In The Supreme Court of the State of California Michael Williams, an individual, plaintiff and appellant, v. Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, respondent.

• Position: S227228

Marshalls of CA, LLC, Real Party in Interest.

After a Decision by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One Case No. B259967

Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC503806, Judge William F. Highberger

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTY IN INTEREST MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC

* Mary-Christine Sungaila (#156795)

Martin M. Ellison (#292060)

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700

Costa Mesa, California 92626

Tel: 949-202-3000 * Fax: 949-202-3001

me. sungaila@hayne sboone .com

martin.ellison@haynesboone.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae International Association of Defense Counsel

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE; HOW THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT NO PARTY OR COUNSEL FOR A PARTY AUTHORED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THIS BRIEF CONCLUSION AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND LEGAL DISCUSSION A. The Trial Court's Discovery Order Was a Proper Exercise of Its Inherent Authority to Control the Proceedings Before It B. By Structuring Discovery Proceedings as It Did, the Trial Court Aligned Itself with the Investigatory Practices That the State Itself Typically Implements C. The Incremental Discovery Process Ordered by the Trial Court Makes Good Policy Sense CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT PROOF OF SERVICE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Cottle v. Super. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367

Craib v. Bulmash (1989) 49 Cal.3d 475

Dunlap v. Super. Ct. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-933

Greyhound Corp. u. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation L.A., LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348

John B. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177

Obregon v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424

The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Dino Rikos, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-835

Rutherford u. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953

Statutes

Code Civ. Proc., [section] 128, subd. (a)

Code Civ. Proc., [section] 2017.020

Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, [section][section] 2698 et seq.)

Other Authorities

California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f)

Bureau of Field Enforcement, Report a Labor Violation to the California Labor Commissioner's Bureau of Field Enforcement (June 2014)

Brittany Blackburn Koch, Dealing with the DOL (Department of Labor) at Your Door, Part II (Feb. 5, 2014) The National Law Review [as of Apr. 22, 2016]

State of Cal. Budget Change Proposal (Dec. 2015) Submitted by the Lab. and Workforce Development Agency and the Dept, of Industrial Relations, at p. 3, [as of Apr. 22, 2016]

S227228

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Michael Williams, an individual,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles,

Respondent.

Marshalls of CA, LLC,

Real Party in Interest.

After a Decision by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One Case No. B259967

Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC503806, Judge William F. Highberger

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE:

Under rule 8.520(f) of the California Rules of Court, the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) requests permission to file the attached amicus curiae brief in support of real party in interest Marshalls of CA, LLC.

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE; HOW THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT

Amicus curiae International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) is an association of corporate and insurance attorneys from the United States and around the globe whose practice is concentrated on the defense of civil lawsuits. The IADC is dedicated to the just and efficient administration of civil justice and continual improvement of the civil justice system. The IADC supports a justice system in which plaintiffs are fairly compensated for genuine injuries, responsible defendants are held liable for appropriate damages, and non-responsible defendants are exonerated without unreasonable cost. In particular, the IADC has a strong interest in the fair and efficient administration of representative actions, which are increasingly global in reach.

The IADC maintains an abiding interest in the law of representative actions. This interest is exemplified by its amicus participation in several recent cases involving private class actions and parens patriae cases, including The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Dino Rikos, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-835 (cert. pet. pending), and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-933 (cert, petition pending).

In this case the Court has agreed to determine the scope of discovery available to a plaintiff in a different kind of representative action: a case brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, [section][section] 2698 et seq.). The resolution of this issue implicates broader policy concerns applicable to all representative actions. It also raises some unique practical and policy considerations that the IADC urges this Court to consider as it makes its ruling. As we explain in the accompanying brief, the trial court here properly exercised its inherent powers to structure discovery in a way that is desirable from a public policy perspective and similar in many ways to the kinds of investigations that the State itself would conduct or insist upon if it had the resources to do so. The arguments we present are complementary to, but not duplicative of, the briefing submitted by real party in interest Marshalls of CA, LLC.

NO PARTY OR COUNSEL FOR A PARTY AUTHORED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THIS BRIEF

The IADC provides the following disclosures required by rule 8.520(f)(4) of the California Rules of Court: (1) no party or counsel for a party in this appeal authored or contributed to the funding of this brief, and (2) no one other than amicus curiae or its counsel in this case made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the IADC requests that the Court permit the filing of the attached amicus curiae brief in support of real party in interest Marshalls of CA, LLC.

DATED: May 3, 2016

Respectfully submitted, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

By:

Mary-Chr/stine Sungaila Martin M. Ellison

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae International Association of Defense Counsel

S227228

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Michael Williams, an individual,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

...