SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
HON. LLOYD G. CONNELLY, JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 33
--o0o--
MARIAM NOUJAIM, ) )
Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL )UNION (SEIU) LOCAL 1000, )
) Respondent. )______________________________________)
--oOo--
CASE NUMBER: 34-2011-80000881
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
--o0o--
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2012
--o0o--
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner:
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN BASSOFFBY: STEVEN B. BASSOFF, Esq.1220 S Street, Suite 100Sacramento, California 95811-7138
For the Respondent:
SEIU BY: J. FELIX DE LA TOREE, Assistant Chief Counsel PAUL HARRIS, Chief Counsel1808 14th StreetSacramento, California 95814
--o0o--
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2012
MORNING SESSION
--oOo--
The matter of Mariam Noujaim, Plaintiff,
versus Service Employees International Union SEIU
Local, 1000, the Defendant, Case Number
34-2011-80000881, came on regularly before the
Honorable LLOYD G. CONNELLY, Judge of the Superior
Court of California, County of Sacramento, sitting
in Department 33.
The Plaintiff, Mariam Noujaim, was represented
by Steven B. Bassoff, Attorney at Law.
The Defendant, Service Employees International
Union SEIU Local, 1000, was represented by J.
Felix De La Torre, Assistant Chief Counsel
General; Paul Harris, Chief Counsel.
The following proceedings were then had:
THE COURT: Good morning. You all have a
seat, won't you.
Okay. This is the matter of -- would you
help me with petitioner's last name.
MR. BASSOFF: New-jee-yam.
THE COURT: Say it one more time.
MR. BASSOFF: New-jee-yam.
THE COURT: Noujaim versus SEIU, it is
actually 8333 special proceeding. It has been
filed as a writ. Let me get the presence.
MR. BASSOFF: Steve Bassoff appearing on
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 2SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
behalf of the petitioner.
THE COURT: Mr. Bassoff. And, yes, sir?
MR. DE LA TORRE: Good morning, your Honor,
J. Felix De La Torre for respondents, Service
Employees International Union, Local 1000.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARRIS: Paul Harris for Service
Employees International Union Local 1000.
THE COURT: I am sorry, I was trying to
think of a way to handle this expeditiously and
fairly here.
Let me afford just initially the opportunity
to SEIU if they want to respond to the reply
brief.
MR. DE LA TORRE: Thank you, your Honor.
Your Honor, SEIU by asking Ms. Noujaim to sign
this up is not a disclosure agreement, does not in
any way deny her -- deprive her of any statutory
rights under 8333.
The agreement is very narrowly tailored. It
is simply asking her she will not publicly
disclose only confidential information that she is
going to be shown as part of the inspection.
There is no limitation to inspection. There is no
limitation on her right to disclose by spending to
the extent that it doesn't disclose bank
statements, routing numbers, account numbers,
other data that can be used at some later point to
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 3SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
engage in fraud or some kind of identity theft
against the union, and quite frankly against its
members.
THE COURT: Let me in that regard, let me
just direct you to the third condition. This is
on the second page of the agreement.
Agrees that she shall not be accompanied by
any person during her inspection of the record if
another member accompanied her, and similarly
signed an appropriate confidentiality agreement,
would you have an objection to that?
MR. DE LA TORRE: Absolutely not.
THE COURT: Let me go over here. I cut you
off, but what you were saying I actually
understood already from your responsive pleadings
so I don't know if there is anything.
MR. DE LA TORRE: No, your Honor, that's our
basic position.
THE COURT: All right. Let me then go over
here, and ask you if there is anything else you
want to supplement beyond what is in your two
pleadings.
MR. BASSOFF: I don't think so, your Honor.
Except that, you know, it is unclear what
confidentiality means.
THE COURT: Um-um.
