Dwayne McDowell (security guardl)

Contrary to Trump's argument (Obj # 3), Mr. McDowell's deposition testimony does

not contradict fl 4 of his declaration about being ordered to patrol and stay in cerrtain areas and

being instructed not to leave the premises. The deposition testimony (pp. 38-39 and 64-65)

states that Mr. McDowell was to patrol the premises or maintain a station, and rnakes clear

that other than that he was not to leave the premises. The fact thatwhite patroli'ing he left the

premises as part of the patrol is not inconsistent.

Likewise, Objection # 5 lacks merit because Mr. McDowell's deposition testimony

about sometimes eating in his car (while not being relieved of all duties) is not inconsistent

with his declaration. Nothing in the deposition question or answer suggests that Mr

McDowell w as relieved of all duties (or allowed/invited to take such relief; when he was in

his car.


= ' @

I

2

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 t

I 2

1 3

I +

i 5

I 6

t 7

1 8

1 9

20

2 1

22

ZJ

1 A

25

26

27

28

The other objections about Mr. McDowell's testimony lack merit becauLse it is not an

improper conclusion for Mr. McDowell to state that certainevents never occurred or that he

never received premium pay. If it never happened, there is no other way to sav it.

Irwin Alberto-Alvaerez (food runner)

Objections 1-2 rely on the kind of flawed "conclusion" arguments discussed above.

Objection 3 lacks merit because what amanager at Trump told him (even if he cannot

remember the person's name) is a parfy admission and admissible per EC $ i22,0. Objection 4

lacks merit because not being told he could leave the premises is consistent with Trump,s

written policy stating that permission was needed to leave during a break - whi,oh itself

constitutes a violation of the rule of being wholly relieved of all duties, and so is relevant.

Objection 5: there is no inconsistency because immediately after the ambiguous

response that Trump cites, Mr. Alvarez clarifies expressly that even in20l2 he was not told

that he could leave the premises during breaks:

"Q: But did they ever say that you can leave the premises and actually grc wherever you

want?

A: No, no." (p. 119, l ines 8-9)

[In making this argument, Trump arguably violated B&P $ 6068(d) because its

omission of testimony on the same page that clarifies a prior remark borders on

misrepresentation intended to deceive.]

For Objection 6, Plaintiffs concede that the testimony to not having breaks scheduled

in2012 should be sustained based on the deposition testimony, but not as to 2007 because Mr.

Alvarcz made no mistake or inconsistency about the fact that breaks were not soheduled then.

Objection 7 lacks merit because foundation is not needed for stating that his manager

"never asked me" if he had received his meal or rest breaks. Who better to knorru this but Mr.

Alvarcz? Objection 8 lacks merit because the cited deposition testimony is not tnconsistent

with his testimony about still being rushed.

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class Certification. etc.

E

E - a

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

l 2

1 3

l 4

1 5

I 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

Z I

224 aZ)

24

25

26

2l

28

Timothy Thatcher (outside services)

Objections I & 2 confuse an absolute statement with a legal conclusion. Objection 3

lacks merit because the fact that no one ever told Mr. Thatcher he could leave the premises

during a break is relevantprecisely because Trump had awritten policy stating that one could

not do so without first getting permission from a manager.

Objectirons 9 & 10 (about what Mr. Thatcher's manager told him) ignores Evidence

Code $ 1220.

Sue Kwiatkowski (restaurant manager)

Objections 2 & 3 are overbroad because Ms. Kwiatkowski testified in tl 8 of her

declaration that she received training in breaks after January 2009. Ms. Kwiatkowski's

testimony (declaration and deposition) makes clear that before 2009, she had no policy or plan

for giving employees their meal or rest breaks. Ptaintiffs do not dispute (see the moving

papers) that after some point in2009 (after the Messerschmidt lawsuit had been filed), Trump

finally instructed its managers about the law regarding breaks.

Objection 4 lacks merit because Ms. Kwiatkowski has the personal knor,vledge to

testify about the training she received and what she would have done about allo',ving meal or

rest breaks if she had received instruction before 2009.

Maral Bolsajian (hostess)

Objection No. I lacks merit because (a) Ms. Bolsajian's testimony in fl 5 of her

declarations pertains to the "pre-lawsuit practices" at Trump, as evidenced by hi:r testimony a

few paragraphs later ( l|fl 12-15) about how Trump's practices about breaks changed in2009

after the Messerschmidt lawsuit was filed; and (b) Ms. Bolsajian's testimony on page 88:11-23

of her deposition (not cited by Trump):

Q: "You've testified earlier that at some point during your employment with Trump

National, the club required you to take 30 minutes for a meal break, correct?


1

2

aJ

A+

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2' l aI J

1 4

1 5

I 6

l 7

l 8

I 9

20

2 l

22

^ az)

24

25

26

27

28

A: Yes.

Q: And if you didn't take 3 minutes for a meal break, you would get in trogble?

A: Yes.

Q: And if I understood your testimony, that happened after Lucy no longer worked at the

club?

A: Not right away. After the changes happened - after she filed the lawsuit, they were

very strict with us about breaks."

Objection No. 2 lacks merit because Ms. Bolsajian's is entitled to testilg about how

Trump's practices affected her state of mind and intimidated/discouraged her from asking for

breaks. Such testimony is not an unlawful legal conclusion. The argument that Ms. Bolsajian

lacks personal knowledge or foundation about her own mental state is frivolous.

Objection No. 3 lacks merit because testimony about what Trump manager Sue

Kwiatkowski told Ms. Bolsajian is a party admission (Evidence code g 1220).

Objection No. 4 is another frivolous argument about being conslusory or lacking

personal knowledge.

Objections No. 5, 6 &. S lack merit because it takes Ms. Bolsajian's testimony out of

context and fails to recognize that it is from the portion of her declaration discussing "pre-

lawsuit" practices at Trump, as opposed to the "post-lawsuit" practices (flfl 12-15) that she also

testified about in her declaration.

Objection No. 7 lacks merit because Ms. Bolsajian is testiffing about wlhat her

managers told her, and such testimony is a party admission.

Objection No. 9 lacks merit because (a) it ignores the preceding sentence ("At no time t

hat I worked for the Trump National Golf Club did any manager ever

reference the company's employee handbook."); und (b) Ms. Bolsajian does not testifi that she

read the handbook; rather she is testifying about the irrelevance of whatever policies itmay

have contained regarding meal or rest breaks.'


E

E - a

F

1

2aJ

A+

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

t 1

1 2

1 3

l 4

l 5

t 6

t l

t 8

I 9

20

2 T

22

L )

24

25

26

2l

28

Lucy Messerschmidt (hostess and plaintiffl

Objection No. 1 lacks merit because the subject testimony contains no improper legal

conclusions. The statements are simple, declarative statements that training or discussion

about rights never occurred. Nor is the testimony inconsistent with Ms. Messerschmidt's

deposition testimony that she discussed breaks with managers because nothing in that

testimony suggests that the managers talked to her about her legal right to such breaks (which

of course did not happen, as the testimony of managers like Sue Kwiatkowski and Chuck West

reflect).

Objection lt{o. 2 lacks merit because (a) it is not an improper conclusion, (b) it is based

solely on Ms. Messerschmidt's personal knowledge, and ( c) it does not contrad.i.ct Ms.

Messerschmidt's cited deposition testimony because it pertains to what she did,,not what she

observed other managers do.

Objection Nos. 3 & 4lack merit because Ms. Messerschmidt's testimony about her

supervising managers denying her permission to take a break or telling her to make her breaks

as quick as possible is admissible as a party admission per Evidence Code $ 12110.

Dave Perry (valet/outside services and plaintifO

Objection Nos. 1-5 lack merit because they are the same kind of objections discussed

above: falsely characteizing testimony as "conclusory," relying on specious va€lueness

arguments, and making hearsay arguments that at best reflect a flawed understanding of this

body of evidentiary law (including EC 5 1220). that it is not an unlawful conclusion for Mr.

Perry to testifu that he rarely (if ever) took full 30 minute uninterrupted meal breaks or 10

minute rest breaks.

Objection No. 7 lacks merit because Mr. Perry is testifring about his expreriences as a

valet/outside services employee and so has the requisite personal knowledge. His detailed,

specific testimony is hardly conclusory.

1 0

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class rlertification, etc.

;

2

3

+

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

t 2

1 3

T 4

1 5

1 6

t 7

1 8

1 9

20

2 1

22

z)

1 A

25

26

27

28

E

E - aF

Objection No. 8 lacks merit because testimony about what manager Joel Kim told Mr.

PerT are classic pafi admissions, which come in per Evidence Code $ 1220. 'therelevancy

argument is frivolous because the testimony is offered to show how Trump's m.anager

discouraged er,nplnyees from taking breaks and retaliated against those who trie:d to assert their

rights to breaks (here by embarrassing Mr. Penf,). Similarly, Objection No. 9 irs relevant to

show how other times Trump manager Joel Kim simply refused to allow Mr. Pr:rry to take a

break. fGiven similar declaration testimony from employees such as Jameson l\{orris and

Damian Liu, the testimony is especially relevant.]

Objection 10 lacks merit because

Objection 11 lacks merit because testimony about managers denying breaks to Mr.

Perry (if he asked alone or with co-workers present) is an admissible parfy adm.ission per

Evidence Code $ 1220. Because Mr. Perry's testimony evidences that he was p,resent when

these statements were made, he has the requisite personal knowledge/foundatio.n.

Objection l{os. 14-17 lack merit because Mr. Perry's testimony reflects that he is

testiffing based onrhis own experiences - and so he has personal knowledge girien that he was

presenr.

Objections 18-20 fail to recognize that statements by GM Conforti and manaser Joel

Kim are admissible party admissions per Evidence Code S 1220.

Objections 2l-24lack merit because Mr. Perry has personal knowledge about how he

was treated for objecting about Trump's practices regarding breaks. And staternents that his

managers made to him come in per 5 1220.

Andrew Plumley (yalet)

Objection l{o. I lacks merit because Mr. Piumley has personal knowledge of whether

he received all of his breaks and his memory of not receiving anli training or instruction about

taking breaks.

11


1

z

aJ

T

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

t 9

20

2 1

22

^ aZJ

24

25

26

27

28

Objection No' 2 lacks merit because the statement is either aparty admission or

reflects Mr. Plumley's state of mind and therefore not asserted for the truth of the matter

asserted therein - and so not hearsay.

Objections 3 -6,9 & 15 lack merit because Mr. Plumley knows what he was told or

what he was told to do, or how busy he was and whether taking a break would have affected

the level of service he and his co-workers in his department were providing. T.he absence of

scheduled breaks and not being told when to take breaks - or oot being asked itlhad received

his breaks or receiving dirly looks if he asked to take a break - is most relevant to the issue of

Trump discouraging or not ailowing legally compliant meal and rest breaks..

Objections No. 7-8 lacks merit because Evidence Code $ 1220 makes such statements

by his managers admissible.

Obj ections 1 0- 1 6 lack merit because the testimony establishes that Mr . )?lumley did

have the requisite personal knowledge, and statements made by other Trurnp ernployees

(whether co-workers or managers) are admissible per Evidence code fi 1220.

Kevin Hooker (bartender and restaurant manager)

Objection No. 1 lacks merit because Mr. Hooker's testimony about his erxtensive

background working in restaurants since his youth establishes the foundation necessary to

testi$r about industry customs and the practice of scheduling employees in shifts so that they

can take rest breaks without service being compromised.

Objections No. 2-4 lack merit because Mr. Hooker does have the personal knowledge

to testifu about things that he never saw occur at Trump National Golf Club.

Objection No. 5 lacks merit because (a) Mr. Hooker's testimony about pushing or

causing employees to take breaks that were shorter than what the law required is not

inconsistent with his deposition testimony that some employees mayhavetaken breaks of the

correct length, and (b) the cited testimony pertains to kitchen workers, whom Mr. Hooker has

testified he was nominally in charge of but reaLly were under the supervision of the chef (and

t2

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections re Joint Motion for Class rCertification, etc.

1 6

l 7

1 8

t 9

20

2 1

22

L )

1 AL -

25

26

27

28

1I

2aJ

/ IT

5

6

7

8

cited in Mr' cowan's declaration but accidentally not attached (and are now cured; see theattached declaration)' these Trump documents - all produced by Trump and trearing its Batesnumber designation on the bottom of each page (see fl 6 of the cowan Deciaration thatfollows) - are still admissible as parfy admissions pursuant to Evidence code $ 1220. seeJazayeri v. Mao, 174 car.App. 4th 301,325 (200g)(,.Documents prepared b,'the opposingpatty ate not subject to exclusion under the hearsay rule, because they are adrnissions,,). plus,as a percipient witness to the deposition (and in fact the lawyer who took it), counsel has thenecessary personal knowledge to testify competentl y thata particular witness zLuthenticated adocument at deposition' [And of course, the court should notice the lack of any argument byTrump that the submitted documents are forgeries or fabricated.]

Regarding objections 12 and,13 (the latter regarding Exhibit N: State llar recordsshowing that Trump's New York lawyers are not members), Ilr. cowarr,s testi.mony about theabsence of records of the california State Bar for the New york lawyers wlro u,ere identifiedas having prepared Trump's employee handbook and being on-call for legal advice is directlyrelevant to the request for judicial notice that such lawyers are not licensed to prractice law incalifornia - which in turn is relevant to proving why Trump had unlawful policies about mealand rest breaks and why its HR department did not know the law. It also is rele'ant forexplaining why no one at Trump knew about these violations (and its policies were notchanged) until these lawsuits were filed.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: October 29.2012By:

Attorneys for plaintiff }-uc5rMesserschmidt

Orshansky & yeremian LLpDATED: October 29,2012

9

l 0

1 1

t 2

l ?L J

1 4

1 5

By, SvcAttorneys for plaintiff Dave perrv

1 l l1 ' +

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidcntiary objections re Joint Motion for class certification, etc.

. c ' @

I 8

1 9

20

2 1

22

a aZ J

. A

26

27

I

2 l l r .aJ

A.+

5

I Jeffrey w' cowan declare thatr amlicensed to practice law in the State of californiaand arso am admitted to practice in the District of columbia (where I now am oninactive status). I practice raw under the name The cowan Law Firm,r am trial counsel for Plaintiff Lucy Messerschmidt in this lawsuit. I have attendedalmost every deposition in this lawsuit (either in person or by terephone) and haveeither drafted or helped draft every document filed in this action. Acc'rdingly, I havepersonal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if sworn as a witness;, I could andwouid testi$z competently thereto.

