Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LIM^ORSED
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) '2018 JUL 10 PH 3: 16
Aparaj it Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 VictoriaB. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) ^'^WJ^.S^:W'' OFCAUFomnA
2255 Calle Clara ^ • BOUNTY OF SACRAHEHTO
4 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6 Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated. CLASS ACTION
15 Plaintiff,
16 PLAINTIFF'S R E P L Y IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNDV, INC., a FURTHER RESPONSES TO
Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
18 50, inclusive. DOCUMENTS; SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B.
19 Defendants. RIVAPALACIO IN SUPPORT
20 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, Telephone Appearance
all others similarly situated.
21
22
Plaintiff,
Hearing Date: July 17,2018
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Christopher E. Krueger
Dept.: 54
lYFAX
23
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Action Filed: April 5, 2017
24 Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive.
25
Defendant.
26
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 L INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant's own gamesmanship and failure to act in good faith resulted in this motion. Defendant
3 (1) provided insufficient and evasive responses; (2) refused during the meet and confer process to specify
4 how it would provide compliant responses, whether it would provide a privilege log or supplemental
5 responses; (3) refused to provide a date certain for its anticipated compliance; (4) stated that a continuance
6 to Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline past the date Defendant finally provided as its goal date for its
7 compliant "didn't make any sense"; and (5) provided supplemental responses two days after its anticipated
8 deadline, a day after Plaintiff filed the corresponding motion to compel. Thus, this motion is both justified
9 and necessary. Without it, Plaintiff stood to waive her right to compel a further response to this discovery.
10 A party cannot rely on promises made in correspondence to protect discovery rights. Only a formal
11 verified response to discovery requests will trigger either a new deadline of forty-five days, pursuant to
12 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, or free the requesting party from afixedtime limit, pursuant to
13 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320. Defendant's contention that its promised future correction to its
14 deficient responses meant Plaintiff could have unilaterally postponed filing a motion to compel is, therefore,
15 unfounded and misdirects attention from the tme dispute, that of Defendant's incomplete and evasive
16 responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
17 Further, a party is not required to indefinitely postpone filing a discovery motion, even in the
18 circumstance where a continuance to the motion to compel deadline is granted. Plaintiffs deadline to file
19 her motion for class certification is September 28,2018, a date that Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stipulate
20 to continuing such that Defendant's pending motion for summary adjudication is heard prior to the filing
21 of Plaintiffs motion for class certification, but Defendant has refused. (Supplemental Declaration of
22 Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Supp. Rivapalacio Decl."), Ex. 1.) As such, Plaintiff has no time to delay the
23 receipt of relevant discovery.
24 Lastly, a motion cannot be made moot by responses provided subsequent to its filing and service.
25 A motion is made and pending before the court for all purposes at the time it is filed and served. Cal. Code
26 Civ. Proc. §1005.5. Thus, this motion was made to compel further responses to Plaintiffs Requests for
27 Production of Documents ("RFP"), Set 2, the moming of June 20, 2018. Defendant's provision of its
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 supplemental responses in the aftemoon of June 20, 2018, therefore, could not moot the motion already
2 made.
3 The fact that Defendant's supplemental responses indicate that Defendant has, in its possession, non-
4 privileged documents responsive to RFP, Set 2, No. 1 is instmctive, however. Defendant's initial response
5 stated that there are no non-privileged documents, so the supplemental responses to No. 1 is an about-face.
6 Further, Defendant has not produced any non-privileged documents responsive to RFP, Set 2, No. 1,
7 demonstrating that there remain documents to compel.
8 As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs motion to compel further
9 responses to RFP, Set 2, Nos 1 & 2, and produce the corresponding documents.
10
11 IL ARGUMENT
12 A. PlaintifPs Motion to Compel Is Necessary
13 Defendant concedes that its responses to PlaintifTs RFP, Set 2, were deficient. Defendant made
14 promises to correct the deficiencies, either through the production of a privilege log or through the
15 provision of supplemental responses, but refused to indicate which method of compliance Defendant would
16 take and simultaneously refused to provide a date certain for the provision of the corrected responses, in
17 whichever form. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl. ^ 7.)
18 Because only verified responses trigger the deadlines imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section
19 2031.310 (45 days) or section 2031.320 (no time limit), Defendant's verbal promises and emailed
20 communications could not protect Plaintiffs rights to the discovery at issue. Plaintiff was, therefore,
21 subject to the following:
22 On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the
demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the
23 demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
24 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
25 ...(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
26 which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)-(c) (emphasis added).
2 Defendant had agreed to continue Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline by three weeks, to June 18,
3 2018. (Supp, Rivapalacio Dec!., Ex. 4.) On June 4,2018, in response to Defendant's promise that it would
4 correct its deficiencies but without providing more detail as to how or, more importantly, as to when,
5 Plaintiff asked for a further extension to her motion to compel deadline. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 5.)
6 After following up multiple times. Defendant responded on June 13,2018 stating: "(ajn extension of time
7 for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make any sense. We have already agreed to
8 supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do that by Monday June 18, 2018." (Id.
9 (emphasis added).)
10 Such a response is either naive or gamesmanship. A simultaneous deadline for the discovery
11 responses and the motion to compel that same discovery cannot function practically. Plaintiff would, at
12 minimum, have to have a drafted motion, ready to file in case Defendant failed to comply with its
13 promises. Further, such a deadline does not provide for any review of the provided responses to ensure the
14 responses are compliant or that Plaintiff is then subject to a new deadline.
15 Plaintiff explained this predicament to Defendant both in correspondence and in the meet and confer
16 telephone call on June 14,2018, to which Defendant responded finally by continuing Plaintiffs deadline
17 by two days, to June 20, 2018. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 6.) Notably, Defendant did not serve
18 supplemental responses or a privilege log on June 18, 2018, as promised. (See Supp. Rivapalacio Decl.,
19 Ex. 7 (email from Defendant at 7 p.m. on June 19, 2018 apologizing for the delay).') Instead, it provided
20 supplemental responses on June 20,2018. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 8.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs only
21 method to safeguard her rights to pursue the discovery was through filing a motion.
22 Importantly, even had Defendant continued Plaintiffs deadline further - a scenario Defendant had
23 already shown its hostility toward in its prior refusal to continue the deadline - Plaintiff was not obligated
24 to indefinitely postpone filing her motion to seek relevant discovery. Indeed, Plaintiff does not have the
25
26
'Plaintiff had already sent her motion to compel for filing by 7 p.m. on June 19, 2018. (Supp.
27 Rivapalacio Decl. f 10.) It was sent after the day's filing window, however, and thus it was not officially
filed until the moming of June 20, 2018. (Id.)
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 time to be leisurely in the pursuit of this discovery because Plaintiffs deadline to file her motion for class
2 certification is September 28, 2018, a mere two months away. Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stipulate
3 to continue Plaintiffs motion for class certification filing deadline because of Defendant's discovery
4 delays and the continuance to the hearing on Defendant's motion for summary adjudication, but Defendant
5 has refused. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 1.) As such. Plaintiff cannot accommodate further delay to the
6 receipt of relevant discovery.
7 B. This Motion Is Not Moot and Seeks Compliant Responses and All Relevant
8 Documents
9 A motion is made and pending before the court for all purposes at the time it is filed and served.
10 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1005.5. Supplemental responses cannot moot a motion already made. Thus,
11 Defendant's supplemental responses provided after Plaintiffs filing of the at-issue motion cannot have
12 made the motion moot, even had they been satisfactory.
13 Defendant's subsequently provided supplemental responses are, however, informative. RFP No.
14 1 requests all correspondence Defendant received in response to Defendant's secret and unilaterally sent
15 correspondence to Class Members in advance of the Belaire-West notice mailing. (Supp. Rivapalacio
16 Decl., Ex. 2.) RFP No. 2 requests all correspondence Defendant sent in response to any correspondence
17 responsive to RFP No. 1. (Id.) Defendant's original responses stated there were no non-privileged
18 documents responsive to either RFP. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl.. Ex. 3.) Defendant's supplemental responses
19 maintain this for RFP No. 2, but agree to produce the single responsive email in a redacted format, the
20 document bates numbered HNCA002622-002623. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 9.)
21 In response to RFP No. 1, however. Defendant makes an abmpt tumaround. Defendant states that,
22 instead of there being no non-privileged documents in existence, both non-privileged documents and a
23 privileged document exist, are in Defendant's possession, and will be produced. (Id.) Defendant, however,
24 produced nothing more than the single email chain, bates numbered HNCA002622-002623, in a redacted
25 form. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 10.)
26 Defendant now claims in its Opposition that this single redacted document is the entirety of its
27 intended production to both Requests. Such an assertion counter to Defendant's response to RFP No. 1,
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 stating that Defendant has both non-privileged and privileged documents, only the latter of which will be
2 produced in a redacted form.
3 This assertion also runs counter to any practical expectation. Defendant sent its secret, unilaterally
4 drafted email waming of an upcoming Belaire-West notice to thousands of Class Members. Notably, its
5 assertion that it received only this single email response is not made under oath in a declaration, nor is it
6 part of Defendant's verified discovery responses.
7 Accordingly, Plaintiff must continue to seek to compel a compliant response, one that indicates
8 under oath that all responsive documents have been produced.
9
10 III. CONCLUSION
11 For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order Defendant to provide
12 compliant verified supplemental responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set 2, and to produce all
13 corresponding documents.
14
15
16 Respectfully submitted,
17
DATED: July 10,2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
18
19
20 Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq.
Attomeys for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO
2 I, Victoria B. Rivapalacio, declare as follows:
3 1. I am one of attomeys of record for the Plaintiff in the above entitled action, and have
4 personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness could testify
5 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on information and belief and as to such matters I
6 believe them to be tme.
7 2. This declaration is being submitted in support of Plaintiffs Reply in Support of
8 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents.
9 3. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication on Febmary 5, 2018, setting the
10 hearing for April 26,2018. All further briefing was filed per code. On April 26,2018, the Court continued
11 the hearing to May 30,2018. On May 30,2018, the Court ordered a limited, discovery-related continuance
12 to the MSA hearing to allow resolution of a separate discovery dispute as to discovery relevant to the MSA
13 to occur prior to a ruling on the substance of Defendant's MSA. The Court set the MSA hearing for
14 September 27, 2018 because, the discovery hearing was set for June 19, 2018 and, if granted, September
15 27, 2018 would allow sufficient time for Defendant's compliance with the discovery order. On May 31,
16 2018, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant requesting to stipulate to continue the briefing schedule
17 regarding Plaintiffs motion for class certification based on the new timing of Defendant's MSA. Defendant
18 refused any extension. A tme and correct copy of the email chain is attached as Exhibit 1.
19 4. Plaintiff served her second set of requests for production of documents on March 7,
20 2018, attaching the mass email sent by Defendant on February 15,2018 to putative class members. A tme
21 and correct copy of the mass email is attached as Exhibit 2.
22 5. Defendant served its responses on April 11, 2018. A true and correct copy of
23 Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is attached as Exhibit
24 3.
25 6. After Defendant promised to correct the deficiencies in its original responses, either
26 through the production of a privilege log or through the provision of supplemental responses, Plaintiff
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 requested and Defendant granted a three week extension to Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline, to June
2 18, 2018. A tme and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 4.
3 7. On June 4, 2018, because Plaintiff anticipated Defendant's compliance, but because
4 Defendant would not indicate whether it would provide a privilege log or supplemental responses and
5 would not provide a date certain by which Defendant would provide its method of correction. Plaintiff
6 asked for a further three week continuance. After following up multiple times. Defendant responded on
7 June 13,2018 stating: "[a]n extension of time for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make
8 any sense. We have already agreed to supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do
9 that by Monday June 18, 20I8."A true and correct copy of this email chain is attached as Exhibit 5.
10 8. Plaintiff explained the predicament of a simultaneous production deadline and motion
11 to compel deadline to Defendant both in correspondence and in the meet and confer telephone call on June
12 14,2018, to which Defendant respondedfinallyby continuing Plaintiffs deadline by two days, to June 20,
13 2018. A tme and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 6.
14 9. Defendant did not serve supplemental responses or a privilege log on June 18,2018, as
15 promised. Defendant sent an email at 7:06 p.m. on June 19,2018 apologizing for the delay and promising
16 production the following day. A tme and correct copy of the email from Defendant on June 19, 2018 is
17 attached as Exhibit 7.
