Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL HARPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-CV-0902-WBS-DMC

ORDER

Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan Turner, Luis Vasquez, and Pedro 

Abascal, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action pursuant to, among 

other theories, California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code § 2698, 

et seq. Plaintiffs allege violations of California statutory law with respect to the failure to pay 

certain wages. The matter proceeds in this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Pending before 

the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to discovery served on Plaintiff’s 

Harper, Turner, Vasquez, and Abascal, ECF No. 207.

The parties appeared before the undersigned for a hearing in Redding, California, 

on December 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Jamin Soderstrom, Esq., appeared telephonically for 

Plaintiffs. Nathan Chapman, Esq., appeared telephonically for Defendant Charter 

Communications, LLC. After hearing arguments, the matter was submitted.

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 11
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

2

I. BACKGROUND

This action currently proceeds on Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. See ECF 

No. 147. On October 13, 2021, the District Judge denied leave to file a third amended complaint. 

See ECF No. 201. In that order, the District Judge outlined the following factual background:

Charter is a broadband connectivity company and cable 

operator serving business and residential customers under the Spectrum 

brand, among others. Plaintiffs Harper and Sinclair worked as 

small/medium sized business Account Executives (“AEs”) at Charter’s 

Redding, California location. (SAC at ¶¶ 5-6, 12.) Plaintiffs Turner, 

Vazquez, and Abascal worked as Direct Sales Representatives (“DSRs”) 

at Charter’s Irwindale, Bakersfield, and Anaheim, California locations, 

respectively. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9, 12.) Plaintiffs allege that Charter classifies AEs 

and DSRs as “exempt” employees. (See id. at ¶ 13.)

Plaintiffs claim that Charter erroneously classified them as 

exempt employees by mistakenly classifying them as “outside 

salespersons.” (See id.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11070.) Under California 

law, “outside salespersons” are exempt from overtime, minimum wage, 

meal period, and rest period requirements. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1171. 

Importantly, under California case law, employees are only subject to the 

outside salesperson exception if their employer actually had an 

expectation that they spend more than half their time outside the office 

engaged in sales activities, and if that expectation was reasonable. See 

Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal. 4th 785, 790 (Cal. 1999). 

Plaintiffs’ claim is essentially that Charter did not actually expect them to 

spend 50% of their time outside of the office both during and after their 

training weeks, and that even if it did, that expectation was unreasonable 

given the number of tasks Charter expected them to complete that required 

them to be in the office. (See generally SAC (Docket No. 147).)

Plaintiffs’ claims of failure to pay overtime wages, failure 

to provide meal periods or rest breaks (or premium wages in lieu thereof), 

and failure to provide accurate wage statements are derivative of their 

misclassification claim. Because Charter misclassified them, plaintiffs 

contend, Charter necessarily failed to pay them overtime and failed to 

provide necessary rest and meal breaks. (See id.) Plaintiffs further claim 

that Charter failed to pay them commission wages to which they were 

entitled and provided them with inaccurate and misleading wage 

statements. (Id.)

ECF No. 201, pgs. 2-3.

At footnote 1, the District Judge added:

Plaintiffs also claim that Charter failed to pay them all 

wages owed upon termination, failed to provide them with employment 

records, and violated the California UCL. (See generally SAC (Docket 

No. 147).) Plaintiff Harper also brings a representative claim under PAGA 

on behalf of aggrieved employees, including plaintiffs, alleging the same 

aforementioned Labor Code violations. (See id.) 

ECF No. 201, pg. 3, n.1.

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 11
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

3

The District Judge continued:

Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of Charter 

employees: (1) all California employees who were classified as exempt 

outside salespersons, and (2) all California employees who were in 

positions eligible to earn commission wages. (See id. at ¶ 19.)

ECF No. 201, pg. 3. 

On October 13, 2021, the District Judge also issued an order addressing 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. See ECF No. 203. In its 

motion, Defendant sought dismissal of Count Five, Count Nine, and Count Ten of the second 

amended complaint. See id. at 2. The District Judge denied Defendant’s motion as to Counts 

Five and Count Nine, without prejudice, and granted the motion as to Count Ten, but only insofar 

as the claim is based on alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174(d) that 

occurred prior to July 11, 2017. See ECF No. 203, pg. 24. 

