Preview
FILED
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP^f^QQ
Noraian B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) £D
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 20IB JAN 17 PM
. 12: 36
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) iUPCRiORCeMlUGrCALirORNi
2255 Calle Clara COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO
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 Case No. 34-20i7-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
14 behalf of herself ana on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION
15
16 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
17 vs. RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM
18
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF
INC., a Califomia Corporation; and VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO IN
19 Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, SUPPORT
20 Defendants. Telephone Appearance g
21
Hearing Date: Febmary 13, 2018
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
22
Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
Dept.: 54
23 April 5, 2017
Action Filed:
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Please be advised that on Febmary 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the above entitled
3 Court, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff) will move to compel Defendant HEALTH NET OF
4 CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories,
5 Set One. This motion will be heard before the Honorable Raymond M. Cadei, Judge ofthe Superior
6 Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento.
7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300 on the grounds
8 that the said interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter of this action and that Defendant's
9 objections are improper and without merit. The motion will be based upon this notice of motion and
10 motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the separate statement, the declaration of Victoria B.
11 Rivapalacio, the lodged exhibits, filed and served herewith, the complete files and records in this case
12 and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion.
13 Pursuant to Local Rule L06(A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this
14 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings
15 for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online
16 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local
17 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the
18 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. Ifyou do not call the court and opposing party on the
19 court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
20
21 Dated: January 16,2018 BLUMENTH,AL )aORDREHAy(;i BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
22
23 By:
Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq.
24 Attomeys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff and "Plaintiff Spears") asserts causes of actions based on
3 Defendant's failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt, hourly employees for all time
4 worked, in violation of the Califomia Labor Code. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a class of former
5 and current non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant. Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the
6 California Labor Code and the Unfair Business and Professions Code (the "UCL") based on Defendant's
7 failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods/premiums to this class as promised by Defendant's
8 policies that agreed to pay premiums for breaks documented as missed in the time records.
9 Plaintiff also asserts causes of action on behalf of this class based on Defendant's failure to properly
10 calculate the Class Members' regular rate of pay by failing to have a payroll mechanism that included
11 certain cash payments in the calculation of the overtime rate of pay for these employees.
12 The discovery requests at issue here seek (1) information to establish the number and ascertain
13 the membership of the class of employees who were subject to the overtime miscalculation (Rog Nos.
14 6-7); (2) Defendant's pay codes and types of compensation used to pay the class (Rog Nos. 11-12, &
15 14); (3) the Bates numbers of the meal period policies for which Defendant produced documents
16 instead of answering the interrogatory response (Rog Nos. 15-16); (4) the numbers of meal period
17 premiums paid (Rog No. 19); and (5) Class Members' job duties (Rog No. 18). Defendant has refused
18 to cooperate with providing sufficient responses despite their clear relevance to class certification.
19 For example, Defendant refuses to identify the pay codes used by Defendant on Class Members'
20 wage statements or even to identify all forms of compensation Class Members were eligible to receive. This
21 information is indisputably relevant in a wage and hour class action, particularly when, as here, the
22 allegations include failing to properly include non-discretionary wages in the calculation of the regular rate.
23 As a further example. Defendant refuses to provide the number of meal period premiums it has paid to Class
24 Members, despite clear precedent demonstrating the direct relevance of such information: "the fact that only
25 a few missed meal premiums were actually paid relative to the total number of missed meal breaks... reflects
26 a common practice by [a defendant] of failing to compensate employees for hours worked and constitutes
27 common proof of liability." v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388,418 (2015).
28 In summary, as Defendant has failed to fulfill its discovery obligations in this matter. Plaintiff
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to compel.
2
3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4 Plaintiff Spears filed this action on April 5, 2017, filing a First Amended Complaint that added a
5 cause of action pursuant to PAGA on June 29,2017. The Parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Spears
6 action with Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-00216685, which the Court ordered
7 consolidated on October 11, 2017.
8 Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of special
9 interrogatories. (Rivapalacio Decl. 3.) Defendant served its initial responses on September 12, 2017.
10 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 1.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant detailing
11 the deficiencies in Defendant's responses. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff followed up the following
12 month (see Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 3.\ but the Parties finally met and conferred on October 24, 2017.
13 During the telephonic meet and confer, Defendant stated it would provide supplemental responses.
14 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 4.) Defendant provided supplemental responses on December 6,2017. (Rivapalacio
15 Decl., Ex. 5.) The Parties met and conferred on December 20, 2017 regarding Defendant's supplemental
16 responses and all outstanding issues from its original responses. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 6.) The discovery
17 at issue in this motion remains in dispute and unresolved by the extensive meet and confer efforts ofthe
18 Parties, (M)
19
20 IIL ARGUMENT
21 Under Califomia's Discovery Act, information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter"
22 if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating the settlement
23 thereof Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539,1546 (1995); Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.
24 App. 4th 1599, 1611 (1996). These cases state that the scope must be liberally construed in favor of
25 permitting discovery in accordance with the imderlying policy ofthe Discovery Act. Emerson Electric
26 V. Superior Court, 16 CaL 4th 1101, 1107 (1997).
27 Plaintiffs discovery requests at issue seek foundational information which will either be admissible
28 evidence in itself or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the relevancy of these
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
2 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 requests is manifest. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that a plaintiff is entitied to
2 fiill discovery unless limited by an order of the Court as follows:
3 Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
4 involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if
the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to
5 the discovery of admissible evidence.
