1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

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:

19 20 21 22 For the Respondent: 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEIU BY: J. FELIX DE LA TOREE, Assistant Chief Counsel PAUL HARRIS, Chief Counsel 1808 14th Street Sacramento, California 95814 --o0o-JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN BASSOFF BY: STEVEN B. BASSOFF, Esq. 1220 S Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95811-7138

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO 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

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: seat, won't you. Okay. This is the matter of -- would you New-jee-yam. Say it one more time. New-jee-yam. Noujaim versus SEIU, it is It has been Let me get the presence. Steve Bassoff appearing on help me with petitioner's last name. MR. BASSOFF: THE COURT: MR. BASSOFF: THE COURT: filed as a writ. MR. BASSOFF: Good morning. You all have a

actually 8333 special proceeding.

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

2

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

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: MR. HARRIS: THE COURT: 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. 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 It All right. Paul Harris for Service I am sorry, I was trying to

Employees International Union Local 1000. think of a way to handle this expeditiously and

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

3

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

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 This is just direct you to the third condition. 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: THE COURT: Absolutely not. I cut you Let me go over here.

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: 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: MR. BASSOFF: Um-um. And -- and what non-disclosure My client has No, your Honor, that's our

means of confidential information.

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

4

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

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: THE COURT: time? MR. DE LA TORRE: THE COURT: MR. BASSOFF: they put forward. It appeared that everything that you reviewed could be perceived as confidential as I understood the agreement. getting clear. said. And so you know we're I don't know what other books or Okay. Well, no. That was -- that No, your Honor. No, your Honor. Would not extend to current

balances in bank accounts at various points in

Go ahead, sir, I am sorry. was clearly unclear based upon the agreement that

records might be there other than what your Honor 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 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

5

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

purpose. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. BASSOFF: THE COURT: No, sir. Anything else? Just briefly, your Honor. All right. Fair enough.

MR. DE LA TORRE:

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. is right there. with them. MR. BASSOFF: respond? THE COURT: MR. BASSOFF: Yes. As your Honor reviews the Your Honor, can I just briefly If there was a need for any additional clarification, we were happy to work It

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 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

6

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

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. negotiate. And we had already gone, I think we were gone four or five months trying to So -- and then they dropped this on us That's not true. If Mr. at the last minute. MR. DE LA TORRE: 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: you the last word. MR. BASSOFF: THE COURT: or another. MR. BASSOFF: THE COURT: No, I understand. Well, first of all, let me just Mr. Bassoff, I am going to give I will just advise you that I have nothing further to say. -- not going to help me one way

this discussion is not --

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 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

7

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

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 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

8

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

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. information is not secretive. So that 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 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

9

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

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. copy. And when they wanted to afford copyrights under 8334, they say They don't say copy under 8333, but the The -- allowing handwritten notes seems to me to be appropriate. proceeding. proceeding. So there is no writ here in It is a special the normal sense of the word. restrictions proposed are appropriate.

It is handled however as a special 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: ever going on. THE COURT: That's a reasonable condition, Your Honor, just with regard to the condition that somebody observes what is

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

10

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

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 How many people? concern I have is, is it going to be one person? Is it going to be two people? THE COURT: level of detail. monitoring. Are they going to have a room full of people? I am not going to go to that I would say reasonable I would assume Thank you for

If you folks really get in a twist

about that, you can come see me. you would not. This hearing is concluded. your patience. MR. DE LA TORRE: Thank you. (Hearings concluded.) --o0o--

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

11

12

1 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Case: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _______________________________ JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 Case No.: Dates: Mariam Noujaim, Petitioner vs. SEIU, Respondent. 34-2011-80000881 Friday, May 4, 2012 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 ) ) ) ss. CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

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 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

12

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

JODEE H. WEINRICH, C.S.R. NO. 3060
SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL REPORTERS 800 H STREET SUITE 300 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 874-5783

INVOICE FOR REPORTING SERVICE

Requesting party: Mariam Noujaim Case name: Mariam Noujaim vs. SEIU Case number: 34-2011-80000881 Date proceedings held: Friday, May 4, 2012 Billing date: Monday, May 14, 2012 Nature of proceedings: Special proceedings

email: mariamnoujaim@comcast.net Phone #916-836-8916

Amount of $100.00 paid in full. Thank you, Jodee Weinrich, CSR

JODEE H. WEINRICH, CSR NO. 3060 SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS

13

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful