JME Dec re motion to compel discovery from Jack in the Box Page 1 

Jon M. Egan, OSB 002467 

Jegan@eganlegalteam.com 

Jon M. Egan, PC 

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

Telephone: (503) 697-3427 

Fax: (866) 311-5629 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, 

NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, 

CHRISTINA MAULDIN and JASON 

DIAZ, both on behalf of themselves 

individually and, in addition, on behalf of the 

other similarly situated employees, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware 

corporation doing business in Oregon as “Jack 

in the Box Inc. a Corporation of Delaware,”

Defendant. 

 Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-BR

DECLARATION OF JON M. EGAN IN 

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM 

JACK IN THE BOX 

I, Jon M. Egan, do hereby declare and say: 

1. I am the attorney for Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal knowledge of all of the 

facts herein and am competent to testify thereto. 

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ first request for 

production. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Jack in the Box’s response 

to plaintiffs’ first request for production. 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Jack in the Box’s 

supplemental response to plaintiffs’ first request for production. 
JME Dec re motion to compel discovery from Jack in the Box Page 2 

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ counsel’s 

November 10, 2015 letter to Jack in the Box’s counsel regarding several issues 

pertaining to the requested discovery. 

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Jack in the Box’s counsel’s 

November 13, 2015 letter in response. 

7. On Friday, November 20, 2015, plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with Jack in the Box’s 

counsel and narrowed the outstanding issues for this motion to compel 

precertification discovery to those outlined in the motion. 

I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 

and correct. 

Executed on this 23rd day of November, 2015 

JON M. EGAN, P.C. 

/s/ Jon M. Egan 

 

Jon M. Egan, OSB # 002467 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 1 

Jon M. Egan, OSB 002467 

Jegan@eganlegalteam.com 

Jon M. Egan, PC 

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

Telephone: (503) 697-3427 

Fax: (866) 311-5629 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, 

NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, 

CHRISTINA MAULDIN and JASON 

DIAZ, both on behalf of themselves 

individually and, in addition, on behalf of the 

other similarly situated employees, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware 

corporation doing business in Oregon as “Jack

in the Box Inc. a Corporation of Delaware,”

Defendant.

 Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-BR 

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION

To: Defendant and your agents, employees, directors, officers and attorney(s) 

(“You”): 

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that 

you produce and permit Plaintiffs to inspect and copy the following designated tangible 

things and documents at the office of Jon M. Egan, PC, 547 Fifth Street, Lake Oswego, 

OR 97034-3009, no later than 30 days from the date of this request or at such other 

time or place as may be mutually agreed. 

Exhibit 1 

Page 1 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 2 

Each request below calls for the production of all of the described documents and 

things that are in your possession, custody or control, or which you have access to or the 

ability to produce or obtain through a reasonable investigation or inquiry, or of which 

you are in a position to cause production by your directions or orders. For each request 

below that does not specifically call for documents from a specific time period, the 

request includes all documents generated from August 13, 2004 up to the time the case 

is tried. 

This request for production shall be deemed continuous and shall call for 

production of all documents and information that might come into your possession, 

custody or control at any time after the receipt of this request for production. 

For the purposes of this request for production, the following definitions shall apply: 

1. “Document” and/or “documents” is used in its broadest sense and includes, without 

limitation, recorded material in any form, including the originals and all nonidentical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made 

on such copy or otherwise, including but not limited to: correspondence, 

memoranda, notices, notes, calendars, diaries, minutes, summaries, reports, 

transcripts, contracts, checks, statements, returns, books, pamphlets, 

questionnaires, surveys, agreements, manuals, warranties, inter-office and intraoffice communications, offers, notations of conversations or telephone calls, 

bulletins, computer records of all types, audio, video or other recordings, email, 

entries on any blog, web site or social networking site, text messages and other 

digital or electronic media, however produced, reproduced or stored, and any other 

items subject to production and inspection under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. 

Exhibit 1 

Page 2 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 3 

For any document created or stored in 

electronic format, please produce the 

document in that native electronic format 

(with all metadata intact) if the format is 

readable by any Microsoft Office program or 

QuickBooks. If it is not so readable, please 

export the document into a format that is so 

readable. If it is not possible to export the 

document into a readable format, please 

produce the document as a searchable PDF 

document created directly from the native 

program. Do not produce paper printouts 

unless none of the above apply.

2. “Relating to” and all conjugations of that phrase mean consisting of, identifying, 

concerning, referring to, alluding to, responding to, in connection with, 

commenting on, in response to, about, regarding, explaining, discussing, showing, 

describing, studying, reflecting upon, analyzing or constituting. 

If you contend that any requested document is privileged in whole or in part, or 

otherwise object to any part of a request, identify with particularity each document for 

which you claim a privilege or state an objection, state the grounds for the objection or 

privilege, and identify each person or entity having knowledge of the factual basis, if 

any, on which the privilege or other ground is asserted, per Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. 

Request No. 1: Any and all documents reflecting the names and/or contact 

information of every franchisee with whom you ceased to do business under a franchise 

agreement during any fiscal year on or after January 1, 2006.

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 3 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 4 

Request No. 2: Any and all documents reflecting the names and/or contact 

information of every person with whom you terminated a development agreement 

during any fiscal year on or after January 1, 2006.

Response: 

Request No. 3: Any and all franchise, license, development, lease, operating, 

equipment brokerage, master technology and other contracts or agreements (and any 

and all addenda, exhibits and amendments thereto) signed by any person to whom you 

have granted or with whom you have maintained a franchise of or for any Jack in the 

Box location in the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006.

Response: 

Request No. 4: All documents identifying any person who participated in training or 

providing support or services to any franchisee or franchisee employee on or after 

January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 5: All documents identifying any person who represented you or 

communicated on your behalf with any current or potential Oregon franchisee on or 

after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 6: All documents identifying any person involved in the transition of any 

corporate Oregon store to franchisee operation on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 4 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 5 

Request No. 7: All documents identifying any person involved in developing any new 

Jack in the Box site or location in Oregon on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 8: All documents identifying any non-traditional venue operated by you 

or any franchisee or licensee in Oregon on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 9: All applications and other documents submitted to you by or by you to 

any Oregon franchisee candidate on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 10: All interview notes or other documents relating to any interview of 

any Oregon franchisee candidate on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 11: Any and all Jack’s Timekeeping records for all franchisee employees 

within the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 12: All posters, training materials, manuals, handbooks, and other 

documents used by and/or provided to franchisee employees at any time on or after 

January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 5 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 6 

Request No. 13: All documents used in training of franchisee employees at any time 

on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 14: Any and all records of, or regarding, communications (including but 

not limited to any correspondence, notes, email correspondence, or recorded voicemail 

messages) to, from, between, or among any employee and/or Defendant regarding or 

relating to the subject matter of this litigation. 

Response: 

Request No. 15: All document and record retention and oversight policies in effect on 

or after January 1, 2006. 

Response: 

Request No. 16: Any and all records regarding or relating to any steps Defendant has 

taken to preserve relevant records, including but not limited to email and other 

electronic communication, since May 3, 2010. 

Response: 

Request No. 17: Documents to or from the U.S. Department of Labor or any state 

equivalent of the U.S. Department of Labor regarding compliance with the FLSA or 

compensation of employees. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 6 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 7 

Request No. 18: All documents that you believe support each and every affirmative 

defense that you assert or intend to assert in response to this lawsuit. 