After Plaintiffs filed their joint motion for class certification, Trump,s in-house lawyerJill Martin noticed depositions of virtuaily every wihess from whom we had obtaineda declaration filed in support of the motion. Those depcsiiions that she took inciudeJessica Leisure (a current employee; hostess), MarianaSanchez (hostessr), Stacia Solis(banquets); Tanuja Khatri (hostess), Jason Eidet, and Haley Strozier. I aLttended eachof these depositions, each of which rasted at reast two hours.In addition' Trump (via Ms' Martin) scheduled and noticed - but then cancelled at thelast minute depositions of Jameson Morris (for whom I had acceptecl seryice of hersubpoena after being retained to represent Mr. Morris at deposition), Joh;n Marlow,Jose Detres' Matthew Lostrittom, Neil Iocono and Damien Liu. Trump also declinedto re-schedule the deposition of Lea Sarmiento (the former hostess who vras refusedbreaks while pregnant) after Ms. Sarmiento (who retained me for purposers of herdeposition) developed a last-minute child care proble m thatkept her rflrom being able toappear on the scheduled date.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and copy of page gg of the certified depositiontranscript of Maral Bolsajian,

Each of the documents produced by Trump (via its lawyers) in this lawsuir:has a BatesNumber on it that starts with "DLM.,, Hence, any such document sub:mitted as an

2.6

7

8

9

1 0J

1 1

1 2

t 3

I 4

1 5

1 6

NI I 4 .

2s ll s.

286.

Plaintifls' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary objections re Joint lvlotion for clas;s certification. etc.

i 5

F

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 aI J

1 4

1 5

t 6

1 l

t 8

t 9

20

2 1

22

z)

24

25

26

27

28

I

exhibit to Plaintiffs' motion (e.g., Exhib its 2 and.6) is a document prodluced by Trumpand, we respectfully submit, should be deemed an admission pursuant to EvidenceCode g 1220.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and copy of pages 10r and 103-104 from thecertified deposition transcript of Mike van der Goes.

Attached hereto as Exhibit c is a true and copy of pages r75, lg7-rg0 eo'd230_23rfrom the certified deposition trans*ipt of David conforti.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and copy of pages 15g-i60 , r7r and 173_176from the certified deposition transcript of rom Sperandeo.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and copy of pages 1 03- 104 from the certifieddeposition transcript of Joel ,,Joey" Kim.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this declaration on October 29.2012.

8.

9.

10 .

t 6

Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Evidentiary objections re Joint Motion for class certification. etc.

Exhibit 66A))

Pa.ge 887\ r-r1 1 . U n - n U . h .

O. Was there ever

time that you brought t.o

that anything on your pay

you no t iced?

a t ime, other than t .he one

the a t ten t i on o f t he c lub

stubs was inaccurate Lhat

A . N o .

O. And when t.here was an inaccuracy and youbrought i t to the at tent i_on of the Marre l_a, sheco r rec ted i t t o you r saL is fac t i on , co r rec t?

r r . y e s .

O . y o u ' v e

pornt during your

the club required

break , cor rec t?

A . Y C S .

t es t i f i ed ea r l_ i_e r t . ha t

employment with Trump

you to take 30 m inu tes

at some

N a t i o n a l ,

f o r a mea l

O . And i f you d idn r

meal break, you woul_d get

t t ake 30 m inu tes fo r a

in t roubl_e?

f \ . Y E q

O. Ar td i f I underst .ood your test imonv. f h : r -'happened af ter Lucy no longer worked at the c l_ub?

A. Not r ight aw.ry . Af ter the changes

happened af ter she f i led the lawsui t , they wereery st . r ic t wi th us about the breaks.

O. And you say i l the changes happene4. ,, Whatppened?

Exhibit 668))

1

2

3

4

5

5

1

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 3

1 4

1 5

I 6

7 1

1 B

I 9

2 0

2 7

2 3

2 4

2 5

A T d o n ' t . r e c a l l . 0 1 : 5 3

O D i d i t r e q u i r e c l o c k i n g i n a n d o u t f o r r e s t

b r e a k s ?

A N o .

O D i d t h i s p o l i c y c h a n g e a t a n y t l _ m e w h i l e y o u 0 1 : 5 3

w e r e t h e G e n e r a l M a n a g e r ?

A N o .

M S . M A R T I N : O b j e c t i o n , v a g u e a n d a m b i g u o u s .

M R . C O W A N : L e t r s m a r k a s E x h i b i t N o . 1 a d o c u m e n t

e n t i t l - e d " V H p r o p e r t y C o r p E m p l o y e e M a n u a l , M a r c h , 2 0 0 3 , u 0 1 : 5 3

B a t e s n u m b e r e d D L M O O O 4 j t h r o u g h , O O O - l g .

( E x h i - b i t l w a s m a r k e d f o r

i d e n t . i f i c a t i o n , a c o p y o f

w h i c h i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o . )

o B y M R . c o w A N : H a v e y o u s e e n t . h i s d o c u m e n t 0 1 : 5 5

b e f o r e , s i _ r ?

f r t e s .

O I s t h i s t h e e m p l o y e e m a n u a . l - t h a t w a s i s s r . r e d

r - n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 0 3 ?

A T t a p p e a r s t o b e , y e s . 0 1 : 5 5

O T h i s i s a h a n d b o o k t h a t w a s i _ s s u e d s h o r t l y

a f t e r T r u m p a c q u i r e d t h e p r o p e r t . y ?

A I t a p p e a r s t o b e , y e s .

O D o y o u k n o w w h o w r o t e t h i s h a n d b o o k ?

A I d o n o t . 0 1 : 5 5

1 0 1

DEPOSITION OF MIKE VAN DER GOES

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

I 6

I 1

1 8

I 9

2 0

2 I

' ) )

2 3

2 4

2 5

O S p e r a n d i o r e p o r t e d t o y o u ; r i g h t ? 0 1 : 5 6A H e d i d .

O D i d h e e v e r t a l k w i t h y o u a b o u t r e v i s j _ n r ; o ru p d a t i n g t . h e e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k ?

f r y e s .0 1 : 5 6

O W h a t d i d h e t e l _ t _ y o u ?

A f n s p e a k i n g t o p a u l _ F f e c k w h o w a s t h e l a L b o rl - a w a t t o r n e y w h o w e s p o k e w i t h r w e c o l _ l _ e c t r v e l y , b a c k i nI t h i n k 2 0 0 6 , r e v i s e d t h e e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k .

O f a m t a ] k i n g a b o u t t h i s o n e i n 2 0 0 3 . 0 1 : 5 7A N o . T h e r e w e r e n o r e v i s i o n s t h a t f w a s . m a d e

a w a r e o f .

e S o M r . S p e r a n d i o d i d n , t t a l _ k t o y o u a b o u t .

c h a n g e s t h a t w o u f d q o i n t o t h i s 2 0 0 3 h a n d b o o k ?

a I \ O .

0 1 : 5 7

O y o u a r e a g r e e i n g w r t h m e ?

A I e S .

0 A n d l _ e t ' s m a r k g i v e t h a t b a c k t o t h e

r e p o r t e r f o r a m o m e n t .

A S u r e . 0 1 : 5 8

M R . C O W A N : L e t r s m a r k a s E x h i b i t 2 a d o c u m e n t

p r o d u c e d w i t h B a t e s n u m b e r D I M 0 0 0 0 5 t . h r o u g h 0 0 0 4 6

e n t i t l - e d , " T r u m p N a t i o n a f G o f f c f u b E m p l o y e e M a n u a r _ , , ,

d a t e d J a n u a r y , 2 0 0 6 .

