Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
tjlong@orrick.com EhO
' ORSED
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 2018 APR-3 PH 2=07
3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Lcl/i,rY Of SACRAHE.VTO
4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
stephanie.Iee@orrick.com
6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
8 Facsimile: +l-213-612-2499^
9 Attomeys for Defendant ,
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons CU-OE-GDS
similarly situated,
15 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL
Plaintiff, L E E IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
16 OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
V.
MOTIONS TQ COMPEL FURTHER
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC, a RESPONSES TQ HER SPECIAL
Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS
18 50, inclusive, FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
19 Defendants. Date: April! 6,2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Krueger
CO 21
Dept.: 54
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
< 22 others similarly situated, FAC Filed: June 29,2017
z 23 Plaintiff,
Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017
Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017
24
o 25
26
HEALTH NET, INC, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant.
27
28
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 I, Stephanie Gail Lee, hereby declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attomey duly admitted to practice before the courts df the State of Califomia
3 and am an associate in the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, attoiiieys of record for
4 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Health Net"). I make this declaration on personal
5 knowledge and, if iswom as a \yitness, could competently tesfify to the following facts except where
6 otherwise indicated.
7 2. On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Andrea Spears filed her putative wage-and-hour class
8 action Complaint against Health Net, purporting to represent all current and former non-exempt
9 -Health Net employees in Califomia from April 5, 2013 to the present. On or about June 29, 2017,
10 Plaintiff Spears filed her First Amended Complaint adding Private Attomeys General Act
11 allegations.
12 3. ' On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Tomas Arana filed his putative wagerand-hour class
13 action Complaint against Health Net, purporting to represent current and former non-exempt
14 ernployees of Health Net and a subclass of exempt employees.
15 4. On October 11, 2017, upon stipulation of the parties, the Court consolidated the
16 Spears and Arana matters under one case number. On December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a
17 Consolidated Complaint alleging: (a) failure to provide meal periods, (b) failure to provide rest
18 periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based
19 on Health Net's alleged failiu-e to properly calculate the regular rate, (e) unlavdiil roimding
20 practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages,
21 (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA claims.
22 5. Health Net filed its Answer to the Consolidated Complaint on January 22,2018, and
23 filied a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims on
24 February 5, 2018. Health Net's Motion for Summary Adjudication is set for hearing on April 26,
25 2018.
26 6. Both Plaintiffs have propounded written discovery on Health Net seeking, among
27 other things, the contact information of putative class members. Plaintiff Spears served her first
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 set of document requests, special interrogatories, employment law form interrogatories, and
2 admissiohrequestson July 25, 2017.
3 7. Plaintiff Arana served his first and second sets of special interrogatories, and first
4 sets of document requests, employment law form interrogatories, and admission requests on
5 September 19,2017.
6 8. On September 12,2017, Health Net timely served responses its responses to Plaintiff
7 Spears' first sets of special interrogatories and document requests, and produced responsive
8 documents two days later.
9 9. On October 17, 2017,1 sent an e-mail to Victoria Rivapalacio, counsel for Plaintiff
10 Spears, and Shaun Setareh, coimsel for Plaintiff Arana, requesting that all parties' counsel
11 collectively discuss written discovery and specifically, Plamtiff Spears' proposed Belaire-West
12 notice (the "Nofice") in light of the Court's consolidation order. During our ensuing October 24-
13 25,2017 meet and confer over the telephone and e-mail, Ms. Rivapalacio, Mr. Setareh and I agreed
14 to raise the issue of phasing discovery at the December 8,2017 initial case management conference
15 ("CMC") and Healtii Net agreed that it would provide class certification-related discovery in the
16 interim. The parties did not discuss the specifics of any particular discovery request, and Health
17 Net granted Plaintiff Spears an extension to file any motion to compel on any outstanding discovery
18 until after the CMC so that Plaintiff Spears would not be prejudiced. Attached hereto as Exhibit A
19 isa tme and correct copy of my October 24-25,2017 e-mail correspondence with Ms. Rivapalacio
20 and Mr. Setareh.
21 10. On November 9, 2017, I provided Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh with Health
22 Net's suggested revisions to Plaintiff Spears' draft Notice via e-mail. In my e-mail, I invited Ms.
23 Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh to continue to meet and confer over the contents of the Notice.
24 Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of my November 9, 2017 e-mail to Ms.
25 Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh.