MR. BASSOFF: And -- and what non-disclosure
means of confidential information. My client has
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 4SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
no interest in disclosing membership, membership
information or anything like that. Also, with
regard to bank routing numbers or anything like
that but -- but beyond that, I am not sure where
confidentiality starts and stops.
THE COURT: The -- I take it, the respondent
would agree with this, but let me just say it.
Confidentiality agreement would not extend to
expenditures made by the union?
MR. DE LA TORRE: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Would not extend to current
balances in bank accounts at various points in
time?
MR. DE LA TORRE: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
Go ahead, sir, I am sorry.
MR. BASSOFF: Well, no. That was -- that
was clearly unclear based upon the agreement that
they put forward.
It appeared that everything that you
reviewed could be perceived as confidential as I
understood the agreement. And so you know we're
getting clear. I don't know what other books or
records might be there other than what your Honor
said. But you know to the extent that I said it
already, not interested in member's name, what
members do or anything like that, member's
addresses or anything like that. That's not the
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 5SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
purpose.
THE COURT: All right. Fair enough.
Anything else?
MR. BASSOFF: No, sir.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. DE LA TORRE: Just briefly, your Honor.
The agreement we provided Mr. Bassoff actually
describes what we consider confidential documents
on the first page. We gave I think a fairly
detailed description.
And it is a little alarming to hear today
that there was confusion because when we initially
proposed there was no effort to try to negotiate
or work with us or do anything. It's a little
unfair to drag us into court, make us go through
the expense and time when simply we wanted clarity
on what we meant by confidential information. It
is right there. If there was a need for any
additional clarification, we were happy to work
with them.
MR. BASSOFF: Your Honor, can I just briefly
respond?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BASSOFF: As your Honor reviews the
documents that went back and forth, the letters
that went back and forth, it's quite clear that we
attempted for a long period of time to inspect the
records.
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 6SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It was only at the last minute after we had
agreed to a date that we get a non-confidentiality
agreement, and the agreement as couched was take
it or leave it. And we had already gone, I think
we were gone four or five months trying to
negotiate. So -- and then they dropped this on us
at the last minute.
MR. DE LA TORRE: That's not true. If Mr.
Bassoff can point to any letter or any
correspondence where we wrote "Take it or leave
it," we simply said it must be non-disclosure
agreement. It's the opposite. Mr. Bassoff's
position was always that we have the absolute
right and you can't limit us in any manner.
THE COURT: Mr. Bassoff, I am going to give
you the last word. I will just advise you that
this discussion is not --
MR. BASSOFF: I have nothing further to say.
THE COURT: -- not going to help me one way
or another.
MR. BASSOFF: No, I understand.
THE COURT: Well, first of all, let me just
make -- and this is the ruling, a broad
observation here that the member has a right for
disclosure for reasonably related information
consistent with the members under 8333, but this
is not an absolute right.
It distinguishes itself, for example, from
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 7SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8334 where the director has an absolute right, a
stated right to documents of every type, a stated
right to copy. That right does not extend to 8333
with the same specificity that it does to 8334,
the director's right.
There are cases, some of which the
respondent cited here Chanteel (Phonetic) among
others even in the context of the absolute right
of a director. Under 8334 the Court can properly
balance privacy interest involved versus the need
for disclosure and impose appropriate conditions.
And certainly if you can do that under the
director's absolute right, you can do it under
8333, the much narrower right afforded to the
member. So the conditions that have been proposed
in this agreement are fundamentally satisfactory.
I would note that on page 3 of the proposed
condition, the limitation that the -- that Noujaim
not be accompanied should be altered to afford one
other member to accompany Ms. Noujaim on the
condition of course that they accede to a similar,
similar confidentiality agreement.
Now the scope, the fundamental scope of the
agreement limits only the non-disclosure, or
non-publishment of confidential and private
information and the first "whereas clause," the
second paragraph of the agreement really provides
what the Court believes is the definition of what
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 8SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would be considered confidential and private
information and sets forth a number of examples,
bank account numbers, bank routing numbers, member
employee's, addresses, telephone numbers, social
security numbers and then of necessity includes
other similarly confidential information.
