Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BMOWMIK LLP FILED
NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL (SBN 068687) Superior Court uf Caiif0mia,
2 2255 Calle Clara
LaJolla,CA 92037
3 Tel: 858.551.1223
Fax: 858.551.1232
4 norm(^bamlawca.com
Uf DUtV
5 Attomeys for Plaintiff
ANDREA SPEARS
6
SETAREH LAW GROUP
7 SHAUN SETAREH (SBN 204514)
shaun@setarehlaw.com
8 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
9 Telephone: (310)888-7771
10 Attomeys for Plaintiff
TOMAS R. ARANA
11
*** COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON NEXT PAGE
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14
15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No.
of herself and on behalf of all persons 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
16 similarly situated,
JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING
17 Plaintiff, DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE
18 Hearing: January 4,2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Dept: 54
Califomia Corporation; and Does I through
20 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
21 Defendants.
22
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017
23 all others similarly situated, FAC Filed: October 3,2017
24 Plaintiff,
25 V.
26 HEALTH NET, INC., a Delaware BY FAX
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive.
27
Defendant.
28
JOINT STATEMENT RC REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (SBN 137591)
tjlong(gorrick.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Sacramento, Califomia 95814-4497
4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (SBN 285379)
6 slee(gorrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, Califomia 90017
8 Telephone: (213)629-2020
Facsimile: (213)612-2499
9
Attomeys for Defendant
10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE
1 Pursuant lo the Court's order of December 18, 2017 regarding PlaintifPs Motion for Order
2 for Opt-Out Privacy notice to be Sent to the Class, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff') and
3 Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, "Parties") submit
4 the following joint statement identifying the remaining disputes regarding the opt-out notice and
5 mailing.
6 The Parties have resolved all issues with the exception of the language regarding to who the
7 mailing is directed.
8 PlaintifPs Section
9 Plaintiff Spears filed this action on April 5, 2017 seeking to represent herself and a class
10 defmed as "all individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in Califomia and
11 classified as non-exempt employees." This action was consolidated with Arana v. Health Net oj
12 Calijornia, Inc. on October 11, 2017. Plaintiff Arana ("Plaintiff Arana") (with Plaintiff Spears,
13 "Plaintiffs")filedhis action in Sacramento Superior Court on August 1, 2017 seeking lo represent
14 himself and a non-exempt class defined as "All persons employed by Health Net of Califomia, Inc.
]5 and Health Net, Inc. and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parlies in hourly or non-
16 exempt positions in Califomia during the Relevant Time Period" and an exempt class defined as
17 "All persons employed by Health Net ofCalifornia, Inc. and Health Net, Inc. and/or any staffing
18 agencies and/or any other third parties in Califomia as a Business Analyst, Systems Analyst,
19 Contact Center Analyst or Analyst during the Relevant Time Period."
20 Defendant's prior objection to the "to" language of Plaintiffs' Belaire notice was that il
21 reflected the non-exempt class as defined by Plaintiff Spears's complaint, which, in tum, was only
22 a portion of the class members at issue in Plaintiff Arana's complaint as Plaintiff Arana also asserts
23 allegations on behalf of an exempt class. In short. Defendant objected because the Belaire notice
24 would presumably be mailed to a narrower class than might eventually be included in the
25 consolidated litigation. Defendant insisted that this issue would be resolved by thefilingof a single
26 complaint that consolidated the actions into one pleading.
27 At the Case Management Conference on December 8, 2017, the Court advised Plaintiffs to
28 file such a complaint and set the deadline of December 29, 2017 for itsfiling.Pursuant lo that
3
JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPU IT'S RE GIT-OUT NOTICE
1 instruction. Plaintiffs have drafted a proposed consolidated complaint ("Consolidated Complaint").
