Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-64/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and SARAH

SOBEK, individually, and on behalf of all

other similarly situated current and former

employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers,

LLP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, a 

Limited Liability Partnership,

Defendant.

No. 06-CV-02376-TLN-AC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs Jason Campbell and Sarah Sobek’s, 

individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated class members (collectively referred to 

as “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Exclude testimony of Defendants’ Experts Ruben A. Davila (“Davila”) 

and Sandra Johnigan (“Johnigan”). (See ECF No. 609.) The Court held a hearing on this matter 

on October 17, 2014, and took this matter under submission. (See Am. Min., ECF No. 624.)

At the hearing, the Court indicated that both Davila and Johnigan qualified as experts and 

that the Court was inclined to allow their testimony. The Court took the matter under submission 

to determine whether using terms such as “accounting professionals” in regard to the class of 

unlicensed individuals referred to as Attest Associates is likely to be confusing to the jury. 

The main issue in this case is whether the class members who are not licensed accountants 

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 625 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 2
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

fall under two state regulatory exemptions from mandatory overtime: the “Professional 

Exemption” and the “Administrative Exemption.” See Cal. Lab. Code § 515. Plaintiffs argue 

that allowing Davila and Johnigan to refer to or label unlicensed Attest Associates as 

“professionals” is confusing and misleading and intended to suggest or imply that unlicensed 

Attest Associates are exempt professionals. 

Under the relevant code, a person meeting the “Professional Exemption” is defined as 

follows:

A person employed in a professional capacity means any employee 

who meets all of the following requirements:

(a) Who is licensed or certified by the State of California and is 

primarily engaged in the practice of one of the following 

recognized professions: law, medicine, dentistry, optometry, 

architecture, engineering, teaching, or accounting; or

(b) Who is primarily engaged in an occupation commonly 

recognized as a learned or artistic profession. . . .

Cal. Code Regs. Titl 8, §11010(1)(A)(3). Thus, the term professional has significant legal 

significance in this matter. The Court is inclined to agree that expert testimony employing the 

term professional in this situation could cause confusion and impermissibly suggest a legal 

conclusion. As such, both parties are hereby ordered to curtail any expert testimony 

appropriately. In conclusion, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendants’ Experts, 

Davila and Johnigan (ECF No. 609) is DENIED, and both parties are hereby precluded from 

offering testimony referring to class members or similarly situated individuals as professionals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 625 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 2