If there is a legitimate dispute that arises
about that category, you of course would come back
and seek the assistance of the Court. But
fundamentally the Court recognizes there is a
privacy interest in that type of information.
SEIU has a fiduciary duty to its members in that
regard, and it's a proper, proper balance to
require that that non-disclosure or publishment of
that type of information be a condition of looking
at it.
Similarly in the context of the modern
gadget world we live in, it is not unreasonable to
prohibit taking pictures or doing other things,
monitoring to ensure that does not occur. So that
information is not secretive. There are probably
right now in this court building two or three
criminal identity cases in process involving lots
of moneys. These things aren't just theoretical.
They are real things.
I would note that I am not persuaded there
is a copying right at all, but the agreement has
allowed the writing down, taking notes and I
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 9SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
obviously am not going to change that.
The reason is that in this series of code
sections starting 8330, you go all the way through
them, they were all adopted at the same time, and
when they wanted to afford copying rights, for
example, under 8330, they say copy. And when they
wanted to afford copyrights under 8334, they say
copy. They don't say copy under 8333, but the
restrictions proposed are appropriate.
The -- allowing handwritten notes seems to
me to be appropriate. So there is no writ here in
the normal sense of the word. It is a special
proceeding. It is handled however as a special
proceeding. And so I would direct the respondent
in this case to prepare a judgment consistent with
my articulated ruling here which is, one, the
confidentiality agreement as proposed is
appropriate with the modifications to paragraph
three as specifically stated and with the
understanding that the definition of confidential
and private information is the whereas clause, the
first whereas clause as it appears on page 1.
And, third, if you need additional clarity, you
can knock on my door.
MR. BASSOFF: Your Honor, just with regard
to the condition that somebody observes what is
ever going on.
THE COURT: That's a reasonable condition,
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 10SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sir, because if the person is not monitored, they
can take a little camera out of their pocket and
photograph and it happens with shocking
regularity.
MR. BASSOFF: I understand that, but the
concern I have is, is it going to be one person?
Is it going to be two people? How many people?
Are they going to have a room full of people?
THE COURT: I am not going to go to that
level of detail. I would say reasonable
monitoring. If you folks really get in a twist
about that, you can come see me. I would assume
you would not.
This hearing is concluded. Thank you for
your patience.
MR. DE LA TORRE: Thank you.
(Hearings concluded.)
--o0o--
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 11SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )) ss.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )
I, Jodee H. Weinrich, hereby certify that I am an
Official Certified Shorthand Reporter, and that at the
times and places shown, I recorded verbatim in shorthand
writing all the proceedings in the following described
action completely and correctly, to the best of my ability:
Court: Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
Case: Mariam Noujaim, Petitioner vs. SEIU, Respondent.
Case No.: 34-2011-80000881
Dates: Friday, May 4, 2012
I further certify that my said shorthand notes
have been transcribed into typewriting, and that the
foregoing pages 1 to 11, inclusive, constitute an accurate
and complete transcript of all of my shorthand writing for
the dates and matter specified.
I further certify that I have complied with CCP
237(a)(2) in that all personal juror identifying
information have been redacted, if applicable.
Dated: May 14, 2012
_______________________________
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 12SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JODEE H. WEINRICH, C.S.R. NO. 3060SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL REPORTERS
800 H STREETSUITE 300
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814(916) 874-5783
INVOICE FOR REPORTING SERVICE
Requesting party: Mariam NoujaimCase name: Mariam Noujaim vs. SEIUCase number: 34-2011-80000881Date proceedings held: Friday, May 4, 2012 Billing date: Monday, May 14, 2012 Nature of proceedings: Special proceedings email: [email protected] #916-836-8916
Amount of $100.00 paid in full.
Thank you, Jodee Weinrich, CSR
JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 13SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Top Related