`
`JOHN H. ADAMS, JR., Bar No. 253341
`jhadams@littler.com
`LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, California 95814
`Telephone:
`916.830.7200
`Fax No.:
`916.561.0828
`Attorneys for Defendants
`VOLTA, INC. AND SHELL USA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`10/07/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: YOLANDA TABO
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`CHRIS PRETIGER,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`VOLTA, INC. and SHELL USA, INC.; and Does
`1-10, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. CGC-23-610554
`
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
`OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY AND/OR FURTHER
`DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANTS
`VOLTA, INC. AND SHELL USA, INC.
`
`DATE:
`TIME:
`DEPT.:
`
`October 17, 2024
`9:00 a.m.
`525
`
`Complaint Filed: November 20, 2023
`Trial: March 17, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATTERS
`
`Pursuant to Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court, Defendants VOLTA, INC. and
`SHELL USA, INC. (“Defendants”) submit the following Separate Statement in Support of
`Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and/or Further Discovery.
`I.
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
`
`Volta, Inc.’s Responses to RFPDs
`A.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`All DOCUMENTS/ESI identified or relied on in responding to Volta, Inc.’s Responses to
`Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories (Set One).
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “All DOCUMENTS/ESI,” “identified,” and “relied on” are vague and ambiguous.
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by
`California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the
`extent that it seeks to violate the privacy and/or confidentiality of Defendant’s past and/or present
`employees and/or other third parties who are not parties to this action under the Constitution of the
`United States and the State of California as well as under common law privacy principles. Defendant
`objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to
`Defendant and other third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial
`information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
`Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence.
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
`will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents identified in Defendant’s Responses to
`Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories (Set One) in its possession, custody, or control located after a diligent
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`search and reasonable inquiry, pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Stipulated Protective Order
`entered into by the parties entered into by the parties.
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “All DOCUMENTS/ESI,” “identified,” and “relied on” are vague and ambiguous.
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by
`California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the
`extent that it seeks to violate the privacy and/or confidentiality of Defendant’s past and/or present
`employees and/or other third parties who are not parties to this action under the Constitution of the
`United States and the State of California as well as under common law privacy principles. Defendant
`objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to
`Defendant and other third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial
`information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
`Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence.
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
`will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents identified in Defendant’s Responses to
`Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories (Set One) in its possession, custody, or control located after a diligent
`search and reasonable inquiry, pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Stipulated Protective Order
`entered into by the parties. No non-privileged documents that are identified as responsive to this
`request will be withheld on the basis of these stated objections.
`PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 1:
`1.
`The information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action. By definition,
`if Volta relied on documents in responding to Special Rogs, they are relevant and discoverable. “Any
`party may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . . that is relevant to the subject matter involved . .
`. if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence.” C.C.P. § 2017.010. Information is relevant to the subject matter if
`
`
`3
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.
`Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.
`2.
`This response is evasive, and therefore violates the California Code of Civil Procedure.
`Answering discovery “subject to” objections is not proper. Mann v. Island Resorts Development, Inc.,
`2009 WL 6409113, at *3 (N.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2009) (“answering subject to an objection lacks any
`rational basis. There is either a sustainable objection to question or request or there is not. What this
`response really says is that counsel does not know for sure whether the objection is sustainable, that it
`probably is not, but thinks it is wise to cover all bets anyway, just in case.”).
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER
`RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 1:
`1.
`Defendant states in its Amended Response that it will produce all non-privileged,
`responsive documents pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Stipulated Protective Order entered
`into by the parties. It further states that it will not withhold any responsive documents that are not
`privileged. Defendant will comply with its response and produce such documents once a Stipulated
`Protective Order (“SPO”) has been entered into by the parties. The SPO has not been entered into
`because Defendant has not yet received an explanation from Plaintiff of the meaning of a revision that
`Plaintiff requires in order to sign off on the SPO. Defendant’s proposed SPO contained a requirement
`that any party in possession of Confidential Information shall maintain “a written information security
`program that includes reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards designed to
`protect the security and confidentiality of such Confidential Information.” Plaintiff inserted language
`allowing it to maintain “cybersecurity insurance” in lieu of a compliant written information security
`program, stating that counsel’s firm did not have such a program in place. When counsel met and
`conferred regarding the SPO on September 20, Defendant’s counsel asked for an explanation of
`specifically what such an insurance policy would cover and require in order to assure that it would
`adequately protect the Confidential Information at issue in this action. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that it
`would provide such information and assurance. To date, counsel has failed to do so, holding up
`finalization of the SPO and production of documents. Further, Defendant’s document production has
`been held up by the time and effort required to review the large volume of documents at issue. When
`
`
`4
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`counsel first discussed this matter several months ago, counsel for Defendant asked Plaintiff to
`stipulate to continue the March 2025 trial date given the complexity of the case in light of the corporate
`change from Volta to Shell, the loss of employees from Volta who had specific knowledge of the facts
`and documents at issue in the action and the issues that would result, stating that Defendant needed
`more time to provide the requested information and documents. Plaintiff flatly refused but is now
`surprised that the process is taking longer than it believes it should. Defendant is still in the process of
`reviewing and finalizing documents for production, and it will be able to begin production after entry
`of the SPO.
