In 2008, plaintiff Khaldune Seirafi, 20, a Syrian-American, worked as an in-house, hourly, sales and shipping worker for Special-Projects Engineering Inc. and its owner, Yuan Tai “Alex” Shen. The business was dealt with wholesale/retail automobile parts and high-end automobile tuning (for vehicles such as Nissan GT-Rs and Lamborghinis). Special-Projects Engineering and Shen have even been featured on Jay Leno’s garage. Seirafi worked for the company for a few months in 2008, but then was fired. In 2009, Seirafi worked for Special-Projects Engineering again, but after a few months, he left to work for his brother’s business, which unfortunately failed. Then, in 2010 and 2011, Seirafi once again worked for Special-Projects Engineering and Shen for about 15 months in a row, until his employment was terminated on July 19, 2011. Seirafi sued Special-Projects Engineering and Shen. Seirafi alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted violations of the Labor Code and his civil rights, including claims pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Specifically, he alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted race, national origin, and sexual orientation discrimination, as well as workplace privacy violations. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that although Seirafi was properly classified as an employee during his first two stints with Special-Projects Engineering and Shen, the defendants misclassified Seirafi as an independent contractor during the third term that he worked for the defendants. Counsel contended that Seirafi worked for both/each of the defendants and that the defendants were one and the same. Thus, counsel presented an alter ego argument during trial. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that as a result of the misclassification, the defendants failed to pay Seirafi minimum wage or overtime, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Counsel also argued that Special-Projects Engineering and Shen performed unlawful deductions, as they took money directly out of Seirafi’s pay because they said he made some “mistakes.” In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants failed to pay Seirafi all wages at the time of his termination. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Special-Projects Engineering and Shen failed to produce documents that they were obligated to maintain and produce. Thus, counsel argued that the defendants suppressed the documents, such as time cards and other information, and that in light of the defendants not producing the required documents, plaintiff’s counsel introduced estimates of the hours Seirafi worked, as well as some documentary evidence that Seirafi brought in to support his estimates, including three letters from his superiors and several e-mails that were time stamped. Counsel argued that those documents showed that Seirafi was performing work, and being asked by his superiors to perform work, late into the evening. Seirafi claimed that over the course of his multiple stints working for the defendants, he was subjected to increasingly harsh treatment, including having a firecracker thrown at him, being called derogatory and offensive names, and being forced to eat wet, medicated dog food at one point by his superiors. He also claimed that his superiors at Special-Projects Engineering, including Shen, forced him to smoke marijuana until he threw up and forced him to wear a pink trucker hat, on which his supervisors wrote “pillow biter” and “everyone’s b-tch,” and on which they drew erect and flaccid penises. Seirafi further claimed that he was subjected to being secretly video recorded in the workplace sales office by his superiors at Special-Projects Engineering and that Shen knew about it. The videos were then posted to YouTube and otherwise circulated to various individuals. The videos included Seirafi telling a story about the time he lost his virginity and talking about an anime doll that he was given, singing “Welcome to the Jungle”, having a fire-cracker thrown at him, and being surprised and frightened when a co-worker shook his chair while Seirafi was on the phone at work. Regarding the alleged Labor Code violations, defense counsel argued that Seirafi did not work long hours and that he worked only four hours per day. Counsel also argued that Seirafi could perform his job from anywhere and that the defendants should not have to pay Seirafi because he smoked marijuana. Regarding Seirafi’s national origin claims, defense counsel brought up the marijuana issue, accused plaintiff’s counsel of creating the case, and blamed Seirafi for not previously complaining about his concerns. Counsel also blamed the previous defendants’ counsel, the defendants’ certified public accountants, the defendants’ other employees, the defendants’ payroll processing company, and others. Defense counsel also argued that the place of employment was a “boys place,” where “boys will be boys,” and that Seirafi gave as good as he got. Counsel further argued that Seirafi even instigated things on his own, without being forced by Shen or any employee at Special-Projects Engineering. Thus, defense counsel argued that Seirafi was using the case as a “lottery ticket” and that Seirafi was not damaged because he never complained to Shen and was on video smoking marijuana. In response, plaintiff’s counsel used various evidence in an attempt to get past defense counsel’s argument regarding the hours Seirafi worked. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that defense counsel was just bringing evidence regarding Seirafi’s marijuana usage in an attempt to appeal to the jury’s passions, and to try to distract the jury and avoid responsibility., Seirafi now serves as a Private First Class in the U.S. Army. However, he sought recovery for his economic loss, including unpaid wages, and recovery of non-economic damages for his emotional distress. He also sought recovery of statutory civil penalties per the $50/$100 structure of Labor Code § 558 and recovery of punitive damages. During the punitive damages phase, the defendants did not produce some documents that they were ordered to produce, including bank records, investment records, and information pertaining to the Shen’s ownership interest in a $4 million home in Bradbury. However, plaintiff’s counsel was able to obtain and present some of the information pertaining to the defendants’ assets as a result of searches of public records. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that defense counsel used the punitive stage to try to re-argue the compensatory stage, as they brought up the marijuana issue again and again blamed everyone else. Defense counsel also argued that the defendants were financial destitute — that they were not making any money and that only loans were keeping the business afloat. However, plaintiff’s counsel used financial documents to argue that Shen was siphoning very large amounts of money from the company and self-dealing/co-mingling. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants did not produce the required documents because they contained negative information about the defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel also used the documents that they found in order to try to impeach Shen’s testimony and introduce additional information into evidence regarding the defendants’ assets.