2 The language in the Consolidated Complaint melds the two previous complaints such lhal the Non-
3 Exempt Class is defined as "All persons employed by Health Net ofCalifornia, Inc. and Health
4 Net, Inc. and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in houriy or non-exempt
5 positions in Califomia during the Relevant Time Period" and the Exempt Class is defined as "AU
6 persons employed by Health Net of Califomia, Inc. and Health Net, Inc. and/or any staffing
7 agencies and/or any other third parties in Califomia as a Business Analyst, Systems Analyst,
8 Contact Center Analyst or Analyst during the Relevant Time Period."
9 Accordingly, and compliant with Defendant's insistence, Plaintiffs revised the "lo"
10 language of the Belaire notice. The proposed language now mirrors the definition ofthe class in
11 the Consolidated Complaint, which now reads:
12
CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT OR HOURLY EMPLOYEES
13 I EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. AND HEALTH NET,
INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY OTHER THIRD
14 PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND THE PRESENT
and CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY
15 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR
ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN
16 CALIFORNIA AS BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS,
CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS, ANDOR ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL 5,
17 2013 AND THE PRESENT.
18 (Exhibit 1.)
19 Defendant's new objection is not that the class referred lo in the Belaire notice is too narrow,
20 but that it is loo broad. Defendant cannot have it both ways.
21 The class as alleged in the Consolidated Complaint is the class who should be the recipients
22 ofthe Belaire notice. Plaintiffs are not required to make any showing of substantive proof, nor must
23 Ihey prove that the eventual scope aligns with the class as alleged:
24
California (aw has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of
25 any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or
defenses is to place the cart before the horse. The Legislature was aware that
26 establishing a broad right to discovery might pennit parties lacking any valid cause
of action to engage in "fishing expedilion[s]," to a defendant's inevitable annoyance.
27 It granted such a right anyway, comfortable in the conclusion that '[mjutual
knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential lo proper
28 litigation.'
4
JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPU PES RE OIT-OUT NOflCE
1 That the eventual proper scope of a putative representative action is as yet
uncertain is no obstacle to discovery; a party may proceed with interrogatories
2 and other discovery methods precisely in order to ascertain that scope.
3 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis
4 added).
5 Thus, if Defendant objects to the inclusion of Health Net employees who worked through a
5 staffing agency another third party. Defendant may object in its opposition to PlaintifPs motion for
7 class certification or elsewhere, but its objections as to the production of this discovery or, more lo
g the point, lo the mailing of the Belaire notice, are inappropriate and not supported by Califomia
9 law.
]0 Further, if Defendant does not have the contact information for such employees, Plaintiffs
]I simply reserve the right to seek another mailing at a later dale if and when those staffing agencies
]2 or third parlies are identified and can produce the contact information for those employees.
13 II. DEFENDANT'S SECTION
14 A. The Belaire-West Notice Proposed Bv Plaintiffs Is Too Broad.
15 The only outstanding issue that remains is the scope of the audience for the Belaire-West
]g Notice (the "Notice"). Plaintiffs want the Notice to go to unidentified current and former
17 employees of "staffing agencies" and "any other third parties."' Defendant Health Net of
18 Califomia, Inc. ("HNCA") believes this is inappropriate for two reasons, which HNCA explained
19 to Plaintiffs during the meet-and-confer process. First, Plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court
20 to bless a Notice that would be issued to individuals who are (or have been) employed by entities
21 lhal are not parties to this lawsuit. That is inappropriate. The issue of what sort of Noiice should
22 go lo employees of "staffing agencies" and "any other third parties" should wait until such time as
23 any such "staffing agencies" or "any other third parties" become parties to this lawsuit. That time
24 is not now. Second, Plaintiffs haven't identified who these "staffing agencies" and "any other third
25
26
' Plaintiffs have represented that this language tracks their descriplion ofthe putative classes they
27 seek to represent in their amended consolidated complaint that they have been ordered lofileon
December 29"". Although HNCA requested that Plaintiffs provide a copy of that complaint in order
28 to better address the Court's concems expressed in its December 11''' order, Plaintiffs did not
provide a copy of the draft complaint during the meet-and-confer process.
5
JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE
1 parties" are. It is difficult to imagine lo whom they refer, and Plaintiffs have an obligation to
2 provide more specificity.
3 Plaintiffs seem to argue that Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017), is some
4 sort of talisman that justifies all of their arguments, and cures all deficiencies. However, Williams
5 does not grant this Court jurisdiction over entities lhal are nol before it. Nor does Williams provide
6 the crystal ball to identify to whom Plaintiffs' proposed Notice should be sent.