26 11. Notwithstanding my meet and confer efforts to resolve the issue conceming the
27 contents ofthe Notice, including to whom it should be issued, Ms. Rivapalacio stated in e-mail, "If
28
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 it turns out the class is broader than the category as we have identified it, we will revisit the mailing
2 at that time. The motion is attached." Plaintiff Spears filed her Motion for Opt-Out Privacy Notice
3 to Be Sent to Putative Class Members ("BW Mofion") on November 16,2017. Attached hereto as
4 Exhibit C is a tme and correct copy of my November 9-16, 2017 e-mail exchange with Ms.
5 Rivapalacio without the attachment.
6 12. On November 24, 2017, I e-mailed a stipulation and proposed protective order to
7 Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh in anticipation that it would govern the parties' exchange of
8 confidential documents and information. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a tme and correct copy
9 of my November 24,2017 e-mail to Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh without the attachment.
10 13. On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed her first mofion to compel further
11 responses to requests for production, set one, and on December 6, filed another motion to compel
12 further responses to her first set of special interrogatories.
13 14. On December 6 and 7,2017, Health Net served its supplemental discovery responses
14 and documents to Plaintiff Spears, and agreed to produce additional documents once an appropriate
15 protective order was in place. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a tme and correct copy of Health
16 Net's December 6,2017 supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' first set of docimient requests.
17 15. I attended the December 8, 2017 imtial CMC before Judge Perkins. During this
18 CMC, Judge Perkins set Febmary 15,2018 as the hearing date for Health Net's Motion to Sequence
19 Discovery, Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a tme and correct copy of the Court's minute order
20 regarding the December 8,2017 CMC
21 16. On the afternoon of December 8,2017,1, e-mailed Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh
22 requesting that Plaintiff Spears continue the hearing dates on her pending discovery motions until
23 after Judge Perkins mled on the Motion to Sequence. Many of the issues raised by Plaintiff Spears'
24 discovery motions overlapped with Health Net's then-forthcoming Motion to Sequence. Ms.
25 Rivapalacio did not respond to my request. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is^a tme and correct copy
26 of my December 8, 2017 e-mail correspondence to Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh.
27
28
-4
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECLM. INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE
1 17. On December 15, 2017,1 received an e-mail from Ms. Rivapalacio attaching her
2 and Plaintiff Arana's counsel's signature on the proposed protective order. Attached hereto as
3 Exhibit H is a tme and correct copy ofthe December 15, 2017 e-mail I received from Ms.
4 Rivapalacio without the attachments.
5 18. On December 19, 2017, my office served Health Net's supplemental document
6 production pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order.
7 19. The Court mled on Plaintiff Spears' BW Motion on December 15,2017, continuing
8 the hearing to January 4,2018, and ordering the parties to fiirther meet and confer and "remind[ing]
9 all counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears'] that given the number of motions such as this which
10 must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to
11 resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved
12 informally." Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a tme and correct copy of the Court's December 15,
13 2017 Order on Plaintiff Spears'BW Motion.
14 20. After the Court's admonitions, Plamtiff Spears withdrew her discovery motions at
15 counsel for Health Net's request because the issues raised sigmficantly overlapped with Health
16 Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Further, Health Net continued both Plaintiffs' respective
17 deadlmes to bring motions to compel further responses to their "written discovery until March 1,
18 2018 - two weeks after Health Net anticipated receiving a mling on its Motion to Sequence
19 Discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibits J and K are tme and correct copies of my December 18,
20 2017 and January 8, 2018 e-mails to Ms. Rivapalacio and Stacey Shim, Mr. Setareh's colleague,
21 respectively. On January 23, 2018, Health Net filed its Motion to Sequence Discovery.
22 21. Despite the Motion to Sequence and Health Net's extending her deadline to file
23 discovery motions. Plaintiff Spears refiled her two motions to compel, setting the hearing for
24 Febmary 13, 2018 - before Judge Perkins would hear Health Net's Motion to Sequence.
25 22. After Plaintiff Spears's filing, I requested that Ms. Rivapalacio withdraw Plaintiff
26 Spears' motions, and likewise informed her that if she did not do so, Health Net would have no
27 choice but to seek sanctions. I also reconfirmed that Health Net had given Plaintiff Spears a two-
28
-5-
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 week extension of time to file any motion to compel after Judge Perkins ruled on the Motion to
2 Sequence. Ms. Rivapalacio initially refiased Health Net's request to withdraw her motions, but then
3 withdrew them on the day Health Net's Oppositions were due (but did not notify me until after
4 business hours - after Health Net had already filed its Oppositions). Attached hereto as Exhibit L
5 is a tme and correct copy of the e-mails exchanged betv/een myself and Ms. Rivapalacio.
6 23. On March 9, 2018, Judge Perkins denied Health Net's Motion to Sequence
7 Discovery without prejudice "to seek similar specific relief by appropriate discovery motion
8 directed to the law and motion department " Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a tme and correct
9 copy of Judge Perkins'March 9,2018 Order.
10 24. After Judge Perkins' Order was issued and before Health Net filed its Motion to
11 Sequence Discovery in this Department, I met and conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel and
12 specifically invited Ms. Rivapalacio to present Plaintiff Spears' proposals to resolve or narrow the
13 issues in dispute. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a tme and
14 correct copy of my March 9, 2018 e-mail exchange with Ms. Rivapalacio. Plaintiff Tomas Arana
15 did not oppose Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery when it was pending before Judge
16 Perkins.
17 25. On March 9,2018 (the day after Judge Perkins' tentative mling), having confirmed
18 that the parties' positions remained the same and heeding Judge Perkins' mling that the issues in
19 the Motion to Sequence Discovery needed to be addressed in a formal discovery motion before the
20 law and motion department, Health Net prepared a separate statement and refiled its Motion to
21 Sequence Discovery before this department. That motion is set for hearing on April 9, 2018.
22 26. On March 20,2018, Plaintiff Spears again refiled her two discovery motions without
23 any additional meet and confer.
24 27. On March 21, 2018,1 offered Plaintiff Arana an extension of time - until April 23,
25 2018 - within which to bring any necessary motions to compel following the Court's mling on
26 Health Net's pending Motion to Sequence Discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a tme and
27 correct copy of my e-mail correspondence to William Pao, Mr. Setareh's colleague,
28
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECL^L INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE
1 28. 0nMarch21,2O18,1 asked Ms. Rivapalacio to withdraw Plaintiff Spears'discovery
2 motions by noon on March 23,2018, and granted Plaintiff Spears an extension until April 23,2018,
3 to file any discovery mofions that Plaintiff Spears believes necessary following this Court's mling
4 on the pending Motion to Sequence Discovery. T also informed Ms. Rivapalacio that Health Net
5 would seek sanctions for any expenses it incurred after noon on March 23, 2018, in opposmg these
6 motions. Ms. Rivapalacio did not withdraw Plaintiff Spears' motions. Attached hereto as Exhibit
7 P is a tme and correct copy of my March 21-22,2018 e-mail correspondence with Ms. Rivapalacio.
8 29. If, for some reason, the Court has not mled on the Motion to Sequence Discovery
9 by April 23,2018, Health Net will, as it has repeatedly done, grant Plaintiffs an additional extension
10 of time to bring any discovery motions so that they are not prejudiced by waiting for resolution of
11. Health Net's pending Motion to Sequence Discovery..
12 30. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a tme and correct copy of the Declaration of Chrissy
13 Schneider In Support of Defendant's Motion to Sequence Discovery.
14 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a tme and cori-ect copy of the Declaration of Diane
15 Rodes In Support of Deferidant's Opposition to Plaintiffs previously filed Motions to Compel.
16 32. Attached hereto as Exhibit S. is a tme and correct copy of the Declaration of Kelly
17 Sarabia In Support of Defendanf s Motion for Summary Adjudication.
18 33. In response to Plaintiffs discovery in this case, Health Net provided detailed,
19 expansive responses and documents, including:
20 • Plaintiffs' personnel files;
21 • Plaintiffs'payroll data;
22 • Plaintiffs' timesheet data;
23 • Plaintiffs' wage statements;
24 • Meal period policies for all putative class members;
25 • Employee policies, manuals and guides for all putative class members;
26 • Hourly compensation policies for all putative class members;
27 • Bonus compensation policies for all putative class members;
28
-7-
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE
1 • Policies relating to health and welfare benefits for all putative class members;
2 • Meal premium policies for all putative class members; and
3 • Overtime compensation policies for all putative class members.
4 In total, Health Net has produced more than 2,600 pages of discovery and 21,880 lines of
5 data in Microsoft Excel sheets related to Plaintiffs' personal claims, class certification and the
6 merits of Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims.
7 34. - On December 20,2017,1 spoke over the telephone with Ms. Rivapalacio to discuss,
8 among other things. Plaintiff Spears' Special Interrogatory No. 14. I communicated Health Net's
9 position that Plaintiff Spears' request for "all forms of Compensation" the non-exempt putative
10 class members were "eligible tp receive[]" was vague and ambiguous. In response, Ms.
11 Rivapalacio communicated that Plaintiff Spears actually seeks their pay codes and a description of
12 such pay codes (her Special Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). My December 20, 2017, e-mail
13 correspondence to Ms. Rivapalacio memorializing our conversation was previously attached as
14 Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Victoria Rivapalacio.
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing
16 is tme and correct. Executed this 3rd day of April, 2018.
17
18
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
Exhibit A
Thank you for your message. Yes, Defendant will serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery it deems
appropriate at this juncture of the litigation. As to the issue of the discovery relevant to class certification versus merits,
we agreed to raise the issue with the Court-at the initial case management conference on December 8,2017.
Confirmed that Defendant agrees to continue Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15,2017.
Because, Shaun, you were not on this telephone cail, still outstanding is the issue of coordinating discovery. This is
important, particulady with respect to the Belaire-West notice procedure. On that note, I will circulate a draft
protective order and edits to Plaintiff Spears' draft Se/o/re-West notice. However, we should discuss how we're going to
coordinate.
Regards,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associaia
Orrick
Los Angelas Q
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
orncU
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victorta(S>bamlawca.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2017 4:45 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. orrick.com>: Norm Blumenthal bamlawca.com>: Kyle Nordrehaug
.: AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee :thomas(S>setarehlaw.com;
scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc..
Stephanie,
I write to confirm that we met and conferred this afternoon regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs discovery
requests.
Defendant offered to continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline from December 1,2017 to December 15,2017, a
week after the Case Management Conference. Defendant is in the process oif drafting supplemental responses, but vyill
not provide a timeline as to when those will be provided.
Defendant will circulate a draft of a protective order and will return the opt-out notice reflecting any revisions it might
have. Plaintiff agrees to pay for the costs of the mailing.
Thank you,
Victoria
^"^hibit B
Lee, Stephanie Gail
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail
Sent Thursday, November 9, 2017 1;01 PM
To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio'; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Norm Blumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; Al B; Piya Mukherjee;
th0ma5@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com;
stacey@setarehlaw.com ,
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Attachments: 767592667(2LSpear5_Arana - Consolidated Belaire-West Notice with OHS EdiU.DOCX
Victoria, '
While I understand thatthe Court did not order that a consolidated complaint be filed, I suggested as such fora few
reasons. I explained those reasons over the telephone to you and Shaun separately, and I am summarizing them here:
• A consolidated complaint will make for ease of litigation going forward. It is difficult to understand how the
parties will smoothly litigate this case as one matter when there are two separate complaints.
• Plaintiff Spears' FAC Is vague and ambiguous with regard to her regular rate claim. You have told us that this
claim is really based on whether the "cash back" component of the cafeteria health plans should have been
Included In the regular rate. However, the FAC seems to focus on bonuses, which you told me you didn't even
know if your client received. Filing an amended complaint would provide an opportunity to clarify Plaintiff
Spears' allegations, and delete one that should never have been asserted in the first place.
• Plaintiff Arana's proposed FAC was rejected by the Court. Is he planning on amending his
Complaint? Moreover, Plaintiff Arana purports to represent employees Defendant does not and has not ever
employed.
All of these Issues militate towards you and Shauti coordinating and filing a consolidated complaint. Should you choose
not to, we will raise the issue with the Court during the case management conference. In any event, the draft Belaire-
West notice you sent has a number of deficiencies. For example, it does not include the entire putative class when
considering Plaintiff Arana's allegations. Moreover, the issues summarized above will impact the language of the notice
- all the more reason to resolve them. Attached are our initial edits for your consideration. We look forward to
continuing the meet and confer process.
It is obviously your choice ifyou wish to file a motion. We suggest, however, that If we cannot resolve our differences
through the meet and confer procesis - which we do not consider to be exhausted - that we tee up the issue for
resolution by Judge Perkins at the case management conference.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orridt
Los Angeles Q
T-•1-213-612-2374
Stephanie. Iee@orrlck.coin.
NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES O F HEALTH NET OF
CALIFORNIA, INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE PKItSONAl.
C'.0NTA<:T INFORMATION
To: pURRENf ANDFbRMERNON-EXEM
CALIFORNIA,jNCiBE-nVEE^^ 2013 AND THE PRESENT' ""^ I _ . ,.. •
I Cominefited [1]: Tliii doa noi induds ihe entire puum-c ctoi.
W« ntaitefl$uw Ihii OVL .
•(v^A law8uite(<:Ww»:-3'l 2() 17-003 Hmi4feiS;piwy"^tf^^ WtwWi. - Cofflmeited I2]l His nam or (he esn^ is cattalidaled, is
lenif Calif Ofniu, Cfconsoli.lnimlcase Nwo. 34-20l7-Qb210560-CU-On-GD"sfliavii liumirtld.!HTIJ arorv»* u i i u
iendrtiiti The Court does not endorse any ofthe statements contained Iwriwin this iniiillne. .The Court has
not rendered any opinion as to the merits of this case.
The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class action on behalf of themselves and the current
< nd fonner non^exempiVmployees who were employed by pefendant^ .The Court has not yet detennined whether or. - ( C4]t SamsaCorainait 1
r i>l,thc lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. .Ifyou receive this notice, and il'ihc Coun hilcr
(fcicriiiinci lhai this law.tuii shall be mitiniaincd as a class actinn. vou may be a member ofthe proposed class. >'
J The