SEIU Court Transcript

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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,


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--


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


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


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

mailto:[email protected]

SEIU Court Transcript

Documents

Transcript of SEIU Court Transcript