The above-entitled action is set for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on August 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a class action lawsuit arising from various alleged wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs Ted Stilwell and Stewart Ross (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that defendant First Alarm (“Defendant”) failed to reimburse its California employees for all work-related expenses incurred in driving personal vehicles for work, failed to provide employees with signed commission plans and to obtain signed receipts for the commission plans, and failed to furnish employees with accurate wage statements. (Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), ¶ 5.)

The TAC, filed on September 9, 2016, sets forth the following causes of action: [1] Failure to Reimburse for Work-Related Expenses in Violation of Labor Code § 2802; [2] Violation of California Labor Code § 226; [3] Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices Pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; and [4] Private Attorneys General Act of 2004: Labor Code Section 2698.
On July 7, 2017, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel further discovery responses and production of documents with regard to Stilwell’s federal and state income tax returns filed for the years 2011-2013 and Ross’s federal and state income tax returns filed for the years 2011-2015. The Court ordered the production of the tax returns, but stated the documents must be redacted to reveal only the taxpayer’s name, the amount of taxable income, and the amount of the total tax. Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of that order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 permits a motion for reconsideration as follows:

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a).)

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the recent case of Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329, filed on July 7, establishes the Court’s decision constitutes error. The plaintiff in Espejo brought a class action on behalf of newspaper home delivery carriers. (Id. at p. 338.) Among other issues, Espejo considered the argument of defendant The Copley Press. Inc. (“Copley”), owner of the San Diego Union-Tribune, that the trial court erred in awarding the class expenses that Copley had already reimbursed by paying the carriers enhanced compensation to cover their vehicle expenses and other expenses. (Id. at p. 362.) Copley argued the trial court misconstrued and misapplied Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, a case relied on by this Court in the July 7 order.

Espejo does not address the central issue of the July 7 order, which is whether tax returns are discoverable for purposes of determining whether employees have been sufficiently compensated by an employer’s method of expense reimbursement. In Gattuso the court stated “any tax consequences that result from the employer’s choice of reimbursement method should be considered in determining whether a particular payment provides the full measure of reimbursement that section 2802 requires.” (Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 571.) Espejo does not involve this issue. Rather, Espejo addressed when the method of apportionment must be communicated to employees, concluding that “Gattuso requires that the employer communicate to employees the method or means of identifying the portion of compensation that is intended to provide expense reimbursement at or near the time of compensation.” (Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 363.) Consequently, Espejo is not relevant and has no bearing on this Court’s ruling that tax returns are directly relevant for calculating damages caused by an employer’s alleged failure to make adequate lump sum reimbursement payments. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.