( E x h i b i t 2 w a s m a r k e d f o r 0 1 : 5 8

1 0 3DEPOSITION OF MIKE VAN DER GOES

1

2

3

4

5

5

1

B

9

1 0

1 1

7 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

I 6

I 1

1 B

I 9

2 0

2 7

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

0

b e f o r e ?

r d e n t i f i c a t . i o n , a c o p y o f

w h i c h i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o . )

B Y M R . c o w A N : H a v e y o u s e e n t h i s d o c u m r : n r

0 1 : 5 8

0 1 : 5 8

0 1 : 5 9

O 1 : 5 9

0 1 : 5 9

0 2 : 0 0

d I e S ,

O I s t h i s t h e e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k t h a t t h e c f u bi s s u e d i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y J a n u a r y o f 2 O O 6 ?

A f t d o e s a p p e a r t h a t w a y , y e s .

O W h a t . i s y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s t o w h y t h e c l _ u bi s s u e d a n e w h a n d b o o k i n J a n u a r y o f 2 0 0 6 ?

A f n s p e a k i n g t o p a u l _ F l e c k t h e r e w e r e s o m e

M S . M A R T f N : L e t m e j u s t c a u t i o n y o u d o n , L r € v 3 d - I

a n y a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t i n f o r m a t r o n .

T H E w r r N E S S : T h e r e w e r e s o m e r e v i s i o n s t h a t n e e d e dt o b e d o n e p e r t h e r e c o m m e n d a t . i o n o f s & K a n d p a u r - F r - e c k .

O B y M R . C O W A N : S o i t i s y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i r r g

t h i s w a s d o n e L o r e f l _ e c t c e r t a i _ n c h a n g e s i n t h e l a w ?

A T h a t j _ s c o r r e c t r ! e s .

O W h i c h l e g a l a r e a s o f t h e l _ a w r e q u i r e d

c h a n g e s , a s y o u u n d e r s t o o d i t ?

L e t m e r e p h r a s e t h a t . W h a t t o p i c s o f t . h e

w e r e r e v i s e d t o r e f l e c t c h a n g e s i n t h e f a w a s

r s t a n d i t ?

. M A R T I N : O b j e c t i o n , t h e d o c u m e n t s p e a k s f o r

h a n d b o o k

y o u u n d e

M S

r i - q o l f

1 0 4DEPOSITION OF MIKE VAN DER GOES

c a

Exhibit 66C))

1

2

?

4

5

6

1

8

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

l - J

I 4

1 5

I 6

7 1

1 B

I 9

2 0

2 I

2 2

2 3

2 4

z 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAL ]FORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

L U C Y M E S S E R S C H M I D T , i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d o n b e h a l - f o f a l l o t h e r s

s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d ,

r - L d I I I L J I I ,

V S .

VH PROPERTY CORPORATION DBA

TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB, andD O E S 1 t h r o u g h 1 0 0 ,

U d D g I \ U B C 4 0 3 0 8 7

De fendant s

( P e r P r o t e c t i v e O r d e r S e c t i o n 4 , t h i s t r a n s c r i p t h a s at e m p o r a r y " C o n f i d e n t i a l S u b j e c t t o P r o t e c t i v e O : r d e r "d a q i r r n e t i o n f o - : h 6 - i ^ . 1 n f 3 0 c J a v s a f f . e r f h e d e n o s i t i O nv u r r Y r r u ! u ! q y g r l v q v ! J v v q J d

i s r e c e i v e d . )

D E P O S I T I O N O F

D A V I D C O N F O R T I , I N D ] V I D U A L L Y A N D A S

T R U M P N A T I O N A L G O L F C L U B ' S P E R S O N M O S T Q U A L I F I E D

S A N T A M O N T C A , C A L I E O R N I A

M A Y I , 2 O I 2

A t k i n s o n - B a k e r , I n c .C o u r t R e p o r t e r s( 8 0 0 ) 2 8 B - 3 3 1 6

- . , , . . J ^ ^ ^w w w . U E P U . u u r L L

R e p o r t e d b y : A i I e e n N e i t z e r L , R D R / C R R ' C S R N o ' 5 3 1 8

F i l e N o . : A 6 0 4 0 1 0

1

1

2

3

;

5

6

'7

B

1 0

1 1

I 2

l - 5

I 4

1 5

I 6

I 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 I

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

O . I s t h a t s o m e t h i n g y o u s p e c i f i c a l l y n e g o t i a - t e d

r ^ T l r h I r l 1 m h /

A . N o .

M R . C O W A N : f ' m g o i - n g t o m a r k a s E x h i b i t N u m b e r

2 6 a d o c u m e n t e n t . i t l e d " T r u m p N a t i o n a l G o l f C I u b , E o o d

a n d B e v e r a g e O r i e n t a t i o n M a n u a I , 2 0 0 8 , " B a t e s n u m l c e r e d

D L M 0 0 0 9 7 t h r o u q h 1 0 5 .

( P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t 2 5 w a s m a r k e d f o r

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . )

O . B Y M R . C O W A N : I s t h i s s o m e t h i n g y o u ' v e s e e n

b e f o r e ?

A . Y e s .

O . W h o c r e a t e d i t ?

A . B r i a n W o l b e r s .

O . f s i t s o m e t h i n g y o u r e v i e w e d b e f o r e i t w a s

d i s s e m i n a t e d ?

A . G e n e r a l l y , y e s .

O . A n d y o u - - w h e n i n 2 0 0 8 w a s t h i s i m p l e m e n t e d ?

A . I c a n ' t r e c a l l .

O . D o y o u k n o w i f i t w a s b e f o r e o r a f t e r M s .

M e s s e r s c h m i d t ' s e m p l o y m e n t e n d e d ?

A . I d o n ' t k n o w .

n T f \ / r \ r r 1 - r r r n t n n : r r g 9 o f t h e d o C U m e n t , Y o U S e e\ 4 . _ y v u y * Y .

r ^ 7 h e r e i t s a v s r r E m r r l n r z c c M e e l s t r ?w l l g r E ! u u u j r

A . Y e s .

I 1 5

1

-

3

4

5

o

1

B

I

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

T 6

I 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 I

a aZ Z

2 3

2 4

2 5

M R . C O W A N : 2 1 i s 3 0 9 - 3 1 0 a n d 2 8 i s 3 0 5 d a s h

3 0 7 .

( P ] a i n t i f f t s E x h i b i t 2 g w a s m a r k e d . f o r


O " B Y M R . C O W A N : S o , M r . C o n f o r t i , n o w t h a t w e

h a v e f a p o l o g i - z e f o r a n y c o n f u s i o n . N o w t h a t w e , v e

b r o k e n t h i s d o c u m e n t d o w n i n t o t w o e x h i b i t s , i n f a c t ,

s o t h a t E x h i b i t 2 1 i s t h e A p r i l 2 1 s t d o c u m e n t a n d t h e

s e c o n d d o c u m e n t h a s t h e A p r i l 2 5 t h d a t e , r e t m e a s k

y o u , w l t h b o t h o f t h e m , d o y o u h a v e d o y o u h a v r =

i n d e p e n d e n t d o y o u h a v e m e m o r y o f e i t h e r o n e ?

A . N o , n e i t h e r .

o . A n d h a v e y o u d i - s c u s s e d e i t h e r d o c u m e n t w : L t h

a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n c o u n s e l _ ?

A . N o .