Response: 

Request No. 19: Any and all documents related to any and all bank accounts ever used 

by you in the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006, regardless of whether such 

account was or is held in your name. 

Response: 

Request No. 20: Any and all documents reflecting any real property interest held by 

you in the state of Oregon at any time. 

Response: 

Request No. 21: Any and all real property lease documents identifying you as either a 

landlord or tenant in the state of Oregon. 

Response: 

Request No. 22: Any and all government-issued business or sales license or permit 

documents that have ever been issued to you and/or any franchisee in the state of 

Oregon. 

Response: 

Request No. 23: Any and all documents, including contracts of sale, invoices and 

receipts, pertaining to the sale or transfer of any and all equipment, furnishings, 

Exhibit 1 

Page 7 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 8 

fixtures, licenses, trademarks and other property to any franchisee in the state of 

Oregon. 

Response: 

Request No. 24: Any and all documents containing your policies or procedures for 

transferring a Jack in the Box location from corporate operation to franchisee operation.

Response: 

Request No. 25: Any and all documents containing your policies or procedures for 

starting a Jack in the Box location under franchisee operation from its outset.

Response: 

Request No. 26: Any and all documents used in or containing your policies or 

procedures for training franchisees or any other person employed at a Jack in the Box 

location under franchisee operation.

Response: 

Request No. 27: Any and all documents containing policies or procedures that you 

require franchisees to follow in the operation of Jack in the Box locations.

Response: 

Request No. 28: Any and all documents indicating the dates that each and every Jack 

in the Box location in Oregon was operated by a franchisee, and the dates that each 

franchisee operated it.

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 8 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 9 

Request No. 29: Any and all documents relating to your wage and hour policies 

and/or procedures at any time on or after August 13, 2004, including but not limited to 

personnel policy manuals, employee handbooks, computer-based training or similar 

documents, as well as materials used in training assistant managers, managers or 

anyone else regarding the applicable policies. 

Response:

Request No. 30: Any and all booklets, manuals, workbooks, guides, text, scripts, 

transcripts, and actual audiovisual (flash or otherwise) files (and any accompanying 

audio and video files) (playable in a browser for the jury) for the current and all previous 

versions of all CBT modules, classroom training, on-the-job training, and any and all 

other training that franchisee owners or operators are or have been required to 

complete on or after January 1, 2006. 

Response:

Request No. 31: Any and all hotline database entries pertaining to franchisees and 

containing any of the following key words: break, breaks, meal, meals, lunch, lunches, 

rest or rests.

Response: 

Request No. 32: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control related in any way to any plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, 

including, but not limited to, any plaintiff’s arbitration agreement, hours worked, 

breaks, wages, deductions, uniforms, and non-slip shoes. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 9 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 10 

Request No. 33: Any and all policies, procedures, manuals, description of benefits, 

handbooks, rules, correspondence, agreements, and any other documents, whether or 

not you allege any plaintiff received them, related to any plaintiff’s employment with 

Defendant. 

Response: 

Request No. 34: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control that refer, relate to, support, or reflect the allegations in the 

Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 35: Any and all personal diaries, calendars, journals, or similar 

documents prepared by any plaintiff during any plaintiff’s employment with Defendant 

and/or any franchisee. 

Response: 

Request No. 36: Any and all personal diaries, calendars, journals, or similar 

documents prepared by you during any plaintiff’s employment with Defendant and/or 

any franchisee. 

Response: 

Request No. 37: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to any plaintiff’s final payment 

from Defendant, including, but not limited to, document, tangible items, or electronic 

Exhibit 1 

Page 10 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 11 

data referring, reflecting, or relating to the date any plaintiff received a final payment 

from Defendant. 

Response: 

Request No. 38: Any and all documents and all tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control that relate to, refer to or show any information that you allege were 

received or reviewed by any plaintiff from any source concerning any of the wage and 

hour laws at issue in this case. 

Response: 

Request No. 39: Any and all documents and all tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control that relate to, refer to or show any information received or reviewed 

by you from any source concerning any of the wage and hour laws at issue in this case. 

Response: 

Request No. 40: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to communications with any 

other person concerning any of the factual allegations or claims made in the Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 41: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control that you allege any plaintiff removed from Defendant’s premises at 

any time. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 11 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 12 

Request No. 42: Any and all documents and all tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control which reflect communications or correspondence to or from any 

governmental entity that relate to or refer to the claims alleged in the Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 43: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control which relate to, refer to or show any written or recorded statements 

made or obtained by you from any individual concerning the subject matter of the 

Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 44: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control which relate to, refer to or show any written or recorded statements 

that you allege were made or obtained by any plaintiff from any individual concerning 

the subject matter of the Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 45: Any and all documents and all tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control which relate to, refer to or show any reports received by you from any 

individual concerning the subject matter of the Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 46: Any and all audio or video recordings of any of your employees made 

by you or on your behalf at any time. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 12 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 13 

Request No. 47: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control that allegedly relate to, refer to or show that any plaintiff will or will 

not fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of all members of the 

purported class. 

Response: 

Request No. 48: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control related in any way to any plaintiff’s employment with any franchisee, 

including, but not limited to, any plaintiff’s personnel records, hours worked, breaks, 

wages, deductions, uniforms, and nonslip shoes. 

Response: 

Request No. 49: Any and all policies, procedures, manuals, description of benefits, 

handbooks, rules, correspondence, and any other documents related to any plaintiff’s 

employment with any franchisee. 

Response: 

Request No. 50: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, 

custody or control that you allege any plaintiff removed from any franchisee’s premises 

at any time. 

Response: 

Request No. 51: Any and all documents and tangible items in your possession, custody 

or control that you removed from any Oregon franchisee’s premises at any time. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 13 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 14 

Request No. 52: Any and all audio or video recordings of any franchisee’s employees 

made by you or on your behalf at any time. 

Response: 

Request No. 53: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to Jack’s Timekeeping during 

the time any plaintiff was employed with any franchisee. 

Response: 

Request No. 54: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to any interaction or 

communication any plaintiff had with any management or supervisory employee of Jack 

in the Box, Inc. during the time that any plaintiff was employed with any franchisee. 

Response: 

Request No. 55: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to the transfer of ownership of 

the restaurant any plaintiff worked in from Defendant to any franchisee, including, but 

not limited to, communications from Defendant and/or any franchisee concerning any 

changes to the employment status of restaurant employees as a result of the transfer of 

ownership. 

Response: 

Request No. 56: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to communications with any 

Exhibit 1 

Page 14 of 16
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production Page 15 

named plaintiffs or putative class or collective members. 

Response: 

Request No. 57: Any and all documents, tangible items, or electronic data in your 

possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to any calculations of damages 

or other relief any plaintiff seeks to recover in this litigation. 

Response: 

Request No. 58: Any and all documents or tangible evidence that pertain to, refer to, 

reflect, support, refute or otherwise document all references made by any plaintiff or to 

any plaintiff in social media (including but not limited to: Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, 

Pinterest, GooglePlus+, Tumblr, Flickr, Vine, Meetup, tagged, Instagram, Snapchat, 

YouTube, and MySpace) about any plaintiff’s employment with Defendant or any 

franchisee or the allegations in the Complaint. 

Response: 

Request No. 59: Any and all Master equipment leases between you and third party 

vendors; Franchise Business Manuals, Approved Supplier Manuals, Operating Manuals, 

and other manuals, however named or renamed, amended, expanded and/or 

consolidated by you from time to time; other written standards, policies, approved 

sources for the System, and any and all other reference documents that contain 

standards or other information regarding the operation of a franchised restaurant, as 

well as any written standards that comprise part of your operating system, that have 

been in effect on or after January 1, 2008. 