The District Judge issued an additional order on October 13, 2021, addressing 

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. See ECF No. 202. In that motion, Defendant sought: 

(1) to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Harper’s claims and stay the action pending arbitration; and 

(2) compel arbitration of claims by Plaintiffs Turner, Vasquez, and Abascal and dismiss those 

claims from the case. See id. at 2. The District Judge granted Defendant’s motion and stayed the

action as to Counts One through Nine of the second amended complaint pending arbitration of 

individual claims raised by Plaintiff’s Harper, Turner, Vasquez, and Abascal. See id. at 24-25. 

On Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request at the hearing, the District Judge also stayed Plaintiff Sinclair’s 

individual claims pending arbitration. See id. 

The District Judge did not, however, stay Plaintiff Harper’s PAGA claim. See id.

at 24. The District Judge held:

However, because a stay would impede vindication of 

California’s interests in enforcing the Labor Code through representative 

PAGA actions, discussed above, and because the PAGA claim represents 

a distinct “action” in this case, the court will not stay Harper’s PAGA 

claim. See Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Grp., 53 Cal. App. 5th 539, 557 (1st 

Dist. 2020) (“Because a PAGA claim is representative and does not 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 11
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

4

belong to an employee individually, an employer should not be able 

dictate how and where the representative action proceeds.”)

ECF No. 202, pg. 24.

On November 30, 2021, the District Judge issued an order addressing Defendant’s 

motion for reconsideration of the October 13, 2021, order on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See

ECF No. 222. The District Judge amended his prior order to “clarify that the statue of limitations 

precluded Harper from challenging wage statement violations alleged to have occurred prior to 

September 14, 2017, rather than prior to July 11, 2017.” Id. at 7. The District Judge denied 

Defendant’s alternative request for certification of the prior order for interlocutory appeal. See id.

at 8. 

On November 30, 2021, the District Judge also issued an order addressing Plaintiff 

Sinclair’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings as to his claims and a motion for class 

certification. See ECF No. 223. The District Judge granted the motion and lifted the stay of 

proceedings as to Plaintiff Sinclair’s claims. See id. at pg. 3. The District Judge also directed the 

parties to submit a stipulated briefing schedule as to a renewed motion for class certification. See

id. 

As to scheduling, the District Judge’s November 15, 2021, order, issued pursuant 

to stipulation of the parties, is the most recent. See ECF No. 213. The order imposes the 

following schedule:

January 14, 2022 Deadline for Defendant to complete its production 

of additional sampling documents/ESI pursuant to ECF 

Nos. 112 and 133 for purposes of Plaintiff Harper’s 

PAGA claim. 

February 2, 2022 Deadline to disclose expert witnesses.

March 18, 2022 Deadline to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses.

April 1, 2022 Discovery cut-off.

April 25, 2022 Dispositive motions filing deadline.

May 23, 2022 Deadline to file oppositions to dispositive motions.

June 3, 2022 Deadline to file replies in support of dispositive motions.

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 4 of 11
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

5

June 13, 2022 Hearing on all dispositive motions (at 1:30 p.m., before 

District Judge).

August 15, 2022 Final pre-trial conference (at 1:30 p.m., before District 

Judge).

October 4, 2022 Commencement of jury trial (at 9:00 a.m., before District 

Judge).

Id.

II. SUMMARY OF CURRENT DISCOVERY DISPUTE

This case has been before the Court previously on discovery motions. On October 

21, 2020, the Court issued an order addressing Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and directed 

Defendant to serve supplemental responses to interrogatories, provide a contact list, and produce 

documents reflecting a 10% sampling. See ECF No. 87, pg. 12. On May 5, 2021, the Court 

issued another order addressing a separate dispute over written discovery. See ECF No. 133. 