6 A. Information Regarding Ascertainability, Numerosity, and Manageability: Rog Nos. 6-7
7 These interrogatories seek the pay periods in which those Class Members who were eligible to be
8 paid cash payments in lieu of health benefits worked overtime and also received those payments (No. 6),
9 and the number of Class Members in that category (No. 7). Defendant responds to each with solely
10 objections. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of
11 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. These
12 interrogatories seek information as to numerosity, ascertainability, and manageability of the class as defined
13 in the Complaint: the dates of specific pay periods, and the number of Class Members who received cash
14 payments in a pay period where they also worked overtime. This information will both lead to the
15 discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming
16 motion for class certification.
17 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial
18 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the
19 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating
20 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide,
21 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of
22 certification.
23 In fact, a showing that Defendant did not include the health benefits cash payments in its calculation
24 ofthe Class Members' regular rates of pay is insufficient to establish a classwide claim on this issue. The
25 Court must also have evidence that Class Members were due payments at the proper regular rate, i.e., that
26 they worked overtime during the same pay periods when they were issued the health benefits cash payments.
27 As such, the information sought here is foundational, timely, directly relevant to certification, and narrowly
28 constructed to produce relevant evidence. Lastly, any relevant confidential information can be produced
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 subject to the protective order in place in this case.
2 B. Information Regarding Defendant's Compensation System: Rog Nos. 11-12 & 14
3 These interrogatories asked Defendant to identify its pay codes (Nos. 11-12) and the types of
4 compensation issued to Class Members (No. 14), information that is fundamental to understanding
5 Defendant's wage statements, its compensation systems, and the various ways Defendant may record its
6 non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members or its mechanisms for paying overtime compensation.
7 Defendant supplemented its original deficient responses to state that it will provide the information as to
8 pay codes used on only Plaintiffs wage statements and to state the forms of compensation for which
9 Plaintiff was eligible, but not as to the rest of the Class Members.
10 As a putative class action, Plaintiff requires the same pay code information for all class members
11 in order to ascertain who was paid the same way as Plaintiff and, therefore, subject to the same claim that
12 certain cash payments were excluded from the calculation ofthe regular rate. Defendant does not have
13 discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action."
14 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017).
15 Similarly, Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify all of the forms of compensation that Class Members
16 are eligible to receive so Plaintiff can understand the various kinds of cash payments paid to Class Members
17 that may not have been included in the regular rate of pay. For the ascertainability and commonality
18 requirements. Plaintiff needs this information for the class members and Defendant's continued attempts
19 to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff unfairly prohibits Plaintiff fromfindingthe other common class
20 members who share the same claim.
21 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced
22 pursuant to the now effective protective order.
23 C. Meal Period Policies: Rog Nos. 15-16
24 The meal policies to which Plaintiff and Class Members were subject are evidence in a wage and
25 hour class action case ofDefendant's potential liability. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th
26 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is
27 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class
28 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
4 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references
2 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the
3 Code of Civil Procedure, which states:
If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the
interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be
5 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding
party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the
6 writingsfromwhich the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be
in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily
7 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added).
9 At Plaintiffs request. Defendant provided further detail via written correspondence. (Rivapalacio
10 Decl., Ex. 7.) However, Defendant would not provide signed and verified responses containing the
11 necessary specification, leaving its responses deficient and non-compliant. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 8.)
12 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know i f
13 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and
14 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's
15 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees ofDefendant in Califomia during
16 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies
17 will show commonalify and typicalify for class certification.
18 E. Class Members' Job Duties: Rog No. 18
19 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations
20 ofDefendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. As discussed
21 above. Defendant's policies regarding meal periods may evidence its liability, but an employer may have
22 a facially legal policy while failing to provide legally compliant meal periods in practice. For example, as
23 alleged in the Consolidated Complaint, Plaintiff Spears and Arana were both expected, as part of their job
24 performance, to boot up their computers in a specific maimer. Through this practice where the Plaintiffs
25 were required to wait ten to twenty minutes for their computers to fully load before they could log in for the
26 day. Defendant failed to accurately record their time and avoided paying the Plaintiffs compensation for all
27 their hours worked.
28 To the extent these same job duties were expected of other Class Members, this information will
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
5 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 demonstrate commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This information will be
2 directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide no valid objection
3 for withholding this information.
^4 Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job description is, again, inappropriate in a putative
5 class action. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this
6 case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th at 549.
7 F. Numbers of Meal Period Premiums Paid: Rog No. 19
8 This interrogatory requests the number of meal period premiums paid to Class Members. Defendant
9 responded by stating that "Plaintiff was not entitied to any meal period premiums and, as a result, did not
10 receive any meal period premiums." Such a response is evasive and non-responsive as the interrogatory
11 seeks information as to the Class Members and not solely Plaintiff
12 The number of meal period premiums paid to Class Members is directly relevant because it will
13 demonstrate through a statistical analysis Defendant's practice of failing to pay premiums when owed. See
14 Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388, 418 (2015) ("The statistical evidence
15 reflects a common practice by which management modified timekeeping records, and substantiates
16 declarants' testimony that the [defendant] undertook active efforts to hide its wage and hour violations.").
17 In Alberts, the plaintiff there used precisely this evidence to demonstrate Defendant's common practice for
18 purposes of class certification:
19 [T]he fact that only a few missed meal premiums were actually paid relative to the total
number of missed meal breaks, combined with evidence that management actively
20 discouraged employees from seeking missed break compensation, reflects a common
practice by the Hospital of failing to compensate employees for hours worked and
21 constitutes common proof of liability.