7 HNCA has agreed to a Noiice with the following language stricken:
8 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT OR HOURLY EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET,
9 INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY OTHER THIRD
PARTIES fN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND THE PRESENT
10 and CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, fNC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR
11 ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN
CALIFORNIA AS BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS,
12 CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS, AND OR ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL 5,
2013 AND THE PRESENT.
13
See Exhibit 1 (without the aforementioned language stricken).
14
The Court should order that the Notice without the stricken language be issued on the terms
15
and conditions to which the parties have otherwise agreed.
16
Dated: December 21,2017 Victoria B. Rivapalacio
17 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG &
BHOWMIK LLP
18
19
Isl Victoria B. Rivapalacio
20
Attomeys for Plaintiff
21 ANDREA SPEARS
22
Dated: December 27,2017 Timothy J. Long
23 Stephanie Gail Lee
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
24
25
26
Attomeys for Defendant
27 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
28
JOINT STATEMEN r RE REMAINING DISPUTES RC OPT-OUT NOTICE
EXHIBIT 1
NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HEALTH NET OF
CALIFORNIA, INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL CONTACT
INFORMATION
To: CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT OR HOURLY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING
AGENCIES AND/OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 5,
2013 AND THE PRESENT and CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR
ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA AS BUSINESS
ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS, OR ANALYSTS
BETWEEN APRIL S, 2013 AND THE PRESENT
A lawsuit {Spears v. Healfh Net of California, Inc., Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS) is pending in
the Superior Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento. The Plaintiffs purport lo represent various other current and
former employees of Health Net of California, Inc. ("Health Net" or "Defendant") employed in Califomia ("Class
Members"). This is not a lawsuit against you, and you arc not being sued. The Plaintiffs make claims against
Defendant for, among other things, failing to properly compensate Class Members for all overtime worked, failing to
provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to issue accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks
unpaid wages, penalties and interest.
The Court docs not endorse any of the statements contained in this mailing. The Court has not rendered
any opinion as to the merits ofthis case.
The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class aclion on behalf of themselves and the current
and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant and the current and former exempt employees
who were employed by Defendant as Business Analysis, Systems Analysts, Contact Center Analysts, and Analysts.
The Court has not yet determined whether or not the lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. If
you receive this notice, and if the Court later determines that this lawsuit shall be maintained as a class action, you may
be a member ofthe class.
The lawyers for the Plaintiffs would like to have your home address, personal telephone number and
personal email address (your "Personal Contact Information") so they may contact you to obtain your input as
to whether the Plaintiffs' allegations arc accurate.
This notice is being sent to you to provide you with the opportunity to decide whether you want your
Personal Contact Information disclosed to the Plaintiffs' attorneys.
If you do NOT want your Personal Contact Information provided to the Plaintiffs' attorneys, you must
iign and return the enclosed (postage pre-paid) postcard to Healflt Net of California Class Action, c/o KCC Class
\ction Services, P.O. Box , Pctaluma, California on or before [One (1) Month from Mailing).
You have therightto contact the Plaintiffs' attomeys or Health Net's attomeys directly:
Plaintiffs' Attomeys Health Net's Attomeys:
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Nicholas De Blouw Timothy J. Long
deblouw@bamlawli.com tjlong(@orrick.com
2255 Calle Clara 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
La Jolla, CA 92037 Sacramenlo, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: (858)952-0354 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
SETAREH LAW GROUP
Shaun Setareh
shaun@setarehlaw.com
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310)888-7771
Facsimile: (310)888-0109
Please note that, at this time, regardless of whether and/or how you respond to this notice, you arc not legally
required to speak about this matter with the Plaintiffs' attomeys or their agents or Health Net or its attomeys.
1 PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL
2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a parly to this action. My business address is
3 Orrick, Herrington & Sulcliffe LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA
4 90017-5855. On December 27,2017,1 served the following document:
5 JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE
6
on the interested parties in this action by placing tme and correcl copies thereof in sealed
7
envelope(s) addressed as follows:
8
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Setareh Law Group
10 2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 907
La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
11 Phone:(858)551-1223 Tel: (310)888-7771
Fax: (858) 551-1232
12
13 I am employed in the county from which the mailing occurred. On the date indicated
14 above, I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing at this firm's office business
15 address indicated above. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for the collection and
16 processing of correspondence for mailing wilh the United Slates Postal Service. Under that
17 practice, the firm's correspondence would be deposited with the United Stales Postal Service on
18 this same date with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
19 1 declare under penally of perjury under the laws of the Slate of Califomia that the above
20 is tme and correct.