After extensive briefing and expenditure of time by the Court, the matter was resolved by way of 

a stipulation, which the Court adopted. See id. at 25. In doing so, the Court observed:

Charter appears to be engaging in delaying tactics 

regarding, in particular, discovery associated with sampling of employee 

data which would support Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 

Following the hearing on the prior discovery motions, the Court ordered 

discovery be provided by November 2, 2020. Instead of providing 

discovery, Charter served supplemental responses on November 2, 2020, 

indicating that it will provide discovery at some unspecified time in the 

future. Nothing was provided by November 2, 2020. Plaintiffs could have 

immediately sought Rule 37 sanctions for Charter’s non-compliance but 

did not. Instead, Plaintiffs engaged in further meet-and-confer efforts 

culminating in the February 17, 2021, discovery agreement which reduced 

the sampling size from 10% to 2% and required discovery be provided by 

March 8, 2021. As part of that agreement, and in a further sign of good 

faith, Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw a pending motion for Rule 37 

sanctions. Charter failed to produce documents by the agreed date and this 

motion followed. The Court will now reduce the parties’ February 17, 

2021, discovery stipulation to a formal order.

Id. at 24-25.

Following submission of a supporting declaration, the Court awarded Plaintiff monetary sanctions 

in the amount of $13,333.00 on August 30, 2021. See ECF No. 168. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 5 of 11
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

6

In the current motion, Defendant seeks further response to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 

and 21, and Request for Production Nos. 19, 20, and 51, propounded to Plaintiff Harper, and 

Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production Nos. 3 and 12 propounded to Plaintiff’s Abascal, 

Turner, and Vasquez. See ECF No. 224, pg. 6 (Joint Statement). According to Defendant, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to hide the fact that Plaintiff inappropriately sent unsolicited 

communications to putative class members and aggrieved employees based on confidential 

employee lists disclosed by Defendant. See id. at 6-7. Plaintiffs assert they engaged in allowable 

investigation, that Defendant’s claims of wrongdoing are baseless, and that Defendant’s 

arguments are hypocritical. See id. at 7-9. 

The current discovery dispute arose amid the following background, according to 

Defendant:

. . . Charter initially requested the subject documents and 

information in June 2020 discovery requests to Harper. Plaintiffs’ counsel 

did not produce any documents or information in response to those 

requests, nor did Plaintiffs’ counsel produce a privilege log or inform 

Charter that Plaintiff Harper was withholding documents. Over one year 

later, Charter uncovered the existence of the subject communications by 

chance during Plaintiff Hassan Turner’s deposition in August 2021, when 

he testified that he initially learned of this lawsuit in an unsolicited email 

he received from Plaintiffs’ counsel. Based on Plaintiffs’ responses to 

Defendant’s subsequent conferral efforts—including a belated and 

patently deficient privilege log—it appears Plaintiffs’ counsel sent mass, 

unsolicited communications to putative class members and allegedly 

aggrieved employees via LinkedIn, and then used the confidential class 

lists Charter produced in this case to send additional emails to putative 

class members and allegedly aggrieved employees for the purpose of 

soliciting additional Plaintiffs to sue Charter. Even worse, Plaintiffs’ 

counsel did all this while concealing his conduct from Charter for over 

one year. Only after Charter uncovered the information in Turner’s 

deposition did Plaintiffs grudgingly produce an untimely and deficiently 

vague privilege log. . . .

ECF No. 224, pgs. 6-7.

The relevant portion of the transcript of Plaintiff Turner’s August 12, 2021, deposition is attached 

as Exhibit 4 to the declaration of Defendant’s counsel. See ECF No. 224-1, pgs. 109-118. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 6 of 11
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

7

III. DISCUSSION

At issue are discovery requests propounded to Plaintiffs Harper, Abascal, Turner, 

and Vasquez. As outlined above, on October 13, 2021, the action was stayed by the District 

Judge as to Counts One through Nine of the second amended complaint pending arbitration of 

individual claims raised by Plaintiffs Harper, Turner, Vasquez, and Abascal. The action has not

been stayed as to Plaintiff Harper’s PAGA claims. Given the stay imposed by the District Judge, 

Defendant’s motion to compel – which was filed two weeks after the date of the District Judge’s 

order staying proceedings – is inappropriate as to any discovery propounded to Plaintiffs Abascal, 

Turner, and Vasquez, and as to non-PAGA discovery propounded to Plaintiff Harper. 