Response: 

Exhibit 1 

Page 15 of 16
Request No. 6o: Any and all letters, notices or other demands to any franchisees 

notifying them of this suit, tendering the suit for defense, or seeking indemnity for the 

claims asserted therein. 

Response: 

Dated this September 15, 2015 

Plaintiffs' First Request for Production Page 16 

Exhibit 1 

Page 16 of 16
Douglas S. Parker, OSB No. 821017 

dparker@li ttler. com 

Jennifer Warberg, OSB No. 035472 

jwarberg@littler.com 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503 .221.0309 

Fax No.: 503.242.2457 

Attorneys for Defendant 

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Corporation of Delaware 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, Case No.: 3:14-cv-01092-BR 

NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA 

TETRAULT, CHRISTINA MAULDIN, 

and JASON DIAZ, both on behalf of 

themselves individually and, in addition, on 

behalf of the other similarly situated 

employees, 

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware 

corporation doing business in Oregon as 

"Jack In The Box Inc. A Corporation of 

Delaware,", 

Defendant. 

TO: Plaintiffs Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, Christina 

Mauldin, and Jason Dias, and their attorney, Jon Egan. 

Page 1 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 1 of 27
Pursuant to Rules 26, 33, and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Jack 

m the Box, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby submits its responses, answers, and objections to 

Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, as follows: 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

The following objections apply generally to all of Plaintiffs' discovery requests: 

(a) Objections to Scope of Discovery Requests. Defendant objects to all discovery 

requests to the extent they purport to require any actions not required by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Local Rules, or Orders of the Court specific to this case. Without limiting the 

generality of this objection, Defendant objects to all discovery requests to the extent that they 

(1) go beyond the scope of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) are 

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) purport to 

impose a duty of supplementation greater than that imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

(b) Privilege and Trial Preparation Materials. Defendant objects to all discovery 

requests to the extent they call for information or documents that fall within any relevant 

privilege (including without limitation the attorney-client privilege), that are within the work 

product doctrine, that constitute trial preparation materials, seek the mental impressions of 

counsel, or that qualify for any other discovery immunity. 

(c) No Waiver. Nothing set forth in Defendant's specific objections, general 

objections or responses is intended as or should be construed as a waiver of these general 

objections, or of any specific objections set forth. The fact that Defendant has not responded to 

or objected to any requests or part thereof should not be taken as an admission that Defendant 

accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by Plaintiffs' request, or that any 

such response or objection constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Defendant has 

Page 2 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 2 of 27
answered part or all of any request is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by 

Defendant of all or any part of any objections to any request. Furthermore, this response and the 

associated document production, if any, are made without prejudice to using or relying on at trial 

documents or information discovered after the date of this response and production as a result of 

mistake, error, oversight or inadvertence. Defendant further reserves the right to produce 

additional facts, evidence and/or documents at trial, and to object on appropriate grounds to the 

introduction of any documents produced in connection with this response. 

( d) Reservation of Rights. Defendant reserves the right to move later for a protective 

order or otherwise to seek relief from the court if the parties are unable to resolve Defendant's 

objections by agreement. 

(e) Publicly Available Documents. Defendant objects to producing publicly available 

documents (including without limitation court records) that are, due to their public availability, 

equally available to the requesting party. 

(f) Amendment/Supplementation. Defendant reserves the right to amend and 

supplement its responses as reasonably may be necessary. 

(g) Duplicative Requests. To the extent that any discovery request seeks documents 

that are also sought by or identified pursuant to any other request, Defendant declines to produce 

or identify multiple copies of such documents, and Defendant states that each document 

produced or identified pursuant to any request is also produced pursuant to any other request to 

which it is responsive. 

(h) Privilege Log. Defendant reserves the right to produce a privilege log if the 

parties deem it necessary. 

Page 3 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 3 of 27
Defendant's Response to each Request for Production specifically incorporates these 

General Objections by this reference. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Any and all documents reflecting the names 

and/or contact information of every franchisee with whom you ceased to do business under a 

franchise agreement during any fiscal year on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce a list containing the 

identity and last known contact information for those franchisees with whom Defendant has 

ceased doing business under a franchise agreement since 2006 to the extent that the information 

can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Any and all documents reflecting the names 

and/or contact information of every person with whom you terminated a development agreement 

during any fiscal year on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce a list containing the 

identity and last known contact information for those individuals or entities with whom 

Defendant has terminated a development agreement since 2006 to the extent that the information 

can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Any and all franchise, license, development, 

lease, operating, equipment brokerage, master technology and other contracts or agreements (and 

any and all addenda, exhibits and amendments thereto) signed by any person to whom you have 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

Page 4- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 4 of 27
granted or with whom you have maintained a franchise of or for any Jack in the Box location in 

the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks proprietary information. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant 

will produce its franchise, lease, and related agreements with Northwest Group, Inc. to the extent 

that they can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents identifying any person who 

participated in training or providing support or services to any franchisee or franchisee employee 

on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request 

seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond 

the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will 

produce a list of individuals holding the position of Franchise Business Consultant, or 

equivalent, in Oregon since 2006. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents identifying any person who 

represented you or communicated on your behalf with any current or potential Oregon franchisee 

on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks 

Page 5 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 5 of 27
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents identifying any person 

involved in the transition of any corporate Oregon store to franchisee operation on or after 

January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 5. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents identifying any person 

involved in developing any new Jack in the Box site or location in Oregon on or after January 1, 

2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks proprietary information. Without waiving any of its objections, see 

objections and response to Request for Production No. 5. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents identifying any nontraditional venue operated by you or any franchisee or licensee in Oregon on or after January 1, 

2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks proprietary information. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant 

states that no such locations exist in Oregon. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All applications and other documents 

submitted to you by or by you to any Oregon franchisee candidate on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

Page 6 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 6 of 27
discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks highly confidential information concerning a nonparty. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All interview notes or other documents 

relating to any interview of any Oregon franchisee candidate on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks highly confidential information concerning a nonparty. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Any and all Jack's Timekeeping records for 

all franchisee employees within the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks documents not in the possession of Defendant. Defendant further objects on 

the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior 

to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its 

objections, Defendant will produce the requested information for the named plaintiffs to the 

extent the documentation exists and was not already produced in Gessele I. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All posters, training materials, manuals, 

handbooks, and other documents used by and/or provided to franchisee employees at any time on 

or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

Page 7 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 7 of 27
evidence, and seeks documents not in the possession of Defendant. Defendant further objects on 

the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior 

to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All documents used in training of 

franchisee employees at any time on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks documents not in the possession of Defendant. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Any and all records of, or regarding, 

communications (including but not limited to any correspondence, notes, email correspondence, 

or recorded voicemail messages) to, from, between, or among any employee and/or Defendant 

regarding or relating to the subject matter of this litigation. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by 

the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant also objects on the 

grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to 

certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its 

objections, Defendants states that it is not aware of any non-privileged responsive documents 

that were not already produced in Gessele I. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All document and record retention and 

oversight policies in effect on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