O . D i d M r . W o l b e r s e v e r c o m e t o y o u a n d s a y t i r a t

L u c y M e s s e r s c h m i d t h a d g i v e n n o t i c e ?

A . G i v e n n o t i c e ? N o .

M R . C O W A N : L e t t s m a r k a s E x h i b i t 2 9 a J a n u a r y

B , 2 0 0 9 , m e m o f r o m m a r i e l a F a r i a s r c c D a v i d C o n f o r : t i _

a n d T o m S p e r a n d e o , r e l u n c h b r e a k s .



O . B Y M R . C O W A N : H a v e y o u s e e n t h i s d o c u m e r r t

b e f o r e , M r . C o n f o r t i ?

1 8 7

1

2

4

5

o

1

8

9

1 0

1 1

t 2

I J

I 4

7 6

I 1

1 B

I 9

2 0

2 7

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

A . I d o n ' t r e c a f I s e e i n s i t . f ' m d u r e I d i c l .

O . D o y o u r e m e m b e r d i s c u s s i n g t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h

a n v o n e e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r i t w a s i s s u e d ?

A . f d o n ' t

M R . B R I G G S : O t h e r t h a n p o s s i b l y a t t o r n e l / s .

T H E W I T N E S S : I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r .

O . B Y M R . C O W A N : L o o k i n g a t t h e d a t e , d o y o u

r c r - o c r n i z e f h a l - t h i s d o c u m e n t w a s i s s u e d a f t e r t h e L u c y

M e s s e r s c h m i d t I a w s u i t b u t b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h t : D a v e

D a r r \ z I r u l q r r i ] - ?L v ! ! l

A Y a s

0 . I s i t y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h i s d o c u m e n t w a s

i s s u e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e L u c y M e s s e r s c h m i d t l a w s u i t ?

A Y a c

M R . B R I G G S : O b j e c t i o n . C a l - f s f o r s p e c u l a t i o n '

T H E V I I T N E S S : Y e s .

O . B Y M R . C O V I A N : T h a t ' s y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g '

o t h e r t h a n a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n s y o u h a d w i t h a l a w y e r '

t e l l m e a l l t h e b a s e s f o r y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s t o t h e

f a c t t h i s w a s i s s u e d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e L u c y

M e s s e r s c h m i d t l a w s u i t .

A . J u s t t h a t , t h a t i t y o u k n o w , w e n e e d e ' d t o

r e i t e r a t e t h e p o l i c y a s d i c t a t e d i n t h e e m p l o y e e

m a n u a l .

O . A n d t h i s w a s g i v e n t o e v e r y o n e , m a n a g e r s t a n d

1

)

3

4

trJ

6

1

B

9

1 0

1 1

nonexe lnp t employees ?

A . T o m y k n o w l e d g e .

O . " A l - l P e r s o n n e l " m e a n s e v e r y b o d y a t t h e c l u b ?

A . Y e s .

O . D i d M s . F a r i a s e v e r t e l l y o u t h a t p e o p l e h a d

c o m e t o h e r s a y i n g t h e y h a d q u e s t i o n s o r c o n c e r n s a b o u t

t h i s p o l i c y ?

A . N o .

O . D i d M r . S p e r a n d e o e v e r t e I I y o u t h a t ?

A . N o .

O . D i d a n y o n e e l - s e e v e r t e l - I y o u t h a t ?

A . N o .

O . A f t e r t h i s m e m o w a s i s s u e d , d i d y o u e v e r g o o u t

a n d a b o u t a n d r a n d o m l y a p p r o a c h e m p l o y e e s a n d a s k t h e m

i f l - h a r z e i i l l i f i h a r r h : d e n \ / r - r r n r - F r n s n r r r t i c s t i o n sM l r E y o L f , r M L r r u J r r u u q r r J

a h o r r t m e a I a n c l r e s t b r e a k s ?

M R . B R I G G S : O b j e c t i o n . A s k e d a n d a n s w e r e d .

T H E W I T N E S S : I d o n ' t r e c a f l - . I d o n ' t r e c a l l -

t h e m .

M R . C O W A N : E x h i b i t 3 0 i s a n A p r i l 1 6 , 2 0 0 9

m e m o f r o m D a v i d C o n f o r t i t o " A l l S t a f f M e m b e r s , " B a t e s

D L M 0 0 1 1 3 t h r o u g h I I 4 .



M R . B R I G G S : A m I m i s s i n g t h e f i r s t p a g e ? O h ,

1 8 9

1 2

1 3

7 4

1 5

I 6

I 7

1 8

7 9

1

aZ

3

4

5

0

1

U

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 J

II t a, r =

1 5

1 6

I 1

1 B

L 9

2 0

2 I

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

f s e e . M i n e j u s t g o t c u t o f f . O k a y . I t ' s f i n e .

M R . C O W A N : M i n e g o t c u t o f f t o o .

M R . B R I G G S : I t ' s a l l r i g h t . T h e o n e a t t a c h e d

t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t i s g o o d .

M R . C O W A N : T h a t ' s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o n e . I

c a n f i x t h i s l a t e r .

O . M r . C o n f o r t i , h a v e y o u s e e n t h i s d o c u m e n t

b e f o r e ?

A V a q

o n i . l v o u w r i - t e t h i s d o c u m e n t r o r d i d s o m e o n ev .

w r i f e ' i t f o r v o u ?J

A . I r m s u r e I w r o t e i t .

O . D i d a n y o n e h e l p y o u w r i t e t h i s d o c u m e n t ?

A . O h , g o s h , I d o n r t r e m e m b e r -

O . I n t . h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h i t s a y s , " L u n c h p e r i o d s

a r e t d b e u n i n t e r r u p t e d a n d d u L y f r e e - " D o y o u s e e

t h a t ?

A Y a q

Q , A n d t . h e n y o u w r o t e , " Y o u m a y l - e a v e t h e C I u b i f

y o u w i s h , b u t w e e x p e c t y o u t o l - e t y o u r s u p e r v i s o r k n o w

i f y o l r a r e g o i n g t o b e l e a v i n g t h e p r o p e r t y ' "

A Y a q

Q , W h y d i d Y o u w r i t e t h a t ?

A . I t ' s t h i s i s c o n j e c t u r e ' I t ' s a l o n g t i m e

a g o . B u t i t v e r y w e l l - c o u l d h a v e b e e n a r e s p o n s e t o

1 9 0

1

2

3

4

trJ

6

1

U

9

1 0

1 1

t 2

1 3

L 4

1 5

7 6

7 1

1 B

1 9

2 0

2 I

z z

2 3

2 4

2 5

O . f t ' s t h e o n e t h a t ' s d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 4 t h .

A . Y e s .

O . D o y o u r e c a l l h a v i n g a m e e t i n g w i t h M r . P e r r y

a b o u t t h i s w r i t e - u p ?

A . S p e c i f i c a l l y , h o .

O . G e n e r a l l y d o y o u r e m e m b e r m e e t i n g w i t h h i m ?

A . W e l I , f m e a n - - f m e a n , I t m s u r e w e m e t . I

m e a n , h e s i g n e d i t a n d t h a t ' s t h e w a y t h e p r o c e d u r e

w o r k s .

n n l z - r r l . . ) n \ / ^ 1 r q l 1 a r - i f i n : I I r r r e m c m l l c r s a r r i n c rV . \ J n d y . v v - y v u r t / u v r ! ! v q f f l ' ! u r L L U r L L v s I D a J ! I I Y

r n r r 1 - h i n n f a M r P o r r r z : l ' r n r t . l - 1 - h ' i s r ^ r r i f e - t t t l ?g I I J U I a r I t y - * F .