22 M at 418 (emphasis added).
23 Further, to determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the
24 class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is
25 entitled is calculable. Indeed, Defendant provided substantive responses in its supplemental responses to
26 similar questions when Plaintiff objected to their objection-only responses. Those interrogatories also sought
27 information as to the numbers associated with the class - the number of Class Members, the number of
28 workweeks worked, or the number of wage statements issued to Class Members, for example. Because the
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
6 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage statements, are calculated
2 by workweek and pay period, the information sought through those interrogatories and the interrogatory at
3 issue serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism
4 by which the Court will calculate damages.
5 Defendant's failure to provide a substantive response to this interrogatory is suspicious in the context
6 of the interrogatories to which Defendant did eventually provide responses. Defendant caimot hide behind
7 silence to avoid an admission that Defendant did not pay any meal period premiums to any Class Member.
8 Further, as this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any
9 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their
10 own purposes such as mediation or removal and, in fact, and is readily accessible as demonstrated by
11 Defendant's responses to similar requests seeking solely numbers associated with the Class, namely
12 Interrogator Nos. 17 and 20-24. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that this information is unduly
13 burdensome to provide.
14
15 IV. CONCLUSION
16 Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject
17 matter involved in the pending action i f the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
18 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.
19 Califomia law has established a broadrightto discovery and, as confirmed in Williams v. Superior Court,
20 3 Cal. 5th at 551, the judicial process is based on the understanding that a "[mjutual knowledge of all the
21 relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation." Id. at 551 (citing Greyhound Corp.
22 V. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 386 (1961)).
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
7 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
I As the discovery at issue in the instant motion seeks information and documents that are relevant
2 facts to propel the parties toward a mutual understanding of the case, the issuance of an order compelling
3 further responses is appropriate here.
4
5
6 Respectfully submitted.
7
DATED: January 16, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUGBHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
8
9
Victoria-B.-Rivapalacio,-Esq.
10 Attomeys for Plaintiff
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
8 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 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 i f 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 Motion to Compel Further
8 Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories.
9 3. Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of
10 requests for production of documents. Defendant served its initial responses on September 12,2017. A tme
11 and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One is attached as
12 Exhibit 1.
13 4. On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant detailing deficiencies
14 in Defendant's responses. A tme and correct copy of Plaintiffs correspondence of September 21, 2017 is
15 attached as Exhibit 2.
16 5. Plaintiff followed up regularly over the following month. A tme and correct copy of the
17 string of correspondence sent by Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 3. Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred
18 telephonically on October 24, 2017. During that meet and confer session. Defendant agreed to provide
19 supplemental responses. A tme and correct copy of the confirmatory email exchange is attached as Exhibit
20 4.
21 6. Defendant provided supplemental responses on December 6,2017. A tme and correct copy
22 ofDefendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories, Set One is attached as Exhibit
23 5. The Parties met and conferred on December 20,2017 regarding Defendant's supplemental responses and
24 all outstanding issues for its original responses. A tme and correct copy of the confirmatory email is
25 attached as Exhibit 6.
26 7. At Plaintiffs request. Defendant provided further detail in regard to its responses referring
27 Plaintiff to documents. However, Defendant provided this solely via written correspondence. A tme and
28 correct copy of this correspondence is attached as Exhibit 7. Defendant would not provide signed and
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 verified responses containing the necessary specification, leaving its responses deficient and non-compliant.
2 A tme and correct copy ofthe email correspondence is attached as Exhibit 8.
3 8. The instant action and the action Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-
4 00216685, were consolidated on October 25, 2017.
5
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing
7 is tme and correct. Executed this 16th day of January, 2018, at La Jolla, Califomia.
8
9
10
VICTORIA.BIRI'VAPALACIO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
27 EXHIBIT #1
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
tj long@onick. com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
"4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
6 stephanie.lee@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017
8 Telephone: (213)629-2020
Facsimile: (213)612-2499
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of Case No. 34-2017-00210560
15 herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated,. DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF
16 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL
17 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
18 Date Action Filed: April 5,2017
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC., a Trial Date: None Set
19 Califomia Corporation, and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive,,
20
Defendants.
21
22
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANDREA SPEARS
23
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
24
SET NO.: ONE(l)
25
26
27
28
0HSUSA;767194169.5
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIBS, SET ONE
1 Pursuant to sections 2030 et seq. ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant Health Net of
2 Califomia, Inc. ("Defendanf) responds to the First Set of Special Interrogatories served upon it by
3 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff) as follows:
4 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
5 The following responses are made solely for the purpose of this litigation and are based on
6 infonnation presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery is still ongoing and Defendant
7 reserves therightto supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or
8 to introduce such information at the time of the trial.
9 Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality,
10 proprietary, subject matter, admissibility and any and all other objections or grounds that would
11 require exclusion of the responses or documents produced by Defendant, or any part thereof, if any
12 ' of these responses or documents were presented at court. All appropriate objections and grounds
13 are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence of a
14 response to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories.
15 No response to these interrogatories constitutes or should be construed as an admission
16 respecting relevancy or admissibility of the disclosed information, or the truth or accuracy of any
17 statement, characterization or other fact contained in any response to these interrogatories.
18 Defendant expressly does not concede the relevancy or materiality of any of these interrogatories
19 or the subject matter to which they refer.
20 The fact that Defendant has responded to or objected to any interrogatory or part thereof
21 may not be taken as an admission about the existence or nonexistence of any fact, or that such
22 response constitutes relevant evidence. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these
23 responses. The fact that Defendant has responded to part or all of any interrogatory shall not be
24 construed to be a waiver of any obj ection to part or all of any other interrogatory. Nothing contained
25 herein shall be constmed as an implied admission of the existence or nonexistence ofany fact.
26 To the extent these interrogatories call for infonnation which constitutes material prepared
27 in anticipation of litigation or for trial, information or material protected by the attomey-client
28 privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and/or the common interest
OHSUSA;767194169.5
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 privilege or any other privilege. Defendant objects to each and every such interrogatory and will
2 not supply or produce any such information. To the extent any interrogatory seeks information
3 relating to legal conclusions, opinions, theories and/or research of Defendant and Defendant's
4 counsel. Defendant objects and will not provide such information. Moreover, in responding to any
5 interrogatory potentially calling for a legal conclusion, Defendant does not admit, either expressly
6 or impliedly, that any such response adopts any of the legal conclusions contained in the
7 interrogatory. These responses shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground
8 for objecting to discovery with respect to such response, nor shall inadvertent disclosure waive the
9 right ofDefendant to object to the use of such information during any subsequent proceeding.
10 To the extent any intenogatory seeks information relating to confidential personnel or other
11 information of persons other than Plaintiff, Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory on
12 the groimds that such interrogatory is overbroad, seeks information that is not relevant to the subject
13 matter of this action, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
14 and invades the privacyrightsof such other persons. To the extent any intenogatory violates
15 Defendant's right to privacy or calls for the disclosiu'e of confidential and/or proprietary
16 information or infonnation otherwise protected as a trade secret. Defendant objects to each and
17 every such intenogatory and will not supply or produce any such information except pursuant to a
18 Protective Order governing the production of such information entered in this matter.
19 Defendant objects to the purported definitions and, instmctions set forth in the
20 interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and
21 oppressive and Defendant undertakes no obligation except as those that may be provided by the
22 Code of Civil Procedure.
23 Defendant incorporates by this reference each and all of the foregoing General Objections
24 into the following enumerated Responses.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
27 Please state PLAINTIFF'S dates of employment, rates of pay, and job titles during the
28 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
0HSUSA:767194169.S ~^ '
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
4 grounds it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither
5 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
6 admissible evidence. Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves the right to amend its response.
7 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
8 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
9 Plaintiffs persoimel file, wage statements and other documents produced concurrently herewith
10 and in connection with this litigation.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
12 Please state the date ofPLAINTIFF'S final paycheck.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
15 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
16 grounds it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither
17 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
18 admissible evidence; Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves the right to amend its response.
19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
20 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
21 Plaintiffsfinalwage statement.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3;
23 Please IDENTIFY all supervisor(s) who supervised PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT
24 TIME PERIOD.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
26 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
27 the grounds that it is vague and ainbiguous, especially as to the terms "supervisor(s)" and
28 "supervised." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad and seeks
0HSUSA:767I94169.5 "^ "
DEFENDANT HEALTHNETOF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 infonnation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
2 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
4 Alma Moreno was Plaintiffs latest immediate supervisor. Ms. Moreno may be contacted through
5 Defendant's counsel of record.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4;
7 Please state YOUR policies for providing compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during
8 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to tiiis special
9 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
11 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
12 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
13 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies," and "providing compensation."
14 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and
15 seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this
17 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
19 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its
20 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a
21 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5;
23 Please state the job tities of the CLASS MEMBERS who were eligible to be paid cash
24 payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to
25 documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for
26 the responsive documents).
27
28
0HSUSA:767194169.S ^ "
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
4 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job titles" and "eligible to be paid cash payments
5 in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is neither
6 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks
8 confidential and/or proprietary business infonnation. Defendant further objects that this
9 interrogatory is compound, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this
10 pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that
11 it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
12 SPEOAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
13 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS
14 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during
15 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
16 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
19 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
20 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of
21 health benefits during the same pay period." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
22 grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects
24 that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly
25 at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
26 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further
27 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have
28 neither been admitted nor established.
0HSUSA:767I94169.5 "^ "
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
2 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation
3 during the same pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
4 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
5 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
9 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during tiie same
10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this
11 interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
12 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
13 further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
14 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
15 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
16 Defendant further objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
19 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits to
20 the CLASS MEMBERS during flie RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in
21 response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive
22 documents).