Page 8 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 8 of 27
ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks 

merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the 

scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs 

Plaintiffs to the deposition of Lea Haggerty in Gessele I regarding Defendant's records retention 

manual, portions of which were produced in Gessele I. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Any and all records regarding or relating to 

any steps Defendant has taken to preserve relevant records, including but not limited to email 

and other electronic communication, since May 3, 2010. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by 

the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant also objects on the 

grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to 

certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Documents to or from the U.S. Department 

of Labor or any state equivalent of the U.S. Department of Labor regarding compliance with the 

FLSA or compensation of employees. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the deposition 

testimony of Raymond Pepper in Gessele I regarding state and federal Department of Labor 

matters. Defendant further states that it will produce documentation it received from the Oregon 

Page 9 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 9 of 27
Bureau of Labor and Industries regarding the resolution of any wage and hour matters since 2006 

to the extent that they exist and can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All documents that you believe support 

each and every affirmative defense that you assert or intend to assert in response to this lawsuit. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as seeking documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, trial preparation materials, and the mental 

impressions of counsel. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks meritsbased discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of 

pre-certification discovery. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Any and all documents related to any and 

all bank accounts ever used by you in the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006, regardless 

of whether such account was or is held in your name. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks highly confidential and proprietary information. Without waiving any of its 

objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the "Method of Payment and Application of 

Payments" section of the franchise agreements with Northwest Group, Inc. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Any and all documents reflecting any real 

property interest held by you in the state of Oregon at any time. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 3. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Any and all real property lease documents 

identifying you as either a landlord or tenant in the state of Oregon. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 3. 

Page 10- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Monison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 10 of 27
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Any and all government-issued business or 

sales license or permit documents that have ever been issued to you and/or any :franchisee in the 

state of Oregon. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks documents not in the possession of Defendant. 

Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce responsive documents to the 

extent they exist and can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Any and all documents, including contracts 

of sale, invoices and receipts, pertaining to the sale or transfer of any and all equipment, 

furnishings, fixtures, licenses, trademarks and other property to any :franchisee in the state of 

Oregon. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 3. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Any and all documents containing your 

policies or procedures for transferring a Jack in the Box location from corporate operation to 

:franchisee operation. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks proprietary information. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant 

will produce responsive documents relating to Northwest Group, Inc. to the extent they exist and 

can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Any and all documents containing your 

policies or procedures for starting a Jack in the Box location under :franchisee operation from its 

Page 11 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 11 of 27
outset. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 24. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Any and all documents used in or 

containing your policies or procedures for training franchisees or any other person employed at a 

Jack in the Box location under franchisee operation. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as seeking documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, trial preparation materials, and the mental 

impressions of counsel. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks meritsbased discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of 

pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce 

responsive documents since 2006 to the extent they exist and can be located after a reasonable 

search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Any and all documents containing policies 

or procedures that you require franchisees to follow in the operation of Jack in the Box locations. 

RESPONSE: See objections and responses to Request for Production Nos. 3 and 30. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Any and all documents indicating the dates 

that each and every Jack in the Box location in Oregon was operated by a franchisee, and the 

dates that each franchisee operated it. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce a list containing the 

Page 12 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 12 of 27
requested information. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Any and all documents relating to your 

wage and hour policies and/or procedures at any time on or after August 13, 2004, including but 

not limited to personnel policy manuals, employee handbooks, computer-based training or 

similar documents, as well as materials used in training assistant managers, managers or anyone 

else regarding the applicable policies. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as seeking documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, trial preparation materials, and the mental 

impressions of counsel. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks meritsbased discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of 

pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to 

the documents produced in Gessele I. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Any and all booklets, manuals, workbooks, 

guides, text, scripts, transcripts, and actual audiovisual (flash or otherwise) files (and any 

accompanying audio and video files) (playable in a browser for the jury) for the current and all 

previous versions of all CBT modules, classroom training, on-the-job training, and any and all 

other training that franchisee owners or operators are or have been required to complete on or 

after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 26. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Any and all hotline database entries 

pertaining to franchisees and containing any of the following key words: break, breaks, meal, 

Page 13 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 13 of 27
meals, lunch, lunches, rest or rests. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery 

related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification 

discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce the requested 

information for the named Plaintiffs to the extent the documentation exists and was not already 

produced in Gessele I. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control related in any way to any plaintiff's employment with 

Defendant, including, but not limited to, any plaintiff's arbitration agreement, hours worked, 

breaks, wages, deductions, uniforms, and non-slip shoes. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery 

related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification 

discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the documents 

produced in Gessele I. Defendant will also produce Jason Diaz's personnel file and time and 

payroll records. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Any and all policies, procedures, manuals, 

description of benefits, handbooks, rules, correspondence, agreements, and any other documents, 

whether or not you allege any plaintiff received them, related to any plaintiff's employment with 

Defendant. 

Page 14 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 14 of 27
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous as to "related to any plaintiff's employment", overbroad in scope, unduly 

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to 

putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. 

Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the documents produced in 

Gessele I and see response to Request for Production No. 32. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control that refer, relate to, support, or reflect the allegations in the 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based 

discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of precertification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the 

documents produced in Gessele I and the documents produced in response to the other requests 

herein. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Any and all personal diaries, calendars, 

journals, or similar documents prepared by any plaintiff during any plaintiff's employment with 

Defendant and/or any franchisee. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request 

Page 15 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 15 of 27
seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond 

the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant states 

that it does not maintain such documents in the normal course of its business and is not aware of 

any responsive documents. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Any and all personal diaries, calendars, 

journals, or similar documents prepared by you during any plaintiffs employment with 

Defendant and/or any franchisee. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks 

merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the 

scope of pre-certification discovery. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it 

seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. As 

Defendant is a corporate entity and not a "person", it does not prepare or maintain "personal" 

records. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to any plaintiffs 

final payment from Defendant, including, but not limited to, document, tangible items, or 

electronic data referring, reflecting, or relating to the date any plaintiff received a final payment 

from Defendant. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based 

Page 16- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 16 of 27
discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of precertification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the 

documents produced in Gessele I and see response to Request for Production No. 32. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Any and all documents and all tangible 

items in your possession, custody or control that relate to, refer to or show any information that 

you allege were received or reviewed by any plaintiff from any source concerning any of the 

wage and hour laws at issue in this case. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based 

discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of precertification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the 

documents produced in Gessele I and see response to Request for Production No. 32. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Any and all documents and all tangible 

items in your possession, custody or control that relate to, refer to or show any information 

received or reviewed by you from any source concerning any of the wage and hour laws at issue 

in this case. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks 

documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant 

also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative 

class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without 

Page 17 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 17 of 27
waiving any of its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the documents produced in Gessele 

I and the documents produced in response to the other requests herein. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to 

communications with any other person concerning any of the factual allegations or claims made 

in the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant also objects 

on the grounds to the extent that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative 

class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control that you allege any plaintiff removed from Defendant's 

premises at any time. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence as Defendant has not made any such allegation. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Any and all documents and all tangible 

items in your possession, custody or control which reflect communications or correspondence to 

or from any governmental entity that relate to or refer to the claims alleged in the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: See objections and response to Request for Production No. 17. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control which relate to, refer to or show any written or recorded 

statements made or obtained by you from any individual concerning the subject matter of the 

