Trial Date: Not Set - Attorneys for Plaintiffs, YOUNGMI LEE and JIEUN OH

[Filedconcurrently with Notice ‘ofMotion-and Motion; Séparate Statement; Declaration of Sang.H.

INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, (No. 6); REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND’DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL OF RECORD, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby rules as follows:

Plaintiffs YOUNGMILEE andJIEUN OH’s motions areGRANTEDiin part.and

‘Defendant JOHNYOON DBA KAZAN shall provide further code-compliant respotisewithoutobjection, to Plaititiffs’ Special Interiogatérics, No.6., within‘20:days of the date ofthisorder.

On March 16, 2022, plaintiffs brought this case against defendant, asserting nineteen causes of actions for various alleged violationsof the wage- and-hour laws and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, aswell as other claims.

Plaintiffs also argue that the discovery is not burdensome or oppressive because defendant used a point-of-sale (“POS”) system that can be used to record sales, issue receipts to customers and prepare taxes, and that the sales records and the receipts that includes the gross sale for each period can be retrieved through the POS system; that the receipts marked the amount of Health Care Surcharges imposed to and collected from customers: the compilation of such records is neither burdensome nor oppressive because it already should have been done to comply with the HCSO by making annual reports and paying such amount to the employees, including plaintiffs, or to prepare tax reporting, and it can be done by retrieving the information from the POS system; and finally, that any burden on defendant to produce such information is outweighed by the probative value such information has in proving/disproving the merits ofthis case, In response, defendant argues that the HCSO does not authorize a private right of action,

fully complied with the requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, and that plaintiffs’ contention that the information must exist somewhere in defendant's POS system is based solely on plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated conjecture.

plaintiffs do assert a cause of action (the Nineteenth Cause of Action) under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, and in support ofthat claim they allege as follows: Defendant KAZAN imposed health care surcharges (i.e. an extra fee or cost) on the food sold to customers at the rate of4-5% ofthe gross sales excluding tips and taxes.

This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 10/28/2022 Clerk of the Court

Plaintiffs Youngmi Lee and Jieun Oh's 1.)

Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions And Costs In The Amount Of $3,577.65 Against Defendant And Defendants Counsel Of Record; and 2.)

Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions And Costs In The Amount Of $3,577.65 Against Defendant And Defendants Counsel Of Record.

The parties to the above-referenced motion(s) agree that the motion(s) may be heard by Judge Pro Tem James Fleming, a member of the California State Bar, with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge.

b) Serve a copy of this Notice, blank form of the Case Management Statement and ADR Information Package on all named parties in this action (Local Rule 3.804(a)).

Parties may proceed to an Appropriate Dispute Resolution process (“ADR”) by filing a Stipulation and Order to ADR (Local Form ADR-CV-1).

File and serve the completed Stipulation and Order to ADR form at least 12 days prior to the Case Management Conference (Local Rule 3.805(f)).

I hereby certify that I am the clerk of this Court, not a party to this cause; that I served a copy of this notice on the below date, by electronic service to the parties or their counsel of record at the email addresses set forth below and shown by the records of this court, or, if a physical mailing address is present below, by placing the document(s) in an envelope for collection and mailing, following the Court’s ordinary business practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.

On the same day the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.