`Defendant states in its Amended Response that it will produce all non-privileged,
`2.
`responsive documents pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Stipulated Protective Order entered
`into by the parties. It further states that it will not withhold any responsive documents that are not
`privileged. These statements are clear and unambiguous about what documents will be produced.
`Defendant’s objection is not well-taken.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`All employment or severance agreements between any Volta entity and Vince Cubbage.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “All employment [agreements],” and “Volta entity” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
`objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California
`Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it
`seeks to violate the privacy and/or confidentiality of Defendant’s past and/or present employees and/or
`other third parties who are not parties to this action under the Constitution of the United States and the
`State of California as well as under common law privacy principles. Defendant objects to this Request
`to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other
`third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or
`trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`/ / /
`
`
`5
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`

`

`
`
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “All employment [agreements],” and “Volta entity” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
`objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California
`Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it
`seeks to violate the privacy and/or confidentiality of Defendant’s past and/or present employees and/or
`other third parties who are not parties to this action under the Constitution of the United States and the
`State of California as well as under common law privacy principles. Defendant objects to this Request
`to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other
`third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or
`trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 4:
`1.
`The information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action. Pretiger has
`reason to think Mr. Cubbage, interim-CEO, had financial motive to rid Volta of Pretiger to
`consummate Volta’s merger with Shell. “Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . .
`that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or
`appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” C.C.P. § 2017.010.
`Information is relevant to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
`preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539,
`1546.
`
`This response is evasive, and therefore violates the California Code of Civil Procedure.
`2.
`Answering discovery “subject to” objections is not proper. Mann v. Island Resorts Development, Inc.,
`2009 WL 6409113, at *3 (N.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2009) (“answering subject to an objection lacks any
`rational basis. There is either a sustainable objection to a question or request or there is not. What this
`response really says is that counsel does not know for sure whether the objection is sustainable, that it
`probably is not, but thinks it is wise to cover all bets anyway, just in case.”).
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`6
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER
`RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 4:
`The requested documents are confidential, private documents of a third-party to this action and
`as such are protected. Defendant has a duty to protect third-party privacy by declining to produce the
`requested documents. Further, the relevancy of such documents is questionable, at best. Plaintiff’s
`stated reason for seeking Mr. Cubbage’s severance agreement is to determine if he had a “financial
`motive to rid Volta of Pretiger to consummate Volta’s merger with Shell.” Such motive, if it existed,
`has nothing to do with the actual termination of Plaintiff’s employment and would not change the facts
`of that termination. Additionally, whether he had a financial motive to consummate Volta’s merger
`with Shell is not material as he did have a motive to consummate the merger as Volta’s CEO because
`that action was in the best interests of the company. Thus, Mr. Cubbage’s motives are not in question
`and there is no need to divulge the confidential, financial information of a third party.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`All employment or severance agreements between any Volta entity and Christine Lally.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “All employment [agreements],” and “Volta entity” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
`objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California
`Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it
`seeks to violate the privacy and/or confidentiality of Defendant’s past and/or present employees and/or
`other third parties who are not parties to this action under the Constitution of the United States and the
`State of California as well as under common law privacy principles. Defendant objects to this Request
`to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other
`third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or
`trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`
`7
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`the terms “All employment [agreements],” and “Volta entity” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
`objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California
`Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it
`seeks to violate the privacy and/or confidentiality of Defendant’s past and/or present employees and/or
`other third parties who are not parties to this action under the Constitution of the United States and the
`State of California as well as under common law privacy principles. Defendant objects to this Request
`to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other
`third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or
`trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 5:
`1.
`Volta hired Ms. Lally to replace Pretiger and its amended responses assert it terminated
`his employment, in part, because Ms. Lally’s duties so widely overlapped with Pretiger’s. In essence,
`she is a comparator to Pretiger, given her function and role. In retaliation cases, “comparative
`evidence” is a critical method for substantiating claims. Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 75
`Cal.App.4th 803, 816. Evidence reasonably calculated to probe discrepancy in treatment between
`comparators is relevant and properly discoverable. Cf Gupta v. Trustees of California State University
`(2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 510, 519 (“Evidence that an employer treated similarly situated employees
`outside the plaintiff’s protected class more favorably is probative of the employer’s discriminatory or
`retaliatory intent.” (emphasis supplied, internal marks omitted). Her employment agreements will help
`explain what was expected of her as Pretiger’s replacement, including her duties and performance
`standards.
`The information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action. “Any party
`2.
`may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . . that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the
`matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`of admissible evidence.” C.C.P. § 2017.010. Information is relevant to the subject matter if it might
`reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
`v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.
`
`8
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`This response is evasive, and therefore violates the California Code of Civil Procedure.
`3.