Page 18 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 18 of 27
Complaint. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waiving any of 

its objections, Defendant states that it is not aware of any non-privileged responsive documents. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control which relate to, refer to or show any written or recorded 

statements that you allege were made or obtained by any plaintiff from any individual 

concerning the subject matter of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waiving any of 

its objections, Defendant states that it is not aware of any responsive documents. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Any and all documents and all tangible 

items in your possession, custody or control which relate to, refer to or show any reports received 

by you from any individual concerning the subject matter of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waiving any of 

its objections, Defendant states that it is not aware of any non-privileged responsive documents. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Any and all audio or video recordings of 

any of your employees made by you or on your behalf at any time. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based 

discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of prePage 19 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 19 of 27
certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant states that it is not 

aware of any recordings of the named Plaintiffs during the time period they were employed by 

Defendant. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control that allegedly relate to, refer to or show that any plaintiff 

will or will not fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of all members of the 

purported class. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waiving any of 

its objections, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to the pleadings in Gessele I regarding the failure to 

timely file written consents. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control related in any way to any plaintiffs employment with any 

franchisee, including, but not limited to, any plaintiffs personnel records, hours worked, breaks, 

wages, deductions, uniforms, and nonslip shoes. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks documents not in the possession of Defendant. Defendant further objects on 

the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior 

to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its 

objections, see objections and response to Request for Production No. 11. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Any and all policies, procedures, manuals, 

description of benefits, handbooks, rules, correspondence, and any other documents related to 

Page 20 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 20 of 27
any plaintiffs employment with any franchisee. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence, and seeks documents not in the possession of Defendant. Defendant further objects on 

the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior 

to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its 

objections, see objections and response to Request for Production No. 11. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control that you allege any plaintiff removed from any 

franchisee's premises at any time. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence as Defendant has not made any such allegation and would not be aware of what 

Plaintiffs may or may not have removed from any franchisee's premises. Defendant further 

objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class 

members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Any and all documents and tangible items 

in your possession, custody or control that you removed from any Oregon franchisee's premises 

at any time. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request 

seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond 

Page 21 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 21 of 27
the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant states 

that it is not aware of documents or tangible items removed from any Oregon franchisee's 

premises. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Any and all audio or video recordings of 

any franchisee's employees made by you or on your behalf at any time. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery 

related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification 

discovery. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to Jack's 

Timekeeping during the time any plaintiff was employed with any franchisee. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Without waiving any of its objections, see response to Request for Production No. 11. 

Defendant will produce any updated Jack's Timekeeeping documents that were previously 

produced in Gessele I to the extent they exist and can be located after a reasonable search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to any 

interaction or communication any plaintiff had with any management or supervisory employee of 

Jack in the Box, Inc. during the time that any plaintiff was employed with any franchisee. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

Page 22 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 22 of 27
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery 

related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification 

discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant states that it is unaware of any 

responsive communication in its possession. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to the transfer of 

ownership of the restaurant any plaintiff worked in from Defendant to any franchisee, including, 

but not limited to, communications from Defendant and/or any franchisee concerning any 

changes to the employment status ofrestaurant employees as a result of the transfer of 

ownership. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based 

discovery related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of precertification discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, see objections and response to 

Requests for Production No. 24 and 54. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to 

communications with any named plaintiffs or putative class or collective members. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery 

related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification 

discovery. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by 

Page 23 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 23 of 27
the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waiving any of its 

objections, Defendant states that it is unaware of any responsive communications other than the 

documents produced and depositions taken in Gessele I. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Any and all documents, tangible items, or 

electronic data in your possession, custody or control that refer, reflect, or relate to any 

calculations of damages or other relief any plaintiff seeks to recover in this litigation. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant also objects 

on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery related to putative class members 

prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification discovery. Without waiving any 

of its objections, Defendant states that the only non-privileged responsive documents that it is 

aware of are documents provided by counsel for Plaintiff. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Any and all documents or tangible evidence 

that pertain to, refer to, reflect, support, refute or otherwise document all references made by any 

plaintiff or to any plaintiff in social media (including but not limited to: Facebook, twitter, 

Linkedin, Pinterest, GooglePlus+, Tumblr, Flickr, Vine, Meetup, tagged, Instagram, Snapchat, 

Y ouTube, and MySpace) about any plaintiffs employment with Defendant or any franchisee or 

the allegations in the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad in 

scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this request seeks merits-based discovery 

related to putative class members prior to certification and beyond the scope of pre-certification 

discovery. Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant states that it is not aware of any 

Page 24- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 24 of 27
responsive documents. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Any and all Master equipment leases 

between you and third party vendors; Franchise Business Manuals, Approved Supplier Manuals, 

Operating Manuals, and other manuals, however named or renamed, amended, expanded and/or 

consolidated by you from time to time; other written standards, policies, approved sources for the 

System, and any and all other reference documents that contain standards or other information 

regarding the operation of a franchised restaurant, as well as any written standards that comprise 

part of your operating system, that have been in effect on or after January 1, 2008. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and 

ambiguous, overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks proprietary information. Defendant also objects to 

this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or 

work product doctrine. Without waiving any of its objections, see responses to Request for 

Production Nos. 26 and 27. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Any and all letters, notices or other 

demands to any franchisees notifying them of this suit, tendering the suit for defense, or seeking 

indemnity for the claims asserted therein. 

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and 

ambiguous as to "this suit". Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant states that it is not 

aware of any responsive documents regarding this Gessele II suit. 

Page 25 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 25 of 27
Dated: October 19, 2015 

Douglas 

Jennifer arberg, OSB No. 035472 

Littler e delson, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Corporation of 

Delaware 

Page 26 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 26 of 27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 19, 2015, I served a full, true, and correct copy of the 

foregoing DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION: 

addressed to: 

D By delivery via messenger, or otherwise by hand, 

D By facsimile, 

~ Bye-mail, 

~ Mailing same, postage paid, 

Jon M. Egan, PC 

54 7 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

(503) 697-3427 tel. 

(866) 311-5629 fax 

E-mail: jegan@eganleglateam.com 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By: 

Laura M. Lucero 

Finnwide:136175357.3 063201.1002 

Page 27 - DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 2 

Page 27 of 27
Douglas S. Parker, OSB No. 821017 

dparker@littler.com 

Jennifer Warberg, OSB No. 035472 

jwarberg@littler.com 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.221.0309 

Fax No.: 503.242.2457 

Attorneys for Defendant 

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Corporation of Delaware 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, Case No.: 3:14-cv-01092-BR 

NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA 

TETRAULT, CHRISTINA MAULDIN, 

and JASON DIAZ, both on behalf of 

themselves individually and, in addition, on 

behalf of the other similarly situated 

employees, 

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware 

corporation doing business in Oregon as 

"Jack In The Box Inc. A Corporation of 

Delaware,", 

Defendant. 

TO: Plaintiffs Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault, Christina 

Mauldin, and Jason Dias, and their attorney, Jon Egan. 

Page 1- DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 1 of 8
Pursuant to Rules 26, 33, and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Jack 

m the Box, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby submits its responses, answers, and objections to 

Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, as follows: 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

The following objections apply generally to all of Plaintiffs' discovery requests: 

(a) Objections to Scope of Discovery Requests. Defendant objects to all discovery 

requests to the extent they purport to require any actions not required by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Local Rules, or Orders of the Court specific to this case. Without limiting the 

generality of this objection, Defendant objects to all discovery requests to the extent that they 

(1) go beyond the scope of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) are 

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) purport to 

impose a duty of supplementation greater than that imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

(b) Privilege and Trial Preparation Materials. Defendant objects to all discovery 

requests to the extent they call for information or documents that fall within any relevant 

privilege (including without limitation the attorney-client privilege), that are within the work 

product doctrine, that constitute trial preparation materials, seek the mental impressions of 

counsel, or that qualify for any other discovery immunity. 