21 Executed on December 27,20^7>^at Los Angeles, Califomia.
22
23
Susan Totin
24
25
26
27
28
PUOO|- OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL
GDSsr.
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BMOWMIK LLP FILED NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL (SBN 068687) Superior Court uf Caiif0mia, 2 2255 Calle Clara LaJolla,CA 92037 3 Tel: 858.551.1223 Fax: 858.551.1232 4 norm(^bamlawca.com Uf DUtV 5 Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS 6 SETAREH LAW GROUP 7 SHAUN SETAREH (SBN 204514) shaun@setarehlaw.com 8 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 9 Telephone: (310)888-7771 10 Attomeys for Plaintiff TOMAS R. ARANA 11 *** COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON NEXT PAGE 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. of herself and on behalf of all persons 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS 16 similarly situated, JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING 17 Plaintiff, DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE 18 Hearing: January 4,2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Dept: 54 Califomia Corporation; and Does I through 20 50, inclusive. Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 21 Defendants. 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017 23 all others similarly situated, FAC Filed: October 3,2017 24 Plaintiff, 25 V. 26 HEALTH NET, INC., a Delaware BY FAX corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 27 Defendant. 28 JOINT STATEMENT RC REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (SBN 137591) tjlong(gorrick.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Sacramento, Califomia 95814-4497 4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (SBN 285379) 6 slee(gorrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, Califomia 90017 8 Telephone: (213)629-2020 Facsimile: (213)612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant 10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE 1 Pursuant lo the Court's order of December 18, 2017 regarding PlaintifPs Motion for Order 2 for Opt-Out Privacy notice to be Sent to the Class, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff') and 3 Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, "Parties") submit 4 the following joint statement identifying the remaining disputes regarding the opt-out notice and 5 mailing. 6 The Parties have resolved all issues with the exception of the language regarding to who the 7 mailing is directed. 8 PlaintifPs Section 9 Plaintiff Spears filed this action on April 5, 2017 seeking to represent herself and a class 10 defmed as "all individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in Califomia and 11 classified as non-exempt employees." This action was consolidated with Arana v. Health Net oj 12 Calijornia, Inc. on October 11, 2017. Plaintiff Arana ("Plaintiff Arana") (with Plaintiff Spears, 13 "Plaintiffs")filedhis action in Sacramento Superior Court on August 1, 2017 seeking lo represent 14 himself and a non-exempt class defined as "All persons employed by Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ]5 and Health Net, Inc. and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parlies in hourly or non- 16 exempt positions in Califomia during the Relevant Time Period" and an exempt class defined as 17 "All persons employed by Health Net ofCalifornia, Inc. and Health Net, Inc. and/or any staffing 18 agencies and/or any other third parties in Califomia as a Business Analyst, Systems Analyst, 19 Contact Center Analyst or Analyst during the Relevant Time Period." 20 Defendant's prior objection to the "to" language of Plaintiffs' Belaire notice was that il 21 reflected the non-exempt class as defined by Plaintiff Spears's complaint, which, in tum, was only 22 a portion of the class members at issue in Plaintiff Arana's complaint as Plaintiff Arana also asserts 23 allegations on behalf of an exempt class. In short. Defendant objected because the Belaire notice 24 would presumably be mailed to a narrower class than might eventually be included in the 25 consolidated litigation. Defendant insisted that this issue would be resolved by thefilingof a single 26 complaint that consolidated the actions into one pleading. 27 At the Case Management Conference on December 8, 2017, the Court advised Plaintiffs to 28 file such a complaint and set the deadline of December 29, 2017 for itsfiling.Pursuant lo that 3 JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPU IT'S RE GIT-OUT NOTICE 1 instruction. Plaintiffs have drafted a proposed consolidated complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). 2 The language in the Consolidated Complaint melds the two previous complaints such lhal the Non- 3 Exempt Class is defined as "All persons employed by Health Net ofCalifornia, Inc. and Health 4 Net, Inc. and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in houriy or non-exempt 5 positions in Califomia during the Relevant Time Period" and the Exempt Class is defined as "AU 6 persons employed by Health Net of Califomia, Inc. and Health Net, Inc. and/or any staffing 7 agencies and/or any other third parties in Califomia as a Business Analyst, Systems Analyst, 8 Contact Center Analyst or Analyst during the Relevant Time Period." 9 Accordingly, and compliant with Defendant's insistence, Plaintiffs revised the "lo" 10 language of the Belaire notice. The proposed language now mirrors the definition ofthe class in 11 the Consolidated Complaint, which now reads: 12 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT OR HOURLY EMPLOYEES 13 I EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY OTHER THIRD 14 PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND THE PRESENT and CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY 15 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN 16 CALIFORNIA AS BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS, ANDOR ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL 5, 17 2013 AND THE PRESENT. 18 (Exhibit 1.) 19 Defendant's new objection is not that the class referred lo in the Belaire notice is too narrow, 20 but that it is loo broad. Defendant cannot have it both ways. 21 The class as alleged in the Consolidated Complaint is the class who should be the recipients 22 ofthe Belaire notice. Plaintiffs are not required to make any showing of substantive proof, nor must 23 Ihey prove that the eventual scope aligns with the class as alleged: 24 California (aw has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of 25 any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse. The Legislature was aware that 26 establishing a broad right to discovery might pennit parties lacking any valid cause of action to engage in "fishing expedilion[s]," to a defendant's inevitable annoyance. 27 It granted such a right anyway, comfortable in the conclusion that '[mjutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential lo proper 28 litigation.' 4 JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPU PES RE OIT-OUT NOflCE 1 That the eventual proper scope of a putative representative action is as yet uncertain is no obstacle to discovery; a party may proceed with interrogatories 2 and other discovery methods precisely in order to ascertain that scope. 3 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis 4 added). 5 Thus, if Defendant objects to the inclusion of Health Net employees who worked through a 5 staffing agency another third party. Defendant may object in its opposition to PlaintifPs motion for 7 class certification or elsewhere, but its objections as to the production of this discovery or, more lo g the point, lo the mailing of the Belaire notice, are inappropriate and not supported by Califomia 9 law. ]0 Further, if Defendant does not have the contact information for such employees, Plaintiffs ]I simply reserve the right to seek another mailing at a later dale if and when those staffing agencies ]2 or third parlies are identified and can produce the contact information for those employees. 13 II. DEFENDANT'S SECTION 14 A. The Belaire-West Notice Proposed Bv Plaintiffs Is Too Broad. 15 The only outstanding issue that remains is the scope of the audience for the Belaire-West ]g Notice (the "Notice"). Plaintiffs want the Notice to go to unidentified current and former 17 employees of "staffing agencies" and "any other third parties."' Defendant Health Net of 18 Califomia, Inc. ("HNCA") believes this is inappropriate for two reasons, which HNCA explained 19 to Plaintiffs during the meet-and-confer process. First, Plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court 20 to bless a Notice that would be issued to individuals who are (or have been) employed by entities 21 lhal are not parties to this lawsuit. That is inappropriate. The issue of what sort of Noiice should 22 go lo employees of "staffing agencies" and "any other third parties" should wait until such time as 23 any such "staffing agencies" or "any other third parties" become parties to this lawsuit. That time 24 is not now. Second, Plaintiffs haven't identified who these "staffing agencies" and "any other third 25 26 ' Plaintiffs have represented that this language tracks their descriplion ofthe putative classes they 27 seek to represent in their amended consolidated complaint that they have been ordered lofileon December 29"". Although HNCA requested that Plaintiffs provide a copy of that complaint in order 28 to better address the Court's concems expressed in its December 11''' order, Plaintiffs did not provide a copy of the draft complaint during the meet-and-confer process. 5 JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE 1 parties" are. It is difficult to imagine lo whom they refer, and Plaintiffs have an obligation to 2 provide more specificity. 3 Plaintiffs seem to argue that Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017), is some 4 sort of talisman that justifies all of their arguments, and cures all deficiencies. However, Williams 5 does not grant this Court jurisdiction over entities lhal are nol before it. Nor does Williams provide 6 the crystal ball to identify to whom Plaintiffs' proposed Notice should be sent. 7 HNCA has agreed to a Noiice with the following language stricken: 8 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT OR HOURLY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, 9 INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTIES fN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND THE PRESENT 10 and CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, fNC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR 11 ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA AS BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, 12 CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS, AND OR ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND THE PRESENT. 13 See Exhibit 1 (without the aforementioned language stricken). 14 The Court should order that the Notice without the stricken language be issued on the terms 15 and conditions to which the parties have otherwise agreed. 