Defendant’s argument that the Court should disregard the District Judge’s stay is 

unpersuasive. Without citation to any authority, Defendant asserts:

Plaintiffs Harper, Vazquez, Turner, and Abascal have been compelled 

to arbitrate their individual, non-PAGA claims against Charter, and the case 

has been stayed as to all Plaintiffs’ non-PAGA claims pending the outcome 

of arbitration. (Dkt. 202.) By submitting this Joint Statement, Charter does 

not waive its request to compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims because the 

parties agreed to take discovery in court, and Charter served these requests 

and Plaintiffs deficiently responded before Charter filed its successful motion 

to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs should not benefit from their refusal to 

properly and adequately respond to Charter’s discovery requests based on the 

fact that certain of the Plaintiffs have since been compelled to arbitration. 

Moreover, these discovery requests relate directly to the underlying facts of 

the case and may impact whether Plaintiffs’ counsel or Plaintiff Sinclair are 

adequate class representatives once the stay is lifted. 

ECF No. 224, pg. 6, n.1 (Joint Statement).

Nothing in this statement provides a sufficient reason to ignore a stay of proceedings imposed by 

the District Judge before Defendant’s motion was filed. 

Because the parties agree that the discovery at issue served on Plaintiff Harper 

relates to his PAGA claims, which have not been stayed, the Court’s analysis will focus solely on 

discovery propounded on Harper. Defendant’s motion to compel will be denied as to discovery 

propounded on Plaintiff’s Turner, Vasquez, and Abascal. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 7 of 11
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

8

The six specific discovery requests at issue served on Harper are as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1

In Interrogatory No. 1, Defendant asks Plaintiff Harper to identify 

anyone (other than Harper’s counsel) with whom Harper or anyone acting 

on his behalf had communication regarding the facts or allegations in this 

case. See ECF No. 224, pg. 45. 

Interrogatory No. 2

In Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant asks Harper to state, with respect 

to each person identified in Interrogatory No. 1, the substance of each 

communication. See ECF No. 224, pg. 46.

Interrogatory No. 21

In Interrogatory No. 21, Defendant asks Harper to identify all 

persons who have responded to or inquired about the postings entitled 

“Employment Claims Against Charter Communications” and/or 

“Employment Claims Against Charter,” located at two specific internet 

addresses. See ECF No. 224, pg. 59. 

Request for Production No. 19

In Request for Production No. 19, Defendant asks Harper to 

produce all correspondence he, his counsel, or anyone else acting on his 

behalf has sent to any current or former employees of Defendant related to 

this action, as well as any mailing list used to distribute such 

correspondence. See ECF No. 224, pg. 48. 

Request for Production No. 20

In Request for Production No. 20, Defendant asks Harper to 

produce all internet pages or postings that he, his counsel, or anyone 

acting on his behalf have posted or disseminated to others relating to this 

lawsuit or Plaintiff Harper’s claims. See ECF No. 224, pg. 50. 

Request for Production No. 51

In Request for Production No. 51, Defendant asks Harper to 

produce all documents that constitute evidence, refer or relate to any 

responses to, or inquiry about or regarding, the posting entitled 

“Employment Claims Against Charter Communications” and/or 

“Employment Claims Against Charter,” located at two specific internet 

addresses. See ECF No. 224, pg. 62. 

Attached as Exhibit 3 to the declaration of Defendant’s counsel are the disputed 

discovery requests and Harper’s responses thereto. See ECF No. 224-1, pgs. 33-108. 

Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 and Request for Production Nos. 19 and 20 were served on Plaintiff 

Harper on June 29, 2020. See ECF No. 224-1, pg. 2, ¶ 5. Harper served responses on August 10, 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 8 of 11
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

9

2020. See id. Interrogatory No. 21 and Request for Production No. 51 were served on Plaintiff 

Harper on June 29, 2021 – a year after the other disputed discovery was served on Harper. See

id. Harper served responses on August 5, 2021. See id. Finally, during the meet-and-confer 

process, Plaintiff provided Defendant’s counsel a privilege log on September 8, 2021, which is 

attached as Exhibit 2 to the declaration of Defendant’s counsel. See id. at 28-32.