23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
24 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
25 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
26 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "policy for paying cash payments in lieu of
27 health benefits." Defendant also objects to this mtenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly
28 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
0HSUSA:767194169.5 "^ "
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET QF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to
2 this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
3 Defendant further objects to this intenogatory ontiiegroundstiiatit lacks foundation as it assumes
4 facts that have neither been admitted nor estabhshed.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
6 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS
7 MEMBERS duringtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents m response to this
8 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
11 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
12 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "'MedFlxWave' compensation." Defendant
13 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
14 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
15 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
16 groimds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10;
18 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "DenFlxElct" compensation to the CLASS
19 MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents m response to tiiis
20 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPEQAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "GLASS
24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "'DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also
25 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
26 information that is neither relevant to tiie subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
28 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
OHSUSA:767194I69.S ' ~
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
2 During tiie RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by
3 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to tiie CLASS MEMBERS (ifyou refer to documents
4 in response to this special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the
5 responsive d
Preview
FILED 1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP^f^QQ Noraian B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) £D 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 20IB JAN 17 PM . 12: 36 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) iUPCRiORCeMlUGrCALirORNi 2255 Calle Clara COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO 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 Case No. 34-20i7-00210560-CU-OE-GDS 14 behalf of herself ana on behalf of all persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 15 16 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 17 vs. RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM 18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF INC., a Califomia Corporation; and VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO IN 19 Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, SUPPORT 20 Defendants. Telephone Appearance g 21 Hearing Date: Febmary 13, 2018 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 22 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei Dept.: 54 23 April 5, 2017 Action Filed: 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Please be advised that on Febmary 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the above entitled 3 Court, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff) will move to compel Defendant HEALTH NET OF 4 CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, 5 Set One. This motion will be heard before the Honorable Raymond M. Cadei, Judge ofthe Superior 6 Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento. 7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300 on the grounds 8 that the said interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter of this action and that Defendant's 9 objections are improper and without merit. The motion will be based upon this notice of motion and 10 motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the separate statement, the declaration of Victoria B. 11 Rivapalacio, the lodged exhibits, filed and served herewith, the complete files and records in this case 12 and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion. 13 Pursuant to Local Rule L06(A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this 14 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings 15 for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online 16 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local 17 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the 18 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. Ifyou do not call the court and opposing party on the 19 court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held. 20 21 Dated: January 16,2018 BLUMENTH,AL )aORDREHAy(;i BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 22 23 By: Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq. 24 Attomeys for Plaintiff 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff and "Plaintiff Spears") asserts causes of actions based on 3 Defendant's failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt, hourly employees for all time 4 worked, in violation of the Califomia Labor Code. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a class of former 5 and current non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant. Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the 6 California Labor Code and the Unfair Business and Professions Code (the "UCL") based on Defendant's 7 failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods/premiums to this class as promised by Defendant's 8 policies that agreed to pay premiums for breaks documented as missed in the time records. 9 Plaintiff also asserts causes of action on behalf of this class based on Defendant's failure to properly 10 calculate the Class Members' regular rate of pay by failing to have a payroll mechanism that included 11 certain cash payments in the calculation of the overtime rate of pay for these employees. 12 The discovery requests at issue here seek (1) information to establish the number and ascertain 13 the membership of the class of employees who were subject to the overtime miscalculation (Rog Nos. 14 6-7); (2) Defendant's pay codes and types of compensation used to pay the class (Rog Nos. 11-12, & 15 14); (3) the Bates numbers of the meal period policies for which Defendant produced documents 16 instead of answering the interrogatory response (Rog Nos. 15-16); (4) the numbers of meal period 17 premiums paid (Rog No. 19); and (5) Class Members' job duties (Rog No. 18). Defendant has refused 18 to cooperate with providing sufficient responses despite their clear relevance to class certification. 19 For example, Defendant refuses to identify the pay codes used by Defendant on Class Members' 20 wage statements or even to identify all forms of compensation Class Members were eligible to receive. This 21 information is indisputably relevant in a wage and hour class action, particularly when, as here, the 22 allegations include failing to properly include non-discretionary wages in the calculation of the regular rate. 23 As a further example. Defendant refuses to provide the number of meal period premiums it has paid to Class 24 Members, despite clear precedent demonstrating the direct relevance of such information: "the fact that only 25 a few missed meal premiums were actually paid relative to the total number of missed meal breaks... reflects 26 a common practice by [a defendant] of failing to compensate employees for hours worked and constitutes 27 common proof of liability." v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388,418 (2015). 28 In summary, as Defendant has failed to fulfill its discovery obligations in this matter. Plaintiff MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to compel. 2 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 Plaintiff Spears filed this action on April 5, 2017, filing a First Amended Complaint that added a 5 cause of action pursuant to PAGA on June 29,2017. The Parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Spears 6 action with Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-00216685, which the Court ordered 7 consolidated on October 11, 2017. 8 Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of special 9 interrogatories. (Rivapalacio Decl. 3.) Defendant served its initial responses on September 12, 2017. 10 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 1.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant detailing 11 the deficiencies in Defendant's responses. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff followed up the following 12 month (see Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 3.\ but the Parties finally met and conferred on October 24, 2017. 13 During the telephonic meet and confer, Defendant stated it would provide supplemental responses. 14 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 4.) Defendant provided supplemental responses on December 6,2017. (Rivapalacio 15 Decl., Ex. 5.) The Parties met and conferred on December 20, 2017 regarding Defendant's supplemental 16 responses and all outstanding issues from its original responses. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 6.) The discovery 17 at issue in this motion remains in dispute and unresolved by the extensive meet and confer efforts ofthe 18 Parties, (M) 19 20 IIL ARGUMENT 21 Under Califomia's Discovery Act, information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" 22 if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating the settlement 23 thereof Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539,1546 (1995); Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. 