16 Dated: December 21,2017 Victoria B. Rivapalacio 17 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP 18 19 Isl Victoria B. Rivapalacio 20 Attomeys for Plaintiff 21 ANDREA SPEARS 22 Dated: December 27,2017 Timothy J. Long 23 Stephanie Gail Lee ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 24 25 26 Attomeys for Defendant 27 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 28 JOINT STATEMEN r RE REMAINING DISPUTES RC OPT-OUT NOTICE EXHIBIT 1 NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION To: CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT OR HOURLY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND THE PRESENT and CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND HEALTH NET, INC. AND/OR ANY STAFFING AGENCIES AND/OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA AS BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS, OR ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL S, 2013 AND THE PRESENT A lawsuit {Spears v. Healfh Net of California, Inc., Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS) is pending in the Superior Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento. The Plaintiffs purport lo represent various other current and former employees of Health Net of California, Inc. ("Health Net" or "Defendant") employed in Califomia ("Class Members"). This is not a lawsuit against you, and you arc not being sued. The Plaintiffs make claims against Defendant for, among other things, failing to properly compensate Class Members for all overtime worked, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to issue accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, penalties and interest. The Court docs not endorse any of the statements contained in this mailing. The Court has not rendered any opinion as to the merits ofthis case. The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class aclion on behalf of themselves and the current and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant and the current and former exempt employees who were employed by Defendant as Business Analysis, Systems Analysts, Contact Center Analysts, and Analysts. The Court has not yet determined whether or not the lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. If you receive this notice, and if the Court later determines that this lawsuit shall be maintained as a class action, you may be a member ofthe class. The lawyers for the Plaintiffs would like to have your home address, personal telephone number and personal email address (your "Personal Contact Information") so they may contact you to obtain your input as to whether the Plaintiffs' allegations arc accurate. This notice is being sent to you to provide you with the opportunity to decide whether you want your Personal Contact Information disclosed to the Plaintiffs' attorneys. If you do NOT want your Personal Contact Information provided to the Plaintiffs' attorneys, you must iign and return the enclosed (postage pre-paid) postcard to Healflt Net of California Class Action, c/o KCC Class \ction Services, P.O. Box , Pctaluma, California on or before [One (1) Month from Mailing). You have therightto contact the Plaintiffs' attomeys or Health Net's attomeys directly: Plaintiffs' Attomeys Health Net's Attomeys: BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Nicholas De Blouw Timothy J. Long deblouw@bamlawli.com tjlong(@orrick.com 2255 Calle Clara 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Sacramenlo, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: (858)952-0354 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 SETAREH LAW GROUP Shaun Setareh shaun@setarehlaw.com 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310)888-7771 Facsimile: (310)888-0109 Please note that, at this time, regardless of whether and/or how you respond to this notice, you arc not legally required to speak about this matter with the Plaintiffs' attomeys or their agents or Health Net or its attomeys. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL 2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a parly to this action. My business address is 3 Orrick, Herrington & Sulcliffe LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 4 90017-5855. On December 27,2017,1 served the following document: 5 JOINT STATEMENT RE REMAINING DISPUTES RE OPT-OUT NOTICE 6 on the interested parties in this action by placing tme and correcl copies thereof in sealed 7 envelope(s) addressed as follows: 8 Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Shaun Setareh, Esq. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Setareh Law Group 10 2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 907 La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 11 Phone:(858)551-1223 Tel: (310)888-7771 Fax: (858) 551-1232 12 13 I am employed in the county from which the mailing occurred. On the date indicated 14 above, I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing at this firm's office business 15 address indicated above. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for the collection and 16 processing of correspondence for mailing wilh the United Slates Postal Service. Under that 17 practice, the firm's correspondence would be deposited with the United Stales Postal Service on 18 this same date with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. 19 1 declare under penally of perjury under the laws of the Slate of Califomia that the above 20 is tme and correct. 21 Executed on December 27,20^7>^at Los Angeles, Califomia. 22 23 Susan Totin 24 25 26 27 28 PUOO|- OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL GDSsr.