`Answering discovery “subject to” objections is not proper. Mann v. Island Resorts Development, Inc.,
`2009 WL 6409113, at *3 (N.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2009) (“answering subject to an objection lacks any
`rational basis. There is either a sustainable objection to a question or request or there is not. What this
`response really says is that counsel does not know for sure whether the objection is sustainable, that it
`probably is not, but thinks it is wise to cover all bets anyway, just in case.”).
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER
`RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 5:
`The requested documents are confidential, private documents of a third-party to this action and
`as such are protected. Defendant has a duty to protect third-party privacy by declining to produce the
`requested documents. Further, the relevancy of such documents is questionable, at best. Plaintiff’s
`stated reason for seeking Ms. Lally’s documents is because she is a “comparator” to Plaintiff, but
`Plaintiff does not explain why the requested documents would shed any light on Defendant’s treatment
`of Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not state a cause of action the gravamen of which is that Ms. Lally was paid
`more than he; it is that his employment was terminated in retaliation for certain acts he is alleged to
`have taken. No details in Ms. Lally’s private, confidential documents will shed any light on the actions
`alleged taken against Plaintiff.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
`DOCUMENTS/ESI sufficient to show the organizational structure of Volta, Inc. and Shell
`USA, Inc. post-merger. (e.g., a corporate organizational chart showing the relationship between Shell
`and its subsidiaries, holding companies, etc.)
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`terms “DOCUMENTS/ESI,” “sufficient
`to show,” “post-merger,” “relationship,” and
`the
`“subsidiaries, holding companies, etc.” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request
`on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California Code of Civil Procedure
`section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is
`privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other third parties, including but not limited to
`
`
`9
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this
`Request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product
`doctrine. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`terms “DOCUMENTS/ESI,” “sufficient
`to show,” “post-merger,” “relationship,” and
`the
`“subsidiaries, holding companies, etc.” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request
`on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California Code of Civil Procedure
`section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is
`privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other third parties, including but not limited to
`confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this
`Request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product
`doctrine. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 6:
`1.
`The information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action. “Any party
`may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . . that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the
`matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`of admissible evidence.” C.C.P. § 2017.010. Information is relevant to the subject matter if it might
`reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
`v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.
`2.
`This response is evasive, and therefore violates the California Code of Civil Procedure.
`Answering discovery “subject to” objections is not proper. Mann v. Island Resorts Development, Inc.,
`2009 WL 6409113, at *3 (N.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2009) (“answering subject to an objection lacks any
`rational basis. There is either a sustainable objection to a question or request or there is not. What this
`response really says is that counsel does not know for sure whether the objection is sustainable, that it
`probably is not, but thinks it is wise to cover all bets anyway, just in case.”).
`
`10
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER
`RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 6:
`Plaintiff provides no explanation for how the documents sought in this Request will shed any
`light on the claims or defenses in this action. This Request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
`DOCUMENTS/ESI sufficient to show the organizational structure of Volta, Inc. prior to its
`merger with Shell USA, Inc., including Volta, Inc.’s relationship with Volta Charging Services LLC,
`Volta Charging Industries, LLC, and/or Volta Industries, Inc.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “DOCUMENTS/ESI,” “sufficient to show,” “prior to its merger,” and “relationship” are
`vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably
`particularized as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant
`objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to
`Defendant and other third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial
`information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
`Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence.
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “DOCUMENTS/ESI,” “sufficient to show,” “prior to its merger,” and “relationship” are
`vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably
`particularized as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant
`objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to
`Defendant and other third parties, including but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial
`information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents
`
`
`11
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
`Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence.
`PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 7:
`1.
`The information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action. “Any party
`may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . . that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the
`matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`of admissible evidence.” C.C.P. § 2017.010. Information is relevant to the subject matter if it might
`reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
`v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.
`2.
`This response is evasive, and therefore violates the California Code of Civil Procedure.
`Answering discovery “subject to” objections is not proper. Mann v. Island Resorts Development, Inc.,
`2009 WL 6409113, at *3 (N.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2009) (“answering subject to an objection lacks any
`rational basis. There is either a sustainable objection to a question or request or there is not. What this
`response really says is that counsel does not know for sure whether the objection is sustainable, that it
`probably is not, but thinks it is wise to cover all bets anyway, just in case.”).
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REASONS TO COMPEL A FURTHER
`RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 7:
`Plaintiff provides no explanation for how the documents sought in this Request will shed any
`light on the claims or defenses in this action. This Request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
`All versions of any Volta policy that relates to retaliation.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
`Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and
`the terms “All versions,” “any Volta policy,” and “relates to” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant
`objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not reasonably particularized as required by California
`Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c). Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it
`
`
`12
`SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`LITTLER
`MENDELSON, P.C.
`500 Capitol Mall
`Suite 2000
`Sacramento, CA
`95814
`916.830.7200
`
`seeks information that is privileged and/or confidential to Defendant and other third parties, including
`but not limited to confidential, proprietary, and financial information, and/or trade secrets. Defendant
`objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant or
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant
`will produce all non-privileged, responsiv