M R . B R I G G S : D i d y o u s a y s e n d i n g o r s a y i n g ?

M R . Y E R E M I A N : S a Y i n g .

T H E V { I T N E S S : N O .



O . B Y M R . Y E R E M T A N : T h i s i s E x h i b i t 3 4 t h a t I

j u s t h a n d e d y o u . I t ' s g o t a t i t l e a t t h e t o p " E m p l o y e e

S t a t u s F o r m , " a n d i t ' s B a t e d s t a m p e d 5 3 5 8 . D o y o u

r c r : o r r n i z e t . h i s d o c u m e n t ?

A V o q

Q , I s t h i s y o u r h a n d w r i t i n g ?

A ] N O .

Q r D o y o u k n o w w h o s e h a n d w r i t i n g i t i s ?

A o I - - I m e a n , I c o u l d g u e s s , s o n o .

230

1

3

4

6

1

I

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

7 4

1 5

T 6

L 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 l

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

O . B u t t h a t i s y o u r s i g n a t u r e n e a r t h e b o t t o m ,

c o r r e c t ?

A . Y e s .

O . O k a y . S o t h i s d o c u m e n t b a s i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t

M r . P e r r y w a s t e r m i n a t e d o n S e p t e m b e r 5 t h , 2 0 0 8 ,

c o r r e c t ?

A . Y e s .

O . A n d i n t h e r e m a r k s s e c t i o n i t s a y s , " T e r m i n a t e d

f o r r e p e a t o f f e n s e o f u n a u t h o r i z e d l e a v i n g t h e

p r e m i s e s . S e e w a r n i n g n o t i c e s a t t a c h e d . " D i d y o u m a k e

t h e d e c i s i o n t , o t e r m i n a t e M r . P e r r y ?

A . U l t i m a t e I Y , Y e s .

O . D i d s o m e b o d y e l s e r e c o m m e n d h i s t e r m i n a t i o n t o

y o u ?

A . W e l l , s o m e t h i n g o f t h a t s e v e r i t y w o n ' t b e d o n e

w i t h o r l t d i s c u s s i n g i t w i t h H R f i r s t .

0 . W e I l , w h o i s w a s i t y o u r i d e a t o t e r m i n a l e

M r . P e r r y ?

A . I d o n ' t r e c a l l w h o s e i d e a i t w a s '

Q " B u t . y o u w o u l d h a v e d i s c u s s e d i t w i t h H R b e f o r e

a p p r o i i i n g h i s t e r m i n a t i o n ?

A l Y e s .

Q ; D o y o u r e c a f l - s p e c i f i c a l l y w h o y o u d i s c u s s e d

h i s t € r m i n a t i o n w i t h ?

A , I d o n ' t .

237

H,xhibit 66D))

1

)

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

! 4

1 5

7 6

7'7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 !

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

O . E v e r y t i m e t h e y w a n t e d t o

A . ( I n d i c a t i n g . )

O . B u t n o n e w e r e a c t u a l l y s i g n e d u n t i l a f t e r

t h e s e l - a w s u i t s w e r e f i l e d , t o y o u r k n o w l e d . g e , c o r r e c t ?

A . T h a t ' s w h e n w e s t a r t e d t h e p o l i c y a l l o w i n q

f ] - ^ +L I I q L .

0 . D u r i n g t h e t i m e y o u w e r e t h e d i r e c t o r o f H u m a n

R e s o u r c e s f o r t h e T r u m p N a t i o n a l G o l _ f C l _ u b , t e l l m e

e v e r y t . h i n g t h a t w a s d o n e , t o y o u r k n o w l e d g e , t o i n s u r e

t h a t t h e r e w a s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h c a t i f o r n i a r a w r e g a r : d i n g

m e a f b r e a k s , o t h e r t h a n p u t t i n g l a n g u a g e i n t h e e m p l o y e e

h a n d b d o k s t h a t w e r e g i v e n t o y o u r e m p l o y e e s ?

A . O n e w a y w e w o u . I d m o n i t o r i s i f w e h a d a n y

c o m p l a i - n t s , b e c a u s e t h e e m p l 0 y e e s w o u r d b e t h e f i r s t

o n e s t o c o m e t o u s a n d c o m p f a i n i f s o m e t h i n g w a s n o t

g o i n g l i k e i t ' s s u p p o s e d t o b e .

o . o t h e r t h a n r e s p o n d i n g t o c o m p r a i n t s , w h a t e r _ s e

w o u f d y o u d o t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e r e w a s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h

c a f i f o r n i a l a w r e g a r d i n g m e a r - b r e a k s , o t h e r t h a n h a v i n g

l a n g u a g e i n t h e e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k ?

A . M a k i n g s u r e t h e y h a v e a p l a c e t o t a k e t h e i r

m e a f b r e a k s , m a k i n g s u r e t h e r e a r e m e a r s p r o v i d e d .

A f s o , j u s t o b s e r v a t i o n o f w a t c h i n g i e m p l o y e e s

t a k e b r e a k s .

O . A n y t h i n g e l _ s e ?

Deposition of Thomas F. Sperandeo

1 5 8

1

2

3

4

5

o

1

8

v

1 0

1 1

7 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

7 6

7 1

1 8

I 9

2 0

2 7

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

A . T h a t ' s i t .

O . I s i t a c c u r a t e t o s a y t h a t t h e r e w a s n o p o l i c y

s e t u p t o i n s u r e t h a t e m p l 0 y e e s w e r e g e t t i n g b r e a k s t h a t

w e r e a t l _ e a s t 3 0 m i n u t e s f o r m e a l _ s ?

A . I k n o w , b e f o r e f l e f t , t h a t s o m e o f t h e

m a n a g e r s w e r e a c t u a r r y s c h e d u f i n g t h e i r b r e a k s o n s o m e

e m p l o y e e s w h e r e t h e r e w a s c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e .

O t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s , t h e y w o u l d a c t u a l _ I y s h i r t

d o w n , a n d t h e y h a d a c e r t a i n t i m e t h a t t h e y t o o k t h e i r

m e a l - b r e a k e v e r y d a y .

O . B u t b e f o r e t h e s e l _ a w s u i t s w e r e f i l e d , i s j t

a c c u r a t e t o s a y t . h a t t h e r e w e r e n o p o r i c i e s i n p r a c e t o

i n s u r e o r m o n i t o r t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s w e r e a c t u a J _ 1 y

g e t t i n g a t l e a s t 3 0 m i n u t e s t . o e a t ?

A . C o r r e c t .

o . w h e n d i d p o r i c i e s g e t i m p l e m e n t e d t o m a k e s u r e

t h a t e r n p l o y e e s w e r e g e t t i n g a t r e a s t 3 0 m i n u t e s t o e a t ?

A . A t d i r e c t i o n f r o m o u r a t t o r n e y s .

M S . M A R T I N : H e s a i d " w h e n . "

T H E W I T N E S S : W h e n ?

BY MR. COWAN:

O . W h e n ?

A . P r o b a b l y w h e n t h e s e w e r e f i l e d .

O . I f I s h o w e d y o u a d o c u m e n t t h a t ' s p r e v i o u s l y

b e e n m a r k e d a s E x h i b i t 2 9 , w h i c h i s a m e m o f r o m M a r i e f a


1 5 9

1

aZ

J

4

5

6

1

B

9

1 0

1 1

7 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

1 6

I 1

1 8

I 9

2 0

2 I

Z Z

2 3

2 4

2 5

F a r i a s t o e m p l o y e e s , w i t h y o u r n a m e c c , d o n r t , t a l k i n g

a b o u t m e a l b r e a k s a n d r e s t b r e a k s , d o y o u k n o w w h e t h e r

t h i s m e m o - - s o r r y - - s u c h p o l i c i e s w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d

b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h i s m e m o w a s s e n t o u t ?

A . W h a t w a s t h e q u e s t i o n ?

O . T h e q u e s t i o n i s : D i d y o u i m p l e m e n t p o l i c i e s

t o m o n i t o r a n d m a k e s u r e t h a t e m p l o y e e s w e r e q e t t r n g a t

l - e a s t 3 0 m i n u t e s t o e a t a f t e r t h i s m e m o w a s s e n t o u t o r

b e f o r e , i f y o u c a n r e m e m b e r ?

A . T h e y s i g n e d t h e e m p l o y e e m a n u a f . r t s t a t e s i n

t h e r e .

O . N o , I a m a s k i n g a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n .

y o u j u s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t s o m e p o r n t a f t e r t h e

l a w s u i . t s w e r e f i l e d , y o u s t a r t e d i m p l e m e n t i n g p r o c e d u r e s

t o m o n i t o r a n d m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e e m p r o y e e s w e r e g i e t t i n g

a t l - e a s t 3 0 m i n u t e s t o e a t .

A . T h a t ' s c t o c k i n g o u t , w h e r e w e c h a n g e d t h e

p o l i c l z a n d c l o c k i n g o u t .

O . T h a t w a s t h e p r o c e d u r e t h a t w a s i m n l e m e n r c d

A . U h - h u h .

o . A n d t h a t w a s d o n e o n o r a b o u t t h e d a t e o f t h i s

A p r l l 7 6 , 2 0 0 9 m e m o t h a t ' s m a r k e d a s E x h i b i t 3 0 ?

A . Y e a h , t h a t ' s w h e n w e h a d t h e n e w t i m e c l o c k s ,

s o f t w a r e .

O . S o t h e n r o r - c d t r r o . r - h a t w a S i m p l e m e n t e d t o m a k e


1 6 0

1

)

3

4

5

o

1

8

9

1 0

1 1

i 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

I 6

7 1

1 B

1 9

2 0

2 I

2 2

2 3

z 4

2 5

New York who you know were invorved in th is r lou have no

unders tand ing about who wou l -d be - - who wou l_d have

k n o w l b d g e o f t h i s , c o r r e c t ?

A . C o r r e c t .

O . I s t h e s a m e t r u e f o r E x h i b i L 2 , w h i c h i s t h e

e m p l 0 f e e m a n u a r t h a t w a s p u t i n t o e f f e c t , a c c o r d i n g t o

r t s c o v e r , i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 6 ?

A " C o r r e c t .

Q n T r y i n g t o s a v e a l i t t l _ e t i m e

A , S u r e .

O . a l l t h a t s t u f f -

A . C o r r e c r .

o . E v e r y t h i n g w e j u s t t a r k e d a b o u t f o r E x h i b i t 1

a p p l i e s t o E x h i b i t 2 ?

A . C o r r e c t .

0 . T h e d o c u m e n t p r e v i - o u s l y m a r k e d a s E x h i b i t g i s

a h o s t e s s t r a i - i n n m r - , , - r . , i t h a d a t e o f 2 0 0 8 o n t h e

f r o n t .

D id you have any invo lvement in the prepara t ton

o f t h i s d o c u m e n t ?

A . N o .

O. Do you know who d id?

A . B r i a n W o l _ b e r s .

O . W h a t w a s M r . f i I o l b e r s ' p o s i t i o n a t t h e t i m e . ?

A . F a n d B d i r e c t o r .


I l I

1

3

4

5

o

1

U

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

L 6

I le t me show you a document p rev ious ly marked as

6 , w h i c h i s , a t l e a s t o n t h e f i r s t p a g e , a m e m o

H i j a k .

D o y o u s e e t h i s ?

U h - h u h .

Do you remember th is document?

f r e m e m b e r s e e i n q i t . , y e a h .

D l d y o u e v e r h a v e a n y c o n v e r s a t r o n s w i t h h e r

a b o u t i t s p r e p a r a t i o n f o r c o n t e n t s ?

A " N o .

Q , D i d y o u e v e r t a l k w i t h a n y o n e a b o u t L h i s

documdnt ?

A . p r o b a b l y h e r .

O . S o u n d s l i k e y o u a r e s p e c u l a t i n g .

A . y e a h , f a m s p e c u l a t i n g . f t ' s y e a r s .

O . f u n d e r s t a n d .

A . y e a h , f d o n ' t r e m e m b e r .

O . N o t s i _ g n i f i c a n t e n o u g h t o s t a n d o u t l - n y o u r

m i n d ?

A . N o .

O . Y o u a r e a g r e e i n g w i t h m e ?

A . C o r r e c t . I t d o e s n ' t s a y p o l i c i e s o r

p r o c e d u r e s .

O . T h e r e t s a l i t t l e b i t o f a m y s t e r y t o t h i s

d o c u m e h t . r f y o u ] o o k a t t h e b o t t o m , y o u w r r l s e e t h e r e

O .

Exh ib i t

f rom Ewa

A

O .

A .

Q '

I 1

1 B

L 9

2 0

2 I

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5


7 1 3

7

2

3

4

5

6

1

I

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

7 6

1 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 I

2 ' )

2 3

) / l

2 5

are n lumbers tha t a re s tamped on i t .

These d .ocuments were produced to me by lawyers

f o r T r u m p .

n n r iA . A J I r i g h t .

O . f f y o u l _ o o k a t t h e f i r s t t w o , y o u w i l t s e e t h a t

t h e f o n t s a n d f o r m a t t i n g i s k i n d o f t h e s a m e .

T h e n a t t a c h e d t o i t i s a t h i r d p a g e w r t h a

f o r m a t t i n g l o o k s t o b e m a y b e a r i L t r e b i t d i f f e r e n t a n d

h a s a b u n c h o f p o i n t s f o r e m p l o y e e s .

H a v e y o u e v e r s e e n t h i s t h i r d p a g e b e f o r e ?

A . y e s .

O . W h a t i s i t ?

A . T h i s f o o k s 1 i k e s o m e t h i n g t h e f o o d a n d b e v e r a g e

m a n a g e r w o u l d g i v e t o h i s s t a f f .

O . D o y o u k n o w w h e n t h i s w a s l _ e t m e b a c k u p .

I t f o o k s f a m i l - i a r / a n d y o u r r e c o l _ l e c t i o n i s

t h i s i s s o m e t h i n g a f o o d a n d b e v e r a g e m a n a g e r g a v e o u t

t o h i s s t a f f ?

A . C o r r e c t .

O . W h a t i s y o u r b e s t r e c o l l - e c t i o n o r e s t i m a t e a s

t o w h e n i t w a s g i v e n o u t ?

A . I w o u l d s a y t h i s o n e h e r e w a s g i v e n o u t b a c k

w h e n E w a w a s g e n e r a l m a n a g e r , p r o b a b l y r i g h t w h e n T r u m p

b o u g h t u s .

O . W a s t h i s d o c u m e n t e v e r s u p e r s e d e d o r r e p l a c e d ,


r 1 4

1

aZ

3

4

5

o

1

8

9

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

L 4

1 5

I 6

I 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 I

z z

z 5

2 4

2 5

t o y o u r k n o w l e d g e , o r r e c a n t e d ?

A. f t seemed l_ ike every manager , new manager tha t

c a m e i n , t h e y w o u l d h a v e t h e i r o w n _ _ s o m e t h i n g l i k e

t h i - s , p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s o f w h a t t h e y e x p e c t e d o f

t h e i r e m p l o y e e s .

O . W h o w a s t h e f o o d a n d b e v e r a g e m a n a g e r w h o

d i s s e r t r i n a t e d t h i s t o t h e r e s t a u r a n t w o r k e r s ?

A " I w o u l d b e g u e s s i n g .

M S . M A R T I N : D o n ' t g u e s s .

BY MR. COWAN:

O . W h o d o y o u b e l i e v e i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n ?

A. Vr Iho was the manager back then?

I t c o u f d h a v e b e e n M a r k .

O . L a s t n a m e ?

A ' M a r k s h u r t z o r s o m e t h i n g t i k e t h a t . r d o n ' t

remember .

O . S h e ' s n o t a l _ l o w e d t o h e l p y o u . S h e w o u f d

p r o b a b l y l i k e t o , b u t s h e ' s n o t a l l o w e d t o .

A . y e a h , f d o n ' t r e m e m b e r _ _ i t c h a n g e d h a n d s s o

many td_mes - - who was the manager back then.

O. Do you have an unders tand ing as t .o how many

y e a r s - - I e t m e b a c k u p .

H o w m a n y p a g e s w a s t h i s d o c u m e n t ?

A . P r o b a b l y j u s t t h a t o n e p a g e o r _ _

0 . J u s t t h e o n e p a g e ?

Deposition ofThomas F. Sperandeo

I 1 5

1

Z

3

A

5

o

1

U

t ,

1 0

1 1

I 2

1 3

I 4

1 5

L 6

I 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 I

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

A . y e a h .

M S . M A R T f N : O n l y i f y o u k n o w .

T H E W I T N E S S : I d o n , t r e m e m b e r .

BY MR. COWAN:

O . I f y o u l o o k a t t h e t o p , y o u w i l l s e e t h e r e , s a

f i n e t h a t ' s c u t o f f , a n d i t s i m p l y s a y s , , t h e

i n f o r l n a t i o n , " a n d i t d . o e s n ' t c o r r e l _ a t e w i t h p a g e 2 ,

w h i c h w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e w a s a t l e a s t o n e o t h e r

p a g e t h a t w e n t w i t h t h i s .

D o e s n n i n f . i n x f L . - r o u t t o y o u h e l p y o u r e m e m b e r

whethdr th is was a two-page document o r a th ree_page

d o c u m d n t o r l o n g e r ?

A . N o , I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r .

I know there was a manager back then named Andy

A l e x a r i d e r , w a s p r o b a b l y w h o w a s t h e m a n a g e r a t t h a t

L A I L L E .

o . w a s t h i s a d o c u m e n t t h a t w a s g e n e r a t e d f r o m t h e

n l r r h t < ^ ^ m h r 1 + ^- - - . . . 1 r * . = I ?

A . M o r e t h a n l i k e l y .

o - w e r e c o p i e s o f m e m o s r i k e t h i s s t o r e d s o m e w h e r e

i n t h e c l - u b ' s f i l e s o r r e c o r d s ?

A . I d o n ' t t h i n k t h o s e c o m p u t e r s a r e a r o u n d

a n y m o r e .

O. What do you th ink happened to them?

A . P r o b a b l y d i e d . T h i s i s 2 0 0 3 .


I 1 6

xhibit 668))

?

a

3

A

5

t)

1

B

q

1 0

1 1

t 2

1 3

7 4

1 5

1 5

I 1

1 8

1 9

2 0

21,

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

S U P E R ] O R C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F C A I ] F O R N I A

F O R T H E C O U N T Y O F L O S A N G E L E S

L U C Y M E S S E R S C H M I D T I )i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d o n b e h a l f )o f a l - l - o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y ,s i t u a t e d , )

P l a i n t , i f f , ;)

V S . ) N o . B C 4 0 3 0 8 7

) C o n s o l - i d a t e d w i t hV H P R O P E R T Y C O R P O R A T I O N d b a ) N o . B C 4 0 8 9 9 9T R U M P N A T I O N A L G O L F C L U B a n d )D O E S 1 t h r o u g h 1 0 0 , )

)D e f e n d a n t s . t

A N D R E [ , A T E D A C T I O N .

))))

D E P O S I T I O N O F J O E L D E A N K I M

E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A

F R I D A Y , J U N E 2 2 , 2 0 I 2

' ' ( P E R P R O T E C T T V E O R D E R S E C T I O N 4 , T H I S T R A N S C R I P T

H A S A T E M P O R A R Y ' ' C O N F I D E N T I A L - S U B J E C T T O P R O T ] I C T I V E

O R D E R ! ' D E S I G N A T I O N F O R A P E R I O D O F 3 O D A Y S A F T E I 1 T H E

D E P O S I T I O N I S R E C E I V E D . ) ' '

A T K I N S O N - B A K E R , I N C .C O U R T R E P O R T E R S( 8 0 0 ) 2 B B - 3 3 1 6

W W W . D E P O . C O MR E P O R T E D B Y : J A N E T A . H I R S C H , C S R N O . 5 4 8 6

F I L E N O . : A 6 O 6 1 C E

P a r r o

1

z

aJ

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2-i6 r ?LLI

?qc v> P . : : h= : 5 Nu E q H r s= E E B> : ; - t 6L U N Ed ' , ;

h 1 itU--)

18

T 9

20

a 1L L

22^ aZJ

1 AL -

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action; my business addressis 1541 Ocean Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Monica, California 90401.

On October 29,2012I served Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's EvidentiaryObiections re Joint Motion for Class Certificationl Declaration of Jeffrey W, Cowan reDefendant's Evidentiary Objections on the interested parties in said action as indicatedbelow:

Glenn L. Briggs, Esq.Hodel Briggs Winter LLP8105 Irvine Center Drive

Suite 1400Irvine, CA92618

Jill A. Martin, Esq.Trumn National Golf Club

Onebcean Trails DriveRancho Palos Verdes, C490275

[Attor n ey s fo r D efen dants J

Anthony i. Orshansky, Esq.Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.

Orshansky & Yeremian LLP16133 Ventura Blvd.

Suite 1245Encino, CA9l436

[Attorneyfor Plaintiff Dave S. PeruyJ

I x I tBY MAIL] by placing a copy of said document for collection and mailing on the dateindii:atdd above, ln a ie'atea envelop6(s), addressed as set forth above,-pursuant to ordinarybusiness practice$. I am "readily fdmitiar'l with this firm's practice. of collecting ]nd .processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with theij.S. Fortit Servide at Santa Monica, California on that same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness.

t I IBy OVdRNIGHT COURIERI I caused to be delivered to and served by an_ . .binr"igit Courier on all interested parti-es in said action, the above named docurnent(s)!ypfuii"g'ttue copies thereof in enclosid sealed envelopes, delivery fees paid or provided for,and addressed as set forth above'

X ] ISTA7E]I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomiahat the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 29,2012, at Santa Monica, Californtf

t \t

Proof of Service

Maribel