In Plaintiff Harper’s responses, as well as the privilege log, Plaintiff Harper 

asserted various privileges, including the attorney work product and attorney-client privileges,

with respect to the disputed discovery. See id. at 33-108 (responses) and 28-32 (privilege log). 

In his responses, Plaintiff Harper also objected to the discovery requests at issue on the grounds 

that they are overbroad, burdensome, and vague. See ECF No. 224-1, pgs. 33-108. In the current 

motion to compel, the parties address, collectively as to all disputed discovery without distinction 

among the various specific interrogatories and requests for production at issue, only the adequacy 

of the asserted privileges. See ECF No. 224, pgs. 22-44. Defendant Charter contends: (1) 

Plaintiff waived the attorney-client and work product privileges by failing to provide a privilege 

log in a timely manner and by failing to object during Plaintiffs’ depositions; and (2) in any event, 

the attorney-client and work product privileges do not apply. See id. at 22-29. Plaintiffs 

contend: (1) under California law, Plaintiffs have a right of equal access to putative class 

members; (2) the communications are protected by the work product and attorney-client 

privileges; and (3) Harper never waived any privileges. See id. at 29-43. 

Initially, despite Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff has used confidential 

employee lists to send unsolicited communications to putative class members, Defendant has not 

cited to any specific provision of the operative protective order Defendant alleges Plaintiffs 

violated. The Court finds this contention to be unsupported. 

Also unsupported are any arguments concerning Plaintiff Harper’s objections other 

than those based on privileges. Eastern District of California Local Rule 251(c)(3) requires the 

joint statement filed in support of a discovery dispute contain “[t]he contentions of each party as 

to each contested issue. . . .” Here, the joint statement contains briefing related only to Plaintiff’s 

various privilege objections. See ECF No. 224. Because Plaintiff’s other objections are not 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 9 of 11
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

10

briefed, they are not properly before the Court and are essentially waived. 

Assuming for the moment that Plaintiff Harper has an equal right to investigate by 

contacting putative class members, and assuming for the moment that the attorney-client and 

attorney work product privileges apply, Charter persuasively argues that any privileges were 

waived by Plaintiffs’ failure to provide a privilege log when the privileges were first asserted in 

the August 10, 2020, and August 4, 2021, responses to the disputed discovery requests. Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), when, as here, a party withholds information by 

claiming a privilege, the party must expressly make the claim and provide a privilege log with its 

discovery responses. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. District Ct. For the 

Dist. Of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Here, 

Plaintiff Harper did not provide any sort of privilege log with the August 10, 2020, or August 5, 

2021, responses, and only did so in September 2021 as part of the meet-and-confer process 

culminating in the instant motion to compel. This delay alone is sufficient to find waiver. See id.

at 1149. 

Moreover, the privilege log that was belatedly produced is insufficient. To be 

adequate, a privilege log must describe the material withheld, state the identify and position of the 

withheld material’s author, state the identities of all addresses and recipients, and provide specific 

reasons for withholding the material. See Friends of Hope Valley v. Frederick Co., 268 F.R.D. 

643, 651-52 (E.D. Cal. 2010) see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). The privilege log supplied 

by Plaintiff in September 2021 fails to do so. See ECF No. 224-1, pgs. 28-32. 

Because Plaintiff Harper failed to provide a timely and adequate privilege log, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertions of privilege are waived. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 10 of 11
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

11

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to compel, ECF No. 207, is denied as to the discovery 

at issue served on Plaintiffs Turner, Vasquez, and Abascal;

2. Defendant’s motion to compel, ECF No. 207, is granted as to Interrogatory 

Nos. 1, 2, and 21, and Request for Production Nos. 19, 20, and 51, served on Plaintiff Harper, 

who shall provide further responses thereto and produce the documents requested, without 

objection, within 30 days of the date of this order;

3. Defendant’s counsel shall file a declaration in support of reasonable 

expenses associated with the instant motion within 30 days of the date of this order;

4. Plaintiff’s counsel may file a response to any declaration filed in support of 

an award of expenses within 14 days of the date of service of Defendant’s declaration. 

Dated: December 10, 2021

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 234 Filed 12/13/21 Page 11 of 11