24 App. 4th 1599, 1611 (1996). These cases state that the scope must be liberally construed in favor of 25 permitting discovery in accordance with the imderlying policy ofthe Discovery Act. Emerson Electric 26 V. Superior Court, 16 CaL 4th 1101, 1107 (1997). 27 Plaintiffs discovery requests at issue seek foundational information which will either be admissible 28 evidence in itself or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the relevancy of these MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 2 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 requests is manifest. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that a plaintiff is entitied to 2 fiill discovery unless limited by an order of the Court as follows: 3 Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter 4 involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to 5 the discovery of admissible evidence. 6 A. Information Regarding Ascertainability, Numerosity, and Manageability: Rog Nos. 6-7 7 These interrogatories seek the pay periods in which those Class Members who were eligible to be 8 paid cash payments in lieu of health benefits worked overtime and also received those payments (No. 6), 9 and the number of Class Members in that category (No. 7). Defendant responds to each with solely 10 objections. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of 11 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. These 12 interrogatories seek information as to numerosity, ascertainability, and manageability of the class as defined 13 in the Complaint: the dates of specific pay periods, and the number of Class Members who received cash 14 payments in a pay period where they also worked overtime. This information will both lead to the 15 discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming 16 motion for class certification. 17 Specifically as to certification, this information will enable the Court to determine whether a trial 18 will be manageable as a class action and, also, whether the class is ascertainable. By demonstrating that the 19 Class Members can be identified and counted, the ascertainability prong will be met. Because demonstrating 20 manageability requires a showing that damages were incurred and that damages can be calculated classwide, 21 Plaintiff seeks the data to make this showing so the Court may make a proper analysis of the suitability of 22 certification. 23 In fact, a showing that Defendant did not include the health benefits cash payments in its calculation 24 ofthe Class Members' regular rates of pay is insufficient to establish a classwide claim on this issue. The 25 Court must also have evidence that Class Members were due payments at the proper regular rate, i.e., that 26 they worked overtime during the same pay periods when they were issued the health benefits cash payments. 27 As such, the information sought here is foundational, timely, directly relevant to certification, and narrowly 28 constructed to produce relevant evidence. Lastly, any relevant confidential information can be produced MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 subject to the protective order in place in this case. 2 B. Information Regarding Defendant's Compensation System: Rog Nos. 11-12 & 14 3 These interrogatories asked Defendant to identify its pay codes (Nos. 11-12) and the types of 4 compensation issued to Class Members (No. 14), information that is fundamental to understanding 5 Defendant's wage statements, its compensation systems, and the various ways Defendant may record its 6 non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members or its mechanisms for paying overtime compensation. 7 Defendant supplemented its original deficient responses to state that it will provide the information as to 8 pay codes used on only Plaintiffs wage statements and to state the forms of compensation for which 9 Plaintiff was eligible, but not as to the rest of the Class Members. 10 As a putative class action, Plaintiff requires the same pay code information for all class members 11 in order to ascertain who was paid the same way as Plaintiff and, therefore, subject to the same claim that 12 certain cash payments were excluded from the calculation ofthe regular rate. Defendant does not have 13 discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." 14 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017). 15 Similarly, Plaintiff asks Defendant to identify all of the forms of compensation that Class Members 16 are eligible to receive so Plaintiff can understand the various kinds of cash payments paid to Class Members 17 that may not have been included in the regular rate of pay. For the ascertainability and commonality 18 requirements. Plaintiff needs this information for the class members and Defendant's continued attempts 19 to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff unfairly prohibits Plaintiff fromfindingthe other common class 20 members who share the same claim. 21 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be produced 22 pursuant to the now effective protective order. 23 C. Meal Period Policies: Rog Nos. 15-16 24 The meal policies to which Plaintiff and Class Members were subject are evidence in a wage and 25 hour class action case ofDefendant's potential liability. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 26 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is 27 in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class 28 treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents concede their relevance. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 4 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 This motion asks Defendant to identify the Bates numbers of the policies that Defendant references 2 because Defendant refers Plaintiff to "policies and procedures applicable" without the detail required by the 3 Code of Civil Procedure, which states: If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a 4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be 5 substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the 6 writingsfromwhich the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily 7 as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 (emphasis added). 9 At Plaintiffs request. Defendant provided further detail via written correspondence. (Rivapalacio 10 Decl., Ex. 7.) However, Defendant would not provide signed and verified responses containing the 11 necessary specification, leaving its responses deficient and non-compliant. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 8.) 12 Policy information is necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will need to know i f 13 the employer's policies were equally applicable to other employees. The Class as pled in the complaint and 14 who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-compliant meal periods and Defendant's 15 failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-exempt employees ofDefendant in Califomia during 16 the relevant time period. All such employees were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies 17 will show commonalify and typicalify for class certification. 18 E. Class Members' Job Duties: Rog No. 18 19 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations 20 ofDefendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. As discussed 21 above. Defendant's policies regarding meal periods may evidence its liability, but an employer may have 22 a facially legal policy while failing to provide legally compliant meal periods in practice. For example, as 23 alleged in the Consolidated Complaint, Plaintiff Spears and Arana were both expected, as part of their job 24 performance, to boot up their computers in a specific maimer. Through this practice where the Plaintiffs 25 were required to wait ten to twenty minutes for their computers to fully load before they could log in for the 26 day. Defendant failed to accurately record their time and avoided paying the Plaintiffs compensation for all 27 their hours worked. 28 To the extent these same job duties were expected of other Class Members, this information will MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 5 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 demonstrate commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits of the case. This information will be 2 directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Defendant can provide no valid objection 3 for withholding this information. ^4 Defendant's response that refers Plaintiff to her job description is, again, inappropriate in a putative 5 class action. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this 6 case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th at 549. 7 F. Numbers of Meal Period Premiums Paid: Rog No. 19 8 This interrogatory requests the number of meal period premiums paid to Class Members. Defendant 9 responded by stating that "Plaintiff was not entitied to any meal period premiums and, as a result, did not 10 receive any meal period premiums." Such a response is evasive and non-responsive as the interrogatory 11 seeks information as to the Class Members and not solely Plaintiff 12 The number of meal period premiums paid to Class Members is directly relevant because it will 13 demonstrate through a statistical analysis Defendant's practice of failing to pay premiums when owed. See 14 Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388, 418 (2015) ("The statistical evidence 15 reflects a common practice by which management modified timekeeping records, and substantiates 16 declarants' testimony that the [defendant] undertook active efforts to hide its wage and hour violations."). 17 In Alberts, the plaintiff there used precisely this evidence to demonstrate Defendant's common practice for 18 purposes of class certification: 19 [T]he fact that only a few missed meal premiums were actually paid relative to the total number of missed meal breaks, combined with evidence that management actively 20 discouraged employees from seeking missed break compensation, reflects a common practice by the Hospital of failing to compensate employees for hours worked and 21 constitutes common proof of liability. 22 M at 418 (emphasis added). 23 Further, to determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of the 24 class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is 25 entitled is calculable. Indeed, Defendant provided substantive responses in its supplemental responses to 26 similar questions when Plaintiff objected to their objection-only responses. Those interrogatories also sought 27 information as to the numbers associated with the class - the number of Class Members, the number of 28 workweeks worked, or the number of wage statements issued to Class Members, for example. Because the MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 6 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage statements, are calculated 2 by workweek and pay period, the information sought through those interrogatories and the interrogatory at 3 issue serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism 4 by which the Court will calculate damages. 5 Defendant's failure to provide a substantive response to this interrogatory is suspicious in the context 6 of the interrogatories to which Defendant did eventually provide responses. Defendant caimot hide behind 7 silence to avoid an admission that Defendant did not pay any meal period premiums to any Class Member. 8 Further, as this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any 9 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants for their 10 own purposes such as mediation or removal and, in fact, and is readily accessible as demonstrated by 11 Defendant's responses to similar requests seeking solely numbers associated with the Class, namely 12 Interrogator Nos. 17 and 20-24. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that this information is unduly 13 burdensome to provide. 14 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject 17 matter involved in the pending action i f the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears 18 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010. 19 Califomia law has established a broadrightto discovery and, as confirmed in Williams v. Superior Court, 20 3 Cal. 5th at 551, the judicial process is based on the understanding that a "[mjutual knowledge of all the 21 relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation." Id. at 551 (citing Greyhound Corp. 22 V. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 386 (1961)). 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 7 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 I As the discovery at issue in the instant motion seeks information and documents that are relevant 2 facts to propel the parties toward a mutual understanding of the case, the issuance of an order compelling 3 further responses is appropriate here. 4 5 6 Respectfully submitted. 7 DATED: January 16, 2018 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUGBHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 8 9 Victoria-B.-Rivapalacio,-Esq. 10 Attomeys for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 8 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 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 i f 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 Motion to Compel Further 8 Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories. 9 3. Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of 10 requests for production of documents. Defendant served its initial responses on September 12,2017. A tme 11 and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One is attached as 12 Exhibit 1. 13 4. On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant detailing deficiencies 14 in Defendant's responses. A tme and correct copy of Plaintiffs correspondence of September 21, 2017 is 15 attached as Exhibit 2. 16 5. Plaintiff followed up regularly over the following month. A tme and correct copy of the 17 string of correspondence sent by Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 3. Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred 18 telephonically on October 24, 2017. During that meet and confer session. Defendant agreed to provide 19 supplemental responses. A tme and correct copy of the confirmatory email exchange is attached as Exhibit 20 4. 21 6. Defendant provided supplemental responses on December 6,2017. A tme and correct copy 22 ofDefendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories, Set One is attached as Exhibit 23 5. The Parties met and conferred on December 20,2017 regarding Defendant's supplemental responses and 24 all outstanding issues for its original responses. A tme and correct copy of the confirmatory email is 25 attached as Exhibit 6. 26 7. At Plaintiffs request. Defendant provided further detail in regard to its responses referring 27 Plaintiff to documents. However, Defendant provided this solely via written correspondence. A tme and 28 correct copy of this correspondence is attached as Exhibit 7. Defendant would not provide signed and MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 verified responses containing the necessary specification, leaving its responses deficient and non-compliant. 2 A tme and correct copy ofthe email correspondence is attached as Exhibit 8. 3 8. The instant action and the action Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017- 4 00216685, were consolidated on October 25, 2017. 5 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing 7 is tme and correct. Executed this 16th day of January, 2018, at La Jolla, Califomia. 8 9 10 VICTORIA.BIRI'VAPALACIO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 27 EXHIBIT #1 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) tj long@onick. com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 "4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) 6 stephanie.lee@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90017 8 Telephone: (213)629-2020 Facsimile: (213)612-2499 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of Case No. 34-2017-00210560 15 herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,. DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF 16 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL 17 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 18 Date Action Filed: April 5,2017 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC., a Trial Date: None Set 19 Califomia Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,, 20 Defendants. 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANDREA SPEARS 23 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 24 SET NO.: ONE(l) 25 26 27 28 0HSUSA;767194169.5 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIBS, SET ONE 1 Pursuant to sections 2030 et seq. ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant Health Net of 2 Califomia, Inc. ("Defendanf) responds to the First Set of Special Interrogatories served upon it by 3 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff) as follows: 4 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 5 The following responses are made solely for the purpose of this litigation and are based on 6 infonnation presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery is still ongoing and Defendant 7 reserves therightto supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or 8 to introduce such information at the time of the trial. 9 Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, 10 proprietary, subject matter, admissibility and any and all other objections or grounds that would 11 require exclusion of the responses or documents produced by Defendant, or any part thereof, if any 12 ' of these responses or documents were presented at court. All appropriate objections and grounds 13 are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence of a 14 response to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories. 15 No response to these interrogatories constitutes or should be construed as an admission 16 respecting relevancy or admissibility of the disclosed information, or the truth or accuracy of any 17 statement, characterization or other fact contained in any response to these interrogatories. 18 Defendant expressly does not concede the relevancy or materiality of any of these interrogatories 19 or the subject matter to which they refer. 20 The fact that Defendant has responded to or objected to any interrogatory or part thereof 21 may not be taken as an admission about the existence or nonexistence of any fact, or that such 22 response constitutes relevant evidence. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these 23 responses. The fact that Defendant has responded to part or all of any interrogatory shall not be 24 construed to be a waiver of any obj ection to part or all of any other interrogatory. Nothing contained 25 herein shall be constmed as an implied admission of the existence or nonexistence ofany fact. 26 To the extent these interrogatories call for infonnation which constitutes material prepared 27 in anticipation of litigation or for trial, information or material protected by the attomey-client 28 privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and/or the common interest OHSUSA;767194169.5 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 privilege or any other privilege. Defendant objects to each and every such interrogatory and will 2 not supply or produce any such information. To the extent any interrogatory seeks information 3 relating to legal conclusions, opinions, theories and/or research of Defendant and Defendant's 4 counsel. Defendant objects and will not provide such information. Moreover, in responding to any 5 interrogatory potentially calling for a legal conclusion, Defendant does not admit, either expressly 6 or impliedly, that any such response adopts any of the legal conclusions contained in the 7 interrogatory. These responses shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground 8 for objecting to discovery with respect to such response, nor shall inadvertent disclosure waive the 9 right ofDefendant to object to the use of such information during any subsequent proceeding. 10 To the extent any intenogatory seeks information relating to confidential personnel or other 11 information of persons other than Plaintiff, Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory on 12 the groimds that such interrogatory is overbroad, seeks information that is not relevant to the subject 13 matter of this action, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 14 and invades the privacyrightsof such other persons. To the extent any intenogatory violates 15 Defendant's right to privacy or calls for the disclosiu'e of confidential and/or proprietary 16 information or infonnation otherwise protected as a trade secret. Defendant objects to each and 17 every such intenogatory and will not supply or produce any such information except pursuant to a 18 Protective Order governing the production of such information entered in this matter. 19 Defendant objects to the purported definitions and, instmctions set forth in the 20 interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and 21 oppressive and Defendant undertakes no obligation except as those that may be provided by the 22 Code of Civil Procedure. 23 Defendant incorporates by this reference each and all of the foregoing General Objections 24 into the following enumerated Responses. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 27 Please state PLAINTIFF'S dates of employment, rates of pay, and job titles during the 28 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 0HSUSA:767194169.S ~^ ' DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 4 grounds it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither 5 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 6 admissible evidence. Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves the right to amend its response. 7 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 8 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 9 Plaintiffs persoimel file, wage statements and other documents produced concurrently herewith 10 and in connection with this litigation. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 12 Please state the date ofPLAINTIFF'S final paycheck. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 14 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 15 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 16 grounds it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither 17 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 18 admissible evidence; Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves the right to amend its response. 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 20 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 21 Plaintiffsfinalwage statement. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3; 23 Please IDENTIFY all supervisor(s) who supervised PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT 24 TIME PERIOD. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 26 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 27 the grounds that it is vague and ainbiguous, especially as to the terms "supervisor(s)" and 28 "supervised." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad and seeks 0HSUSA:767I94169.5 "^ " DEFENDANT HEALTHNETOF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 infonnation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 2 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 4 Alma Moreno was Plaintiffs latest immediate supervisor. Ms. Moreno may be contacted through 5 Defendant's counsel of record. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4; 7 Please state YOUR policies for providing compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during 8 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to tiiis special 9 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 11 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 12 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 13 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies," and "providing compensation." 14 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and 15 seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this 17 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 19 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its 20 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a 21 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5; 23 Please state the job tities of the CLASS MEMBERS who were eligible to be paid cash 24 payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to 25 documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for 26 the responsive documents). 27 28 0HSUSA:767194169.S ^ " DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 4 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job titles" and "eligible to be paid cash payments 5 in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is neither 6 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks 8 confidential and/or proprietary business infonnation. Defendant further objects that this 9 interrogatory is compound, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this 10 pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that 11 it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 12 SPEOAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 13 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS 14 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during 15 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 16 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 19 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 20 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of 21 health benefits during the same pay period." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 22 grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects 24 that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly 25 at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 26 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further 27 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have 28 neither been admitted nor established. 0HSUSA:767I94169.5 "^ " DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 2 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation 3 during the same pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 4 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 5 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 9 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during tiie same 10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this 11 interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of 12 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 13 further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 14 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 15 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 16 Defendant further objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 19 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits to 20 the CLASS MEMBERS during flie RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in 21 response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive 22 documents). 23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 24 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 25 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 26 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "policy for paying cash payments in lieu of 27 health benefits." Defendant also objects to this mtenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly 28 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 0HSUSA:767194169.5 "^ " DEFENDANT HEALTH NET QF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to 2 this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 3 Defendant further objects to this intenogatory ontiiegroundstiiatit lacks foundation as it assumes 4 facts that have neither been admitted nor estabhshed. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 6 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS 7 MEMBERS duringtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents m response to this 8 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 11 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 12 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "'MedFlxWave' compensation." Defendant 13 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 14 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 15 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 16 groimds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10; 18 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "DenFlxElct" compensation to the CLASS 19 MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents m response to tiiis 20 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPEQAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "GLASS 24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "'DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also 25 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 26 information that is neither relevant to tiie subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 28 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. OHSUSA:767194I69.S ' ~ DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 2 During tiie RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by 3 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to tiie CLASS MEMBERS (ifyou refer to documents 4 in response to this special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the 5 responsive d