18 10. Plaintiff filed her motion to compel further responses late in the day on June 19,2018,
19 after the filing window for the Court had closed for the day. Thus, Plaintiffs motion to compel was filed
20 the moming of June 20, 2018 through OneLegal.
21 11. Defendant provided supplemental responses on June 20, 2018, attaching them to an
22 email correspondence sent at 1:10 p.m. and promising the verification would follow. The verification was
23 emailed on June 21, 2018. A tme and correct copy of the email chain including these emails is attached
24 as Exhibit 8. Defendant's supplemental responses provided on June 20, 2018 are attached as Exhibit 9.
25 12. Defendant's production of documents made on June 20, 2018, the single email chain
26 produced in a redacted form, bates numbered HNCA002622-002623, is attached as Exhibit 10.
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is tme
2 and correct. Executed this 10th day of July, 2018, at La Jolla, Califomia.
3
4
5
VICTORIA-B^RIVAFALACIO
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
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 EXHIBIT #1
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
Victoria Rivapalacio
From: Long, Timothy J.
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 1:17 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio; Horton, Nicholas J.; Heath, Patricia M.
Cc: Norm Blumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; AJ B; Nicholas De Blouw; Shaun Setareh; H. Scott Leviant; Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net -.class certification
Counsel: Health Net does not agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class
certification motion. If Plaintiffs wish to seek such an extension, Plaintiffs should file a
properly noticed motion with the Court.
TIMOTHY J. LONG
Partner
orncU ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Flgueroa Street
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
400 Capitol Mall
Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
tel +1-213-612-2404 (Los Angeles)
tel +1-916-329-7919 (Sacramento)
tjlong@onick.com
bio • vcard
www.orrick.corn
Admissions; CA, District of Columbia and WA
LAW;^) LITIGATION
Pracllc«Ciovp
ORRICK
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 2:17 PM
To: Long, Timothy J. ; Horton, Nicholas J. ; Heath, Patricia M.
Cc: Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ;
Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant
; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: Spears v. Health Net - class certification
Counsel:
As the MSA hearing has been continued to September 27, 2018, the class certification motion deadline should no longer
be September 28, 2018. To that end, I have called the court to clear a new hearing date with Judge Perkins. I am waiting
on word from Dept. 35.
Is Defendant amenable to stipulating to continuing the class certification briefing and hearing schedule? If so, once I get
the date from the Court, I will circulate a stipulation for your review.
Thanks,
Victoria Rivapalacio
Attorney
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92126
Direct: 858-952-0352
Fax: 858-551-1232
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.omck.corrt.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
httosi/Awww.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information.
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 EXHIBIT #2
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Piya Mukheijee (State Bar #274217)
4 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6
Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNL\
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
of herself and on behalf of all persons
14 similarly situated. CLASS ACTION
15 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
Plaintiff, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
16 #2
17 vs.
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC., a
18 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through
19 50, Inclusive,
Action Filed: April 5,2017
20
21 Defendants.
22
23
24
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS
25
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
26
NO: Two (2)
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2
CASE No.34-2017-00210560
1 Plaintiff requests that you please produce for inspection and copying the following
2 documents and/or categories of documents in your possession, custody or control, within thirty (30)
3 days of service at the Law OfiSces of Blimienthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, located at 2255 Calle
4 Clara., La Jolla, CA 92037.
5 You are required under CCP Section 2031.010, et seq. to serve a written response which
6 includes an identification of the documents responsive to this Request for Production of Documents
7 within the time specified by law.
8
9 DEFINITIONS
10 I ."IDENTIFY" when used in reference to a document means that you shall state the name or
11 title of the document, give the name, address, and telephone number for the person who generated,
12 wrote, or produced the document, and state the name, address, and the phone nimiber for the person
13 who has the original or copies of the document.
14 2. "IDENTIFY" when used in reference to a person means that you shall identify the
15 persons (1) Full legal name; (2) All other names by which the individual is known to you; (3) The
16 individual's last known commercial and residential address; (4) The individtial's last known
17 commercial and residential telephone number(s); and (5) The individual's last known e-mail
18 address(es).
19 3. The term "DOCUMENT' or "DOCUMENTS" shall include any "writing" as defmed in
20 Califomia Evidence Code Sec. 250, whether printed, recorded,filmedor reproduced by any other
21 mechanical or electrical process, or written or produced by hand, and whether or not claimed to be
22 privileged against discovery on any ground, and including all originals, masters, and non-identical
23 copies.
24 4. The temis "DEFENDANT," "YOU" or "YOUR" refers to Defendant HEALTH NET OF
25 CALIFORNIA, INC., and all others acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not
26 limited to its directors, ofBcers, employees and agents.
27 5. The term "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" refers to the time period April 5,2013 to the
28 present.
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2
-2- CASE No.34-2017-00210560
1 6. The term "CLASS MEMBERS" shall refer to all individuals who are or previously were
2 employed by Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNDN., INC. in Califomia and classified as
3 non-exempt employees during the time period of April 5,2013 until the present.
4 7. The term "PLAINTIFF" refers to Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS.
5 8. The term "PERSON" means any individual, or any cognizable entity including, without
6 limitation, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, consortium, clubs, association,
7 unions, foundations, government agencies, or any other group.
8 9. The term "COMMUNICATION" means any transmission of informationfi'omone
9 PERSON to another, includmg, without limitation, by letter, memorandum, personal meeting,
10 telephone, telegraph, radio, facsimile, electronic mail, text message, or any other means.
11
12 DOCUMENTS REOUESTED
13 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1.
14 Please produce all DOCUMENTS constituting correspondences and written responses YOU
15 received in response to Exhibit A. attached hereto.
16
17 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2.
18 Please produce all DOCUMENTS constituting correspondences and written responses YOU
19 sent in response to aU correspondences and written responses responsive to Request for Production
20 No. 1, above.
21
22 DATED: March 7,2018 BLUMENT^fcti^ NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP
23
By..