(c) No Waiver. Nothing set forth in Defendant's specific objections, general 

objections or·responses is intended as or should be construed as a waiver of these general 

objections, or of any specific objections set forth. The fact that Defendant has not responded to 

or objected to any requests or part thereof should not be taken as an admission that Defendant 

accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by Plaintiffs' request, or that any 

such response or objection constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Defendant has 

Page 2 - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 2 of 8
answered part or all of any request is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by 

Defendant of all or any part of any objections to any request. Furthermore, this response and the 

associated document production, if any, are made without prejudice to using or relying on at trial 

documents or information discovered after the date of this response and production as a result of 

mistake, error, oversight or inadvertence. Defendant further reserves the right to produce 

additional facts, evidence and/or documents at trial, and to object on appropriate grounds to the 

introduction of any documents produced in connection with this response. 

( d) Reservation of Rights. Defendant reserves the right to move later for a protective 

order or otherwise to seek relief from the court if the parties are unable to resolve Defendant's 

objections by agreement. 

(e) Publicly Available Documents. Defendant objects to producing publicly available 

documents (including without limitation court records) that are, due to their public availability, 

equally available to the requesting party. 

(f) Amendment/Supplementation. Defendant reserves the right to amend and 

supplement its responses as reasonably may be necessary. 

(g) Duplicative Requests. To the extent that any discovery request seeks documents 

that are also sought by or identified pursuant to any other request, Defendant declines to produce 

or identify multiple copies of such documents, and Defendant states that each document 

produced or identified pursuant to any request is also produced pursuant to any other request to 

which it is responsive. 

(h) Privilege Log. Defendant reserves the right to produce a privilege log if the 

parties deem it necessary. 

Page 3 - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITILER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SWMorrison,Suite900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 3 of 8
Defendant's Response to each Request for Production specifically incorporates these 

General Objections by this reference. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Any and all documents reflecting the names 

and/or contact information of every franchisee with whom you ceased to do business under a 

franchise agreement during any fiscal year on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see documents attached as 

JITB2 000091 to JITB2 000096 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Any and all documents reflecting the names 

and/or contact information of every person with whom you terminated a development agreement 

during any fiscal year on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see documents attached as 

JITB2 000097. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Any and all franchise, license, development, 

lease, operating, equipment brokerage, master technology and other contracts or agreements (and 

any and all addenda, exhibits and amendments thereto) signed by any person to whom you have 

granted or with whom you have maintained a franchise of or for any Jack in the Box location in 

the state of Oregon on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see documents attached as 

JITB2 000098 to JITB2 000387. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents identifying any person who 

participated in training or providing support or services to any franchisee or franchisee employee 

on or after January 1, 2006. 

Page 4 - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 4 of 8
RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, Defendant states that Jeff 

Tennant is the Franchise Business Consultant for Jack in the Box in Oregon. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents identifying any person who 

represented you or communicated on your behalf with any current or potential Oregon franchisee 

on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, and in addition to Mr. 

Tennant, documents which identify persons involved in communications with current or 

potential Oregon franchisees are produced in response to Requests for Production 3 and 9. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents identifying any person 

involved in the transition of any corporate Oregon store to franchisee operation on or after 

January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see supplemental response to 

Request for Production No. 5. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents identifying any person 

involved in developing any new Jack in the Box site or location in Oregon on or after January 1, 

2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see supplemental response to 

Request for Production No. 5. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All applications and other documents 

submitted to you by or by you to any Oregon franchisee candidate on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see documents attached as 

JITB2 000388 to JITB2 000778. 

Page 5 - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 5 of 8
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All interview notes or other documents 

relating to any interview of any Oregon franchisee candidate on or after January 1, 2006. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see response to Request for 

Production 9. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Any and all documents containing your 

policies or procedures for transferring a Jack in the Box location from corporate operation to 

franchisee operation. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see supplemental response to 

Request for Production No. 3 and 9. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Any and all documents containing your 

policies or procedures for starting a Jack in the Box location under franchisee operation from its 

outset. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see supplemental response to 

Request for Production Nos. 3 and 9. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Any and all documents indicating the dates 

that each and every Jack in the Box location in Oregon was operated by a franchisee, and the 

dates that each franchisee operated it. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see documents attached as 

JITB2 000779 to JITB2 000780. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Any and all Master equipment leases 

between you and third party vendors; Franchise Business Manuals, Approved Supplier Manuals, 

Operating Manuals, and other manuals, however named or renamed, amended, expanded and/or 

consolidated by you from time to time; other written standards, policies, approved sources for the 

Page 6 - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 6 of 8
System, and any and all -other reference documents that contain standards or other information 

regarding the operation of a franchised restaurant, as well as any written standards that comprise 

part of your operating system, that have been in effect on or after January 1, 2008. 

RESPONSE: Notwithstanding all prior stated objections, see supplemental response to 

Request for Production No. 3 and 9. 

Dated: October 30, 2015 

Dou as S arker, OSB No. 821017 

Jennifer Warberg, OSB No. 035472 

Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Corporation of 

Delaware 

Page 7- DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 30, 2015, I served a full, true, and correct copy of the 

foregoing DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: 

addressed to: 

D By delivery via messenger, or otherwise by hand, 

D By facsimile, 

~ By e-mail, 

~ Mailing same, postage paid, 

Jon M. Egan, PC 

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

(503) 697-3427 tel. 

(866) 311-5629 fax 

E-mail: jegan@eganleglateam.com 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By: 

Laura M. Lucero 

Firmwide: 136726557. l 063201.1002 

Page 8 - DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503.221.0309 

Exhibit 3 

Page 8 of 8
Jon M. Egan, PC

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

telephone (503) 697-3427 

facsimile (866) 311-5629 

jegan@eganlegalteam.com 

www.eganlegalteam.com 

 F A C S I M I L E T R A N S M I T T A L 

Name: Douglas Parker 

Organization: Littler Mendelson, PC 

Fax: (503) 961-7854 

Date: November 10, 2015 

Subject: Gessele et al. v. Jack in the Box, Inc.

 Pages: 4 (including this page) 

Comments: 

Also sent via email to DParker@littler.com, JWarberg@littler.com, 

SMcFarland@littler.com and LLucero@littler.com

Originals will follow via U.S. Mail 

will not follow via U.S. Mail 

Exhibit 4 

Page 1 of 5
Jon M. Egan, PC 

Attorney at Law

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

telephone: (503) 697-3427 

facsimile: (866) 311-5629 

Jegan@eganlegalteam.com 

www.eganlegalteam.com

November 10, 2015 

Via email and facsimile 

Douglas S. Parker 

Jennifer Warberg 

Littler Mendelson, PC 

121 SW Morrison, Ste. 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

FAX: (503) 961-7854 

DParker@littler.com 

JWarberg@littler.com 

 Re: Gessele et al. v. Jack in the Box, Inc.

Dear Doug:

I write to address several concerns with defendants’ responses (both original and supplemental) 

to plaintiffs’ first request for production, and to see if there are any uncertainties that can be 

cleared up without involving the Court. 

First, we asked for the time records in a usable spreadsheet format. The 30(b)(6) testimony 

confirmed that those Jack’s Timekeeping records can be exported directly into Excel. That is the 

format that we requested them in, and I would like to get them in that format. Compare 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(E)(ii). 

With regard to the specific requests, I offer the following questions and concerns in anticipation 

of our upcoming conferral: 

RFP 3, 27, 59: Why have you limited your production to Northwest Group, Inc.? All Oregon 

franchisee documents are relevant to class and collective certification. Also, the following 

attachments and incorporated documents were specifically identified or referenced in your 

production but not produced: 

a. The Manuals (JITB2 000192 et seq., JITB2 000529) 

b. The applicable FDD (identified in JITB2 000447) 

c. The Technology Contracts (JITB2 000453) 

d. Master Technology Services Agreement (JITB2 000550); 

e. IRIS Software Sublicensing Agreement for POS Software (JITB2 000550); 

f. Personal Computer Rental Agreement (JITB2 000550); 

g. Satellite Communications Agreement (JITB2 000550); 

h. POS Equipment Sublease (JITB2 000550); 

i. Technology Equipment Brokerage Agreement (JITB2 000550): 

j. Adoption Agreement (JITB2 000550); and 

k. Master Software License Agreement (JITB2 000550). 

l. IS documents (JITB2 000554) 

m.Equipment Broker Agreement (JITB2 000554, JITB2 000547) 

n. PC documents (JITB2 000548) 

Exhibit 4 

Page 2 of 5
Letter to Douglas S. Parker Page 2 of 3 

November 10, 2015 

o. RAM forms (JITB2 000674) 

p. Vendor spreadsheet (JITB2 000674) 

q. POS checklists (JITB2 000777) 

r. Stand Bank inventory forms (JITB2 000778) 

s. Franchise Business Manual (¶ 1.12 of Exhibit S of current FDD) 

t. Approved Supplier Manual (p. 20 of current FDD) 

In addition, no completed transfer checklist (e.g. 523 et seq.) was produced for any transfers 

of Oregon stores. 

RFP 4: Why have you limited production to those holding the position of Franchise Business 

Consultant? And why have you only produced Jeff Tennant’s name rather than the promised 

list going back to 2006? 

RFP 8: Regarding non-traditional venues, you state that “no such locations exist in Oregon.” 

This covers only the present, and my request was since 1/1/06. Please confirm whether any 

such locations have existed in Oregon at any time since January 1, 2006. 

RFP 9−10: You have not produced the interview notes, nor any documents at all related to 

FEAST Foods, LLC; V.R., Inc.; VPS Inc.; or Constellation Group, Inc. Please do so. 

RFP 11, 48, 49, 53: You have not exported the named plaintiffs’ records to a usable 

spreadsheet format as requested. Please do that. Please also produce the remaining requested 

documentation regarding the named plaintiffs’ employment at franchisee stores. Finally, you 

have refused to produce the time and pay records for the Oregon class members. As far as 

anonymized records were produced in Gessele I, they were produced in a PDF format that 

requires a labor-intensive and error-prone process to convert into usable spreadsheets, as well 

as being defective in failing to uniquely identify each employee. Please produce the time and 

pay records for all Oregon employees since August 13, 2004, in usable spreadsheet format. 

RFP 12−13: You object that the request seeks documents “not in the possession of Defendant,” 

but you do not state whether defendant has responsive documents within its custody or 

control. Please do so. 

RFP 16: If your objection to producing preservation letters/litigation holds/etc. is privilege or 

work product, you need to produce a privilege log. The Judge must be the one to decide 

whether and to what extent any litigation holds, etc. are covered by any applicable privilege or 

protection. This discovery is just as relevant to plaintiffs’ individual cases as it is to any class 

or collective determination. Please produce a privilege log. 

RFP 17, 42: You state that defendant “will produce documentation it received from the Oregon Bureau of 

Labor and Industries regarding the resolution of any wage and hour matters since 2006.” None have been 

produced. Please do so. 

RFP 22: You state that “Defendant will produce responsive” business or sale license and permit 

documents. None have been produced. Please do so. 

RFP 26, 30, 59: You state that “Defendant will produce responsive documents since 2006” used in or 

containing policies and procedures for training franchisees or franchisee employees. None 

have been produced. Please do so. 

RFP 31: You state that “Without waiving any of its objections, Defendant will produce the requested 

information for the named Plaintiffs to the extent the documentation exists and was not already produced in 

Gessele I.” First, no documents have been produced. Second, the limitation to the named 

plaintiffs is inappropriate at the precertification stage. Please produce documents for all 

affected employees. 

RFP 43, 45: You state that defendant “is not aware of any non-privileged responsive documents.” If you 

are relying on any privilege to avoid production of a document, you must produce a privilege 

log so that the Judge can evaluate your claim of protection. 

Exhibit 4 

Page 3 of 5
Letter to Douglas S. Parker Page 3 of 3 

November 10, 2015 

RFP 46: You state that defendant “is not aware of any recordings of the named Plaintiffs during the time 

period they were employed by Defendant.” If you have audio or video recordings of any named 

plaintiff made by you or on your behalf at any time, you must produce them. 

RFP 53: You state that defendant “will produce any updated Jack's Timekeeping documents that were

previously produced in Gessele I.” I have already addressed above the request to produce the 

named plaintiffs’ time records in usable spreadsheet format. Please also produce in usable 

spreadsheet format the pay records for the Oregon employees that you previously produced 

only in redacted PDF format. Please also produce in usable spreadsheet format any pay 

records for Oregon employees after the cutoff date of that Gessele I production. Finally, please 

also produce in usable spreadsheet format the time records for all Oregon corporate and 

franchisee employees, both before and after the cutoff date for the Gessele I production. 

RFP 60: Please confirm whether defendant is aware of any responsive documents regarding 

Gessele I as well.

Please let me know as soon as possible whether Jack in the Box will be producing any additional 

records voluntarily (including in electronic format), and when. Please also let me know what 

times this week you or your designee would be available to confer on plaintiffs’ anticipated 

motion to compel. 

Thank you. 

 Sincerely, 

Jon M. Egan 

 Attorney at Law 

JME/ml 

 

Exhibit 4 

Page 4 of 5
Exhibit 4 

Page 5 of 5
Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide 

November 13, 2015 

VIA EMAIL TO JEGAN@EGANLEGAL TEAM.COM 

JonM. Egan 

Jon M. Egan, PC 

547 Fifth Street 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 

Re: Gessele, et al. v. Jack In The Box Inc. 

Dear Jon: 

Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

121 SW Morrison 

Suite 900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Douglas S. Parker 

503.889.8873 direct 

503.221.0309 main 

503.961. 7854 fax 

dparker@littler.com 

This will respond to your letter received at the end of the day on November 10 in the order in 

which your concerns are presented. While we are still looking into a small handful of issues and 

will report further on them by early next week, we can this afternoon update information and/or 

provide further explanation of our client's position on the following. 

We will provide those Jacks Timekeeping records previously provided for the named plaintiffs in 

a usable Excel format. 

RFP 3, 27, 59: Our limitation to Northwest Group is as stated in our October 19 responses. As 

you will recall, we objected to the considerable burden of your request as framed: "any and all" 

agreements of various kinds. Our October 30 supplemental responses include the agreement 

package for one of the stores operated by Northwest Group. Additionally, in response to RFP 9, 

we provided the transactional file for stores sold in March 2010 to Northwest Group. Please note 

that we also produced 2011 transactional documents to your portal this afternoon, Bates Nos 

JITB2 781 - 1239. We will stipulate that these several groups of documents are consistent for 

other operators and other Oregon stores operated by franchisees. Given such a stipulation, we 

would not understand any remaining need for the burdensome exercise of producing voluminous 

and detailed information about all operators for resolving the joint employer issue. 

Likewise, we do not understand the need to produce each and every last technology agreement, 

food production manual and similar, which have little or nothing to do about personnel or their 

management. Nonetheless, we will produce a representative copy of each of the agreements 

referenced in the transactional documents. 

RFP 4: In addition to Mr. Tennant, Franchise Business Consultants and/or Regional Franchise 

Directors since 2006 have included Kathi Corder and Gary Marstall. Field trainers have been 

Laura Fleming, Anamarie Montes, Patricia Alvarez, and Garry Siggelkow. 

littler.com 

Exhibit 5 

Page 1 of 4
JonM. Egan 

November 13, 2015 

Page 2 

RFP 9-10: As with RFP 3 et al, we are willing to stipulate that the process for bringing in and 

factors for evaluating the business and financial ability of a prospective franchise operator 

applied equally to other operators. Again, on that basis we would not understand the remaining 

need for burdensome responses concerning other operators. 

RFP 11, 48, 49, 53: Your blunt assumption communicated here and elsewhere that Jack in the 

Box must respond to your burdensome demands for information concerning all other Jack in the 

Box and/or franchisee employees at this time is without legal citation or support. Before class 

wide pre-certification discovery will be allowed, the burden is on the plaintiff to either (a) make 

a prima facie showing of Rule 23 's prerequisites for certification, or (b) demonstrate that the 

discovery is relevant to substantiating the class allegations (i.e. relevant to proving the existence 

of a class or subset of classes). Doninger v. Pac. NW Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 

1977). When that showing is not met, courts have routinely denied or limited pre-certification 

discovery regarding the entire class to the extent necessary to investigate the existence of a class. 

See e.g. Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1985); Van Patten v. Vertical 

Fitness Group, LLC, Case No. 12cv1614-LAB (MDD) (SD Cal. May 7, 2013). In light of this, 

federal courts have largely followed the principle that pre-certification discovery should 

generally be directed at evidence concerning the named parties only. This coincides with the 

Supreme Court's view that at this stage of a class action, "[m]erits questions may be considered 

to the extent - but only to the extent - that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 

23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied," Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust 

Funds, 133 S. Ct.1184, 1195 (2013). 

We object, too, to production on a class wide basis of personnel or payroll records because you 

and your clients presently have no right or legal entitlement to receive or review them. Unless 

and until you have achieved Rule 23 class certification, you simply do not have a privileged 

relationship with putative class members. Parks v. Eastwood Ins. Services, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 2d 

1082 (CD Cal. 2002) (class counsel has no attorney client relationship outside of the named 

plaintiffs prior to certification), cited with approval in Giles v. St. Charles Health System, Inc., 

980 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D. Or 2013). 

Finally, we note that on July 17 of this year at docket 25, Judge Brown ordered that each party 

file a Discovery Plan on or before August 31 setting out pre-certification and post certification 

discovery objectives. This order was entered upon the parties' Joint Proposed Case Management 

Schedule at docket 24. We have no record that plaintiffs ever filed the required Discovery Plan. 

Given such violation, we wonder if you can be heard to complain that Jack in the Box should 

comply with your overbroad requests that clearly seek class wide discovery. In the absence of 

further direction from the Court that it must do so at this time, Jack in the Box does not intend to 

produce records for thousands of individuals with whom you presently have no attorney/client 

relationship. 

Exhibit 5 

Page 2 of 4
JonM. Egan 

November 13, 2015 

Page 3 

RFP 12-13: Jack in the Box's objection that it did not have certain of the requested documents 

in possession refers to the fact that franchisee employees are just that - employees of franchisees. 

Jack in the Box does not necessarily know what materials may or may not be used in their 

training. I say this not to be difficult but to reflect that you are asking about events occurring 

with third parties and not necessarily Jack in the Box. That said, we are assessing what 

additional training and policy documents exist that were not already within the substantial 

production to you in Gessele I. Again, we hope to have any such documents to you early this 

next week. 

RFP 16: Among stated objections to this request is that it has no legitimacy as a pre-certification 

discovery request. As noted in response to RFP 11, you did not by August 31 state a precertification need for discovery of litigation holds topic. Even if you had complied with the 

Court's July 17 order, it is your burden to show how this kind of information applies to 

certification, something you have not done. 

RFP 22: Jack in the Box does not collect licenses or permits from franchise operators per se 

and, rather, includes the following statement in the Franchise Agreement: "Franchisee agrees at 

all times during the term of this Agreement, at its own expense, to conform to and comply with 

all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, and security standards imposed by 

the credit card or similar industries now in force or that are hereafter enacted affecting the 

operation of the Franchised Restaurant business, including, without limitation, the federal 

Americans with Disabilities Act and any similar state law." Moreover, "when developing and 

operating a Jack in the Box restaurant, you must comply with all local, state and federal laws 

regarding health, sanitation, safety, fire, zoning, building, nutritional disclosures on menus and 

menu boards, employment, and environmental issues, among others." If a franchisee is engaged 

in construction, the FDD and Development Agreement both reference building permits. The 

FDD also lists estimates of certain required licenses (software, e-mail, other IT stuff; business 

licenses) but doesn't go into specifics. 

RFP 31: See responses to RFPs 11 et al concerning Jack in the Box's refusal to accede to your 

unsubstantiated demand for class-wide discovery. As for the named plaintiffs, we previously 

produced a summary of reports for the plaintiffs named in Gessele I, none of which appeared to 

concern wage and hour complaints. As you may recall, Ashley Gessele, Jessica Gessele, Nicole 

Gessele, and Tricia Tetrault did not even recall in their deposition testimony contacting the Jack 

in the Box hotline. We are producing the only report into the hotline concerning a named 

plaintiff since that prior production. See attached. 

RFP 43, 45: Other than Gessele I deposition transcripts, there are no such documents. 

RFP 46: Do your clients really believe someone recorded them while they worked for Jack in 

the Box or that it has recordings of them from some other time? We are unaware of any such 

Exhibit 5 

Page 3 of 4
JonM. Egan 

November 13, 2015 

Page 4 

recordings other than your surreptitious tape recordings of their testimony which came to light 

midway through one of their depositions; those recordings presumably are in your possession. 

RFP 53: See responses to RFPs 11 et al concerning Jack in the Box's refusal to accede to your 

unsubstantiated demand for class-wide discovery. 

RFP 60: You have now clarified your demand to include your prior lawsuit. The only 

documents we are aware of concerning notice to franchisees of that lawsuit are the letters you 

wrote to various franchise operators over Thanksgiving weekend 2012. As you will recall, you 

threatened to add them to the lawsuit unless they immediately capitulated to your demands. 

Although they are no relevance whatsoever to "this lawsuit," Gessele 11, we can provide our 

copies of those letters to you if you insist. As is the case with Gessele II, Jack in the Box did not 

tender defense or seek indemnity from any franchise operator of Gessele I. 

After considering the points made in this response, if you continue to feel you have any basis for 

a motion to compel, please provide written notice of the remaining areas of concern before 

calling me to confer. 

Thank you 

. Parker 

cc: Sarah Super, Jack in the Box, Inc. 

Jennifer Warberg 

Attachment 

Firmwide: 137020731.1 063201.1002 

Exhibit 5 

Page 4 of 4