24 Piya Mukherjee
Attomeys for Plaintiff
25
26 G:\D\Dropbox\Pending Litigation\Healthnet- Spears\Discovery\Plaintifrs Requests\p-rfp-02.wpd
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2
-3- CASE No.34-2017-00210560
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 EXHIBIT A
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2
-4- CASE No.34-2017-00210560
i 1
'1 § a
I I
1
S
i
C
11' I!
til
.a 8.« IS
lil I
•'.13
'.I
"I
I
3
IP 1
f
I
.2
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs RFP Set 2 state that no non-privileged documents exist, but no corresponding
privilege log was produced. Will you please produce a privilege log and/or confirm that no documents exist?
In the interim, will you continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline by three weeks to June 18, 2018 so we may
resolve this likely minor issue?
Thank you,
Victoria Rivapalacio
Attorney
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92126
Direct: 858-952-0352
Fax: 858-551-1232
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any reviev^, use. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
1
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.oiTick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information.
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 EXHIBIT #5
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
Virtori^ivagalacl^
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:03 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Heath, Patricia M.; Norm Blumenthal; AJ B; Kyle Nordrehaug; Nicholas De Blouw;
Shaun Setareh; H. Scott Leviant; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 >
Victoria,
An extension of time for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make any sense. We have already agreed to
supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do that by Monday June 18, 2018.
Regards,
Nick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. <:tjlong@orrick.com>; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Following up.
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:16 PM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' :
'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Will Defendant agree to continue the motion to compel deadline regarding RFP set 2?
Please provide a date certain when I can expect the privilege log and/or supplemental responses.
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:18 AM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' :
'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Thanks, Nick.
By when will Defendant provide these? My motion to compel deadline is currently June 18, 2018. Can we continue that
deadline another 2 weeks to July 2, 2018 and agree that Defendant will provide a privilege log and/or supplemental
responses, where appropriate, by June 11, 2018?
-Victoria
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 10:47 AM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Victoria - We will either provide a privilege log or make clear that no responsive documents exist, whichever is
applicable.
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.coml
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:20 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Will Defendant provide a privilege log regarding Its responses to RFP set 2?
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:54 PM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
: 'Shaun Setareh' ; 'H. Scott Leviant' :
'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
I also write to follow up to this request. Will Defendant provide a privilege log and/or supplemental responses in regard
to RFP set 2?
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:25 AM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' ;
'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you next week.
Victoria
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:47 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Llllt
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Hi Victoria,
Health Net grants your request for an extension to June 18, 2018, to bring a motion to compel as to RFP Set 2 on the
Issues set out below. I'll follow up with you next week after I have had an opportunity to look into the issue.
Regards,
Nick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:vlctoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 4:11 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
; Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant ; Llllt
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs RFP Set 2 state that no non-privileged documents exist, but no corresponding
privilege log was produced. Will you please produce a privilege log and/or confirm that no documents exist?
In the interim, will you continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline by three weeks to June 18, 2018 so we may
resolve this likely minor issue?
Thank you,
Victoria Rivapalacio
Attorney
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92126
Direct: 858-952-0352
Fax: 858-551-1232
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
httDS://wvi/w.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT j This e-mail is meant for only the intended, recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://Mww.Qrrick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this infonnation.
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 EXHIBIT #6
27
28
REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
Victoria Rivagalack
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Heath, Patricia M.; Norm Blumenthal; AJ B; Kyle Nordrehaug; Nicholas De Blouw;
Shaun Setareh; H. Scott Leviant; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Victoria,
Per our meet and confer call, this will confirm that Health Net agrees to extend your deadline to bring a motion to
compel as to Spears's RFP Set Two to June 20, 2018.
Best,
Nick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Llllt
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Defendant's promises of compliance in an enriall do not relieve the need to file a motion to ensure rights are not waived.
This is the first I have received a date certain and the fact that the date Defendant proposes is the same as my deadline
for a motion to compel Is clearly gamesmanship.
If Defendant Intends to comply on Monday, June 18, 2018, an extension of Plaintiff's deadline Is the only rseponse that
makes sense. Without an extension past the date of Defendant's proposed compliance, we will have no other option but
to file a motion and seek sanctions for Defendant's failure to act in good faith.
Victoria
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:03 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Victoria,
An extension of time for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make any sense. We have already agreed to
supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do that by Monday June 18, 2018.
Regards,
Nick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant : Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Following up.
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:16 PM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
; 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' :
'Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Will Defendant agree to continue the motion to compel deadline regarding RFP set 2?
Please provide a date certain when I can expect the privilege log and/or supplemental responses.
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:18 AM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
: 'Shaun Setareh' ; 'H. Scott Leviant' :
'Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Thanks, Nick.
By when will Defendant provide these? My motion to compel deadline is currently June 18, 2018. Can we continue that
deadline another 2 weeks to July 2, 2018 and agree that Defendant will provide a privilege log and/or supplemental
responses, where appropriate, by June 11, 2018?
-Victoria
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Friday, June 0 1 , 2018 10:47 AM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Victoria - We will either provide a privilege log or make clear that no responsive documents exist, whichever is
applicable.
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:20 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
; AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
; Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Will Defendant provide a privilege log regarding Its responses to RFP set 2?
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:54 PM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
; 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' ;
'Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
I also write to follow up to this request. Will Defendant provide a privilege log and/or supplemental responses in regard
to RFP set 2?
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:25 AM
To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw
: 'Shaun Setareh' ; 'H. Scott Leviant' ;
'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you next week.
Victoria
From: Horton, Nicholas J.
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:47 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant : Llllt
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Hi Victoria,
Health Net grants your request for an extension to June 18, 2018, to bring a motion to compel as to RFP Set 2 on the
issues set out below. I'll follow up with you next week after I have had an opportunity to look into the issue.
Regards,
Nick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:vlctoria@bamlawca.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 4:11 PM
To: Horton, Nicholas J.
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal
: AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw
: Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan
Subject: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2
Nick,
Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs RFP Set 2 state that no non-privileged documents exist, but no corresponding
privilege log was produced. Will you please produce a privilege log and/or confirm that no documents exist?
In the interim, will you continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline by three weeks to June 18, 2018 so we may
resolve this likely minor Issue?
Thank you.
Victoria Rivapalacio
Attorney
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92126
Direct: 858-952-0352
Fax: 858-551-1232
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://mvw.orrick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://wvw.orrick.com/Privacv-Pollcv to learn about how we use this information.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://wvw.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LIM^ORSED Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) '2018 JUL 10 PH 3: 16 Aparaj it Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 VictoriaB. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) ^'^WJ^.S^:W'' OFCAUFomnA 2255 Calle Clara ^ • BOUNTY OF SACRAHEHTO 4 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 5 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. CLASS ACTION 15 Plaintiff, 16 PLAINTIFF'S R E P L Y IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNDV, INC., a FURTHER RESPONSES TO Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 18 50, inclusive. DOCUMENTS; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. 19 Defendants. RIVAPALACIO IN SUPPORT 20 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, Telephone Appearance all others similarly situated. 21 22 Plaintiff, Hearing Date: July 17,2018 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Christopher E. Krueger Dept.: 54 lYFAX 23 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Action Filed: April 5, 2017 24 Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 25 Defendant. 26 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 L INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant's own gamesmanship and failure to act in good faith resulted in this motion. Defendant 3 (1) provided insufficient and evasive responses; (2) refused during the meet and confer process to specify 4 how it would provide compliant responses, whether it would provide a privilege log or supplemental 5 responses; (3) refused to provide a date certain for its anticipated compliance; (4) stated that a continuance 6 to Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline past the date Defendant finally provided as its goal date for its 7 compliant "didn't make any sense"; and (5) provided supplemental responses two days after its anticipated 8 deadline, a day after Plaintiff filed the corresponding motion to compel. Thus, this motion is both justified 9 and necessary. Without it, Plaintiff stood to waive her right to compel a further response to this discovery. 10 A party cannot rely on promises made in correspondence to protect discovery rights. Only a formal 11 verified response to discovery requests will trigger either a new deadline of forty-five days, pursuant to 12 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, or free the requesting party from afixedtime limit, pursuant to 13 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320. Defendant's contention that its promised future correction to its 14 deficient responses meant Plaintiff could have unilaterally postponed filing a motion to compel is, therefore, 15 unfounded and misdirects attention from the tme dispute, that of Defendant's incomplete and evasive 16 responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. 17 Further, a party is not required to indefinitely postpone filing a discovery motion, even in the 18 circumstance where a continuance to the motion to compel deadline is granted. Plaintiffs deadline to file 19 her motion for class certification is September 28,2018, a date that Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stipulate 20 to continuing such that Defendant's pending motion for summary adjudication is heard prior to the filing 21 of Plaintiffs motion for class certification, but Defendant has refused. (Supplemental Declaration of 22 Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Supp. Rivapalacio Decl."), Ex. 1.) As such, Plaintiff has no time to delay the 23 receipt of relevant discovery. 24 Lastly, a motion cannot be made moot by responses provided subsequent to its filing and service. 25 A motion is made and pending before the court for all purposes at the time it is filed and served. Cal. Code 26 Civ. Proc. §1005.5. Thus, this motion was made to compel further responses to Plaintiffs Requests for 27 Production of Documents ("RFP"), Set 2, the moming of June 20, 2018. Defendant's provision of its 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 supplemental responses in the aftemoon of June 20, 2018, therefore, could not moot the motion already 2 made. 3 The fact that Defendant's supplemental responses indicate that Defendant has, in its possession, non- 4 privileged documents responsive to RFP, Set 2, No. 1 is instmctive, however. Defendant's initial response 5 stated that there are no non-privileged documents, so the supplemental responses to No. 1 is an about-face. 6 Further, Defendant has not produced any non-privileged documents responsive to RFP, Set 2, No. 1, 7 demonstrating that there remain documents to compel. 8 As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs motion to compel further 9 responses to RFP, Set 2, Nos 1 & 2, and produce the corresponding documents. 10 11 IL ARGUMENT 12 A. PlaintifPs Motion to Compel Is Necessary 13 Defendant concedes that its responses to PlaintifTs RFP, Set 2, were deficient. Defendant made 14 promises to correct the deficiencies, either through the production of a privilege log or through the 15 provision of supplemental responses, but refused to indicate which method of compliance Defendant would 16 take and simultaneously refused to provide a date certain for the provision of the corrected responses, in 17 whichever form. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl. ^ 7.) 18 Because only verified responses trigger the deadlines imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 19 2031.310 (45 days) or section 2031.320 (no time limit), Defendant's verbal promises and emailed 20 communications could not protect Plaintiffs rights to the discovery at issue. Plaintiff was, therefore, 21 subject to the following: 22 On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the 23 demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. 24 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 25 ...(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to 26 which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)-(c) (emphasis added). 2 Defendant had agreed to continue Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline by three weeks, to June 18, 3 2018. (Supp, Rivapalacio Dec!., Ex. 4.) On June 4,2018, in response to Defendant's promise that it would 4 correct its deficiencies but without providing more detail as to how or, more importantly, as to when, 5 Plaintiff asked for a further extension to her motion to compel deadline. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 5.) 6 After following up multiple times. Defendant responded on June 13,2018 stating: "(ajn extension of time 7 for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make any sense. We have already agreed to 8 supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do that by Monday June 18, 2018." (Id. 9 (emphasis added).) 10 Such a response is either naive or gamesmanship. A simultaneous deadline for the discovery 11 responses and the motion to compel that same discovery cannot function practically. Plaintiff would, at 12 minimum, have to have a drafted motion, ready to file in case Defendant failed to comply with its 13 promises. Further, such a deadline does not provide for any review of the provided responses to ensure the 14 responses are compliant or that Plaintiff is then subject to a new deadline. 15 Plaintiff explained this predicament to Defendant both in correspondence and in the meet and confer 16 telephone call on June 14,2018, to which Defendant responded finally by continuing Plaintiffs deadline 17 by two days, to June 20, 2018. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 6.) Notably, Defendant did not serve 18 supplemental responses or a privilege log on June 18, 2018, as promised. (See Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., 19 Ex. 7 (email from Defendant at 7 p.m. on June 19, 2018 apologizing for the delay).') Instead, it provided 20 supplemental responses on June 20,2018. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 8.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs only 21 method to safeguard her rights to pursue the discovery was through filing a motion. 22 Importantly, even had Defendant continued Plaintiffs deadline further - a scenario Defendant had 23 already shown its hostility toward in its prior refusal to continue the deadline - Plaintiff was not obligated 24 to indefinitely postpone filing her motion to seek relevant discovery. Indeed, Plaintiff does not have the 25 26 'Plaintiff had already sent her motion to compel for filing by 7 p.m. on June 19, 2018. (Supp. 27 Rivapalacio Decl. f 10.) It was sent after the day's filing window, however, and thus it was not officially filed until the moming of June 20, 2018. (Id.) 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 time to be leisurely in the pursuit of this discovery because Plaintiffs deadline to file her motion for class 2 certification is September 28, 2018, a mere two months away. Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stipulate 3 to continue Plaintiffs motion for class certification filing deadline because of Defendant's discovery 4 delays and the continuance to the hearing on Defendant's motion for summary adjudication, but Defendant 5 has refused. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 1.) As such. Plaintiff cannot accommodate further delay to the 6 receipt of relevant discovery. 7 B. This Motion Is Not Moot and Seeks Compliant Responses and All Relevant 8 Documents 9 A motion is made and pending before the court for all purposes at the time it is filed and served. 10 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1005.5. Supplemental responses cannot moot a motion already made. Thus, 11 Defendant's supplemental responses provided after Plaintiffs filing of the at-issue motion cannot have 12 made the motion moot, even had they been satisfactory. 13 Defendant's subsequently provided supplemental responses are, however, informative. RFP No. 14 1 requests all correspondence Defendant received in response to Defendant's secret and unilaterally sent 15 correspondence to Class Members in advance of the Belaire-West notice mailing. (Supp. Rivapalacio 16 Decl., Ex. 2.) RFP No. 2 requests all correspondence Defendant sent in response to any correspondence 17 responsive to RFP No. 1. (Id.) Defendant's original responses stated there were no non-privileged 18 documents responsive to either RFP. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl.. Ex. 3.) Defendant's supplemental responses 19 maintain this for RFP No. 2, but agree to produce the single responsive email in a redacted format, the 20 document bates numbered HNCA002622-002623. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 9.) 21 In response to RFP No. 1, however. Defendant makes an abmpt tumaround. Defendant states that, 22 instead of there being no non-privileged documents in existence, both non-privileged documents and a 23 privileged document exist, are in Defendant's possession, and will be produced. (Id.) Defendant, however, 24 produced nothing more than the single email chain, bates numbered HNCA002622-002623, in a redacted 25 form. (Supp. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 10.) 26 Defendant now claims in its Opposition that this single redacted document is the entirety of its 27 intended production to both Requests. Such an assertion counter to Defendant's response to RFP No. 1, 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 stating that Defendant has both non-privileged and privileged documents, only the latter of which will be 2 produced in a redacted form. 3 This assertion also runs counter to any practical expectation. Defendant sent its secret, unilaterally 4 drafted email waming of an upcoming Belaire-West notice to thousands of Class Members. Notably, its 5 assertion that it received only this single email response is not made under oath in a declaration, nor is it 6 part of Defendant's verified discovery responses. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff must continue to seek to compel a compliant response, one that indicates 8 under oath that all responsive documents have been produced. 9 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order Defendant to provide 12 compliant verified supplemental responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set 2, and to produce all 13 corresponding documents. 14 15 16 Respectfully submitted, 17 DATED: July 10,2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 18 19 20 Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq. Attomeys for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO 2 I, Victoria B. Rivapalacio, declare as follows: 3 1. I am one of attomeys of record for the Plaintiff in the above entitled action, and have 4 personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness could testify 5 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on information and belief and as to such matters I 6 believe them to be tme. 7 2. This declaration is being submitted in support of Plaintiffs Reply in Support of 8 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. 9 3. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication on Febmary 5, 2018, setting the 10 hearing for April 26,2018. All further briefing was filed per code. On April 26,2018, the Court continued 11 the hearing to May 30,2018. On May 30,2018, the Court ordered a limited, discovery-related continuance 12 to the MSA hearing to allow resolution of a separate discovery dispute as to discovery relevant to the MSA 13 to occur prior to a ruling on the substance of Defendant's MSA. The Court set the MSA hearing for 14 September 27, 2018 because, the discovery hearing was set for June 19, 2018 and, if granted, September 15 27, 2018 would allow sufficient time for Defendant's compliance with the discovery order. On May 31, 16 2018, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant requesting to stipulate to continue the briefing schedule 17 regarding Plaintiffs motion for class certification based on the new timing of Defendant's MSA. Defendant 18 refused any extension. A tme and correct copy of the email chain is attached as Exhibit 1. 19 4. Plaintiff served her second set of requests for production of documents on March 7, 20 2018, attaching the mass email sent by Defendant on February 15,2018 to putative class members. A tme 21 and correct copy of the mass email is attached as Exhibit 2. 22 5. Defendant served its responses on April 11, 2018. A true and correct copy of 23 Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is attached as Exhibit 24 3. 25 6. After Defendant promised to correct the deficiencies in its original responses, either 26 through the production of a privilege log or through the provision of supplemental responses, Plaintiff 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 requested and Defendant granted a three week extension to Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline, to June 2 18, 2018. A tme and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 4. 3 7. On June 4, 2018, because Plaintiff anticipated Defendant's compliance, but because 4 Defendant would not indicate whether it would provide a privilege log or supplemental responses and 5 would not provide a date certain by which Defendant would provide its method of correction. Plaintiff 6 asked for a further three week continuance. After following up multiple times. Defendant responded on 7 June 13,2018 stating: "[a]n extension of time for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make 8 any sense. We have already agreed to supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do 9 that by Monday June 18, 20I8."A true and correct copy of this email chain is attached as Exhibit 5. 10 8. Plaintiff explained the predicament of a simultaneous production deadline and motion 11 to compel deadline to Defendant both in correspondence and in the meet and confer telephone call on June 12 14,2018, to which Defendant respondedfinallyby continuing Plaintiffs deadline by two days, to June 20, 13 2018. A tme and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 6. 14 9. Defendant did not serve supplemental responses or a privilege log on June 18,2018, as 15 promised. Defendant sent an email at 7:06 p.m. on June 19,2018 apologizing for the delay and promising 16 production the following day. A tme and correct copy of the email from Defendant on June 19, 2018 is 17 attached as Exhibit 7. 18 10. Plaintiff filed her motion to compel further responses late in the day on June 19,2018, 19 after the filing window for the Court had closed for the day. Thus, Plaintiffs motion to compel was filed 20 the moming of June 20, 2018 through OneLegal. 21 11. Defendant provided supplemental responses on June 20, 2018, attaching them to an 22 email correspondence sent at 1:10 p.m. and promising the verification would follow. The verification was 23 emailed on June 21, 2018. A tme and correct copy of the email chain including these emails is attached 24 as Exhibit 8. Defendant's supplemental responses provided on June 20, 2018 are attached as Exhibit 9. 25 12. Defendant's production of documents made on June 20, 2018, the single email chain 26 produced in a redacted form, bates numbered HNCA002622-002623, is attached as Exhibit 10. 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is tme 2 and correct. Executed this 10th day of July, 2018, at La Jolla, Califomia. 3 4 5 VICTORIA-B^RIVAFALACIO 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 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 EXHIBIT #1 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 Victoria Rivapalacio From: Long, Timothy J. Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 1:17 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio; Horton, Nicholas J.; Heath, Patricia M. Cc: Norm Blumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; AJ B; Nicholas De Blouw; Shaun Setareh; H. Scott Leviant; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net -.class certification Counsel: Health Net does not agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion. If Plaintiffs wish to seek such an extension, Plaintiffs should file a properly noticed motion with the Court. TIMOTHY J. LONG Partner orncU ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Flgueroa Street Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 400 Capitol Mall Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 tel +1-213-612-2404 (Los Angeles) tel +1-916-329-7919 (Sacramento) tjlong@onick.com bio • vcard www.orrick.corn Admissions; CA, District of Columbia and WA LAW;^) LITIGATION Pracllc«Ciovp ORRICK From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 2:17 PM To: Long, Timothy J. ; Horton, Nicholas J. ; Heath, Patricia M. Cc: Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: Spears v. Health Net - class certification Counsel: As the MSA hearing has been continued to September 27, 2018, the class certification motion deadline should no longer be September 28, 2018. To that end, I have called the court to clear a new hearing date with Judge Perkins. I am waiting on word from Dept. 35. Is Defendant amenable to stipulating to continuing the class certification briefing and hearing schedule? If so, once I get the date from the Court, I will circulate a stipulation for your review. Thanks, Victoria Rivapalacio Attorney Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92126 Direct: 858-952-0352 Fax: 858-551-1232 NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.omck.corrt. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at httosi/Awww.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information. 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 EXHIBIT #2 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Piya Mukheijee (State Bar #274217) 4 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 5 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNL\ 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 of herself and on behalf of all persons 14 similarly situated. CLASS ACTION 15 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR Plaintiff, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 16 #2 17 vs. HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC., a 18 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 19 50, Inclusive, Action Filed: April 5,2017 20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS 25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 26 NO: Two (2) 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2 CASE No.34-2017-00210560 1 Plaintiff requests that you please produce for inspection and copying the following 2 documents and/or categories of documents in your possession, custody or control, within thirty (30) 3 days of service at the Law OfiSces of Blimienthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, located at 2255 Calle 4 Clara., La Jolla, CA 92037. 5 You are required under CCP Section 2031.010, et seq. to serve a written response which 6 includes an identification of the documents responsive to this Request for Production of Documents 7 within the time specified by law. 8 9 DEFINITIONS 10 I ."IDENTIFY" when used in reference to a document means that you shall state the name or 11 title of the document, give the name, address, and telephone number for the person who generated, 12 wrote, or produced the document, and state the name, address, and the phone nimiber for the person 13 who has the original or copies of the document. 14 2. "IDENTIFY" when used in reference to a person means that you shall identify the 15 persons (1) Full legal name; (2) All other names by which the individual is known to you; (3) The 16 individual's last known commercial and residential address; (4) The individtial's last known 17 commercial and residential telephone number(s); and (5) The individual's last known e-mail 18 address(es). 19 3. The term "DOCUMENT' or "DOCUMENTS" shall include any "writing" as defmed in 20 Califomia Evidence Code Sec. 250, whether printed, recorded,filmedor reproduced by any other 21 mechanical or electrical process, or written or produced by hand, and whether or not claimed to be 22 privileged against discovery on any ground, and including all originals, masters, and non-identical 23 copies. 24 4. The temis "DEFENDANT," "YOU" or "YOUR" refers to Defendant HEALTH NET OF 25 CALIFORNIA, INC., and all others acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not 26 limited to its directors, ofBcers, employees and agents. 27 5. The term "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" refers to the time period April 5,2013 to the 28 present. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2 -2- CASE No.34-2017-00210560 1 6. The term "CLASS MEMBERS" shall refer to all individuals who are or previously were 2 employed by Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNDN., INC. in Califomia and classified as 3 non-exempt employees during the time period of April 5,2013 until the present. 4 7. The term "PLAINTIFF" refers to Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS. 5 8. The term "PERSON" means any individual, or any cognizable entity including, without 6 limitation, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, consortium, clubs, association, 7 unions, foundations, government agencies, or any other group. 8 9. The term "COMMUNICATION" means any transmission of informationfi'omone 9 PERSON to another, includmg, without limitation, by letter, memorandum, personal meeting, 10 telephone, telegraph, radio, facsimile, electronic mail, text message, or any other means. 11 12 DOCUMENTS REOUESTED 13 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1. 14 Please produce all DOCUMENTS constituting correspondences and written responses YOU 15 received in response to Exhibit A. attached hereto. 16 17 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2. 18 Please produce all DOCUMENTS constituting correspondences and written responses YOU 19 sent in response to aU correspondences and written responses responsive to Request for Production 20 No. 1, above. 21 22 DATED: March 7,2018 BLUMENT^fcti^ NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP 23 By.. 24 Piya Mukherjee Attomeys for Plaintiff 25 26 G:\D\Dropbox\Pending Litigation\Healthnet- Spears\Discovery\Plaintifrs Requests\p-rfp-02.wpd 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2 -3- CASE No.34-2017-00210560 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 EXHIBIT A 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET #2 -4- CASE No.34-2017-00210560 i 1 '1 § a I I 1 S i C 11' I! til .a 8.« IS lil I •'.13 '.I "I I 3 IP 1 f I .2 Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs RFP Set 2 state that no non-privileged documents exist, but no corresponding privilege log was produced. Will you please produce a privilege log and/or confirm that no documents exist? In the interim, will you continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline by three weeks to June 18, 2018 so we may resolve this likely minor issue? Thank you, Victoria Rivapalacio Attorney Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92126 Direct: 858-952-0352 Fax: 858-551-1232 NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any reviev^, use. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 1 For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.oiTick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information. 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 EXHIBIT #5 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 Virtori^ivagalacl^ From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:03 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Heath, Patricia M.; Norm Blumenthal; AJ B; Kyle Nordrehaug; Nicholas De Blouw; Shaun Setareh; H. Scott Leviant; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 > Victoria, An extension of time for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make any sense. We have already agreed to supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do that by Monday June 18, 2018. Regards, Nick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:00 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. <:tjlong@orrick.com>; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Following up. Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:16 PM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' : 'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Will Defendant agree to continue the motion to compel deadline regarding RFP set 2? Please provide a date certain when I can expect the privilege log and/or supplemental responses. Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:18 AM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' : 'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Thanks, Nick. By when will Defendant provide these? My motion to compel deadline is currently June 18, 2018. Can we continue that deadline another 2 weeks to July 2, 2018 and agree that Defendant will provide a privilege log and/or supplemental responses, where appropriate, by June 11, 2018? -Victoria From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 10:47 AM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Victoria - We will either provide a privilege log or make clear that no responsive documents exist, whichever is applicable. From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.coml Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:20 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Will Defendant provide a privilege log regarding Its responses to RFP set 2? Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:54 PM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw : 'Shaun Setareh' ; 'H. Scott Leviant' : 'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, I also write to follow up to this request. Will Defendant provide a privilege log and/or supplemental responses in regard to RFP set 2? Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:25 AM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' ; 'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you next week. Victoria From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:47 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Hi Victoria, Health Net grants your request for an extension to June 18, 2018, to bring a motion to compel as to RFP Set 2 on the Issues set out below. I'll follow up with you next week after I have had an opportunity to look into the issue. Regards, Nick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:vlctoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 4:11 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant ; Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs RFP Set 2 state that no non-privileged documents exist, but no corresponding privilege log was produced. Will you please produce a privilege log and/or confirm that no documents exist? In the interim, will you continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline by three weeks to June 18, 2018 so we may resolve this likely minor issue? Thank you, Victoria Rivapalacio Attorney Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92126 Direct: 858-952-0352 Fax: 858-551-1232 NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at httDS://wvi/w.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT j This e-mail is meant for only the intended, recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://Mww.Qrrick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this infonnation. 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 EXHIBIT #6 27 28 REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 Victoria Rivagalack From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:37 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Heath, Patricia M.; Norm Blumenthal; AJ B; Kyle Nordrehaug; Nicholas De Blouw; Shaun Setareh; H. Scott Leviant; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Victoria, Per our meet and confer call, this will confirm that Health Net agrees to extend your deadline to bring a motion to compel as to Spears's RFP Set Two to June 20, 2018. Best, Nick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:51 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Defendant's promises of compliance in an enriall do not relieve the need to file a motion to ensure rights are not waived. This is the first I have received a date certain and the fact that the date Defendant proposes is the same as my deadline for a motion to compel Is clearly gamesmanship. If Defendant Intends to comply on Monday, June 18, 2018, an extension of Plaintiff's deadline Is the only rseponse that makes sense. Without an extension past the date of Defendant's proposed compliance, we will have no other option but to file a motion and seek sanctions for Defendant's failure to act in good faith. Victoria From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:03 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Heath, Patricia M. ; Norm Blumenthal : AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Victoria, An extension of time for a motion to compel regarding RFP, Set 2 does not make any sense. We have already agreed to supplement our response or produce a privilege log. And we will do that by Monday June 18, 2018. Regards, Nick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:00 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant : Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Following up. Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:16 PM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw ; 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' : 'Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Will Defendant agree to continue the motion to compel deadline regarding RFP set 2? Please provide a date certain when I can expect the privilege log and/or supplemental responses. Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:18 AM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw : 'Shaun Setareh' ; 'H. Scott Leviant' : 'Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Thanks, Nick. By when will Defendant provide these? My motion to compel deadline is currently June 18, 2018. Can we continue that deadline another 2 weeks to July 2, 2018 and agree that Defendant will provide a privilege log and/or supplemental responses, where appropriate, by June 11, 2018? -Victoria From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Friday, June 0 1 , 2018 10:47 AM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant ; Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Victoria - We will either provide a privilege log or make clear that no responsive documents exist, whichever is applicable. From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 5:20 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal ; AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw ; Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Will Defendant provide a privilege log regarding Its responses to RFP set 2? Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:54 PM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw ; 'Shaun Setareh' : 'H. Scott Leviant' ; 'Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, I also write to follow up to this request. Will Defendant provide a privilege log and/or supplemental responses in regard to RFP set 2? Thanks, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:25 AM To: 'Horton, Nicholas J.' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Heath, Patricia M.' : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B ; Kyle Nordrehaug : Nicholas De Blouw : 'Shaun Setareh' ; 'H. Scott Leviant' ; 'Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you next week. Victoria From: Horton, Nicholas J. Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:47 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh ; H. Scott Leviant : Llllt Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Hi Victoria, Health Net grants your request for an extension to June 18, 2018, to bring a motion to compel as to RFP Set 2 on the issues set out below. I'll follow up with you next week after I have had an opportunity to look into the issue. Regards, Nick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:vlctoria@bamlawca.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 4:11 PM To: Horton, Nicholas J. Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Heath, Patricia M. : Norm Blumenthal : AJ B : Kyle Nordrehaug ; Nicholas De Blouw : Shaun Setareh : H. Scott Leviant : Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan Subject: Spears v. Health Net - RFP set 2 Nick, Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs RFP Set 2 state that no non-privileged documents exist, but no corresponding privilege log was produced. Will you please produce a privilege log and/or confirm that no documents exist? In the interim, will you continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline by three weeks to June 18, 2018 so we may resolve this likely minor Issue? Thank you. Victoria Rivapalacio Attorney Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92126 Direct: 858-952-0352 Fax: 858-551-1232 NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://mvw.orrick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://wvw.orrick.com/Privacv-Pollcv to learn about how we use this information. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://wvw.orrick.com/Privacv-Policv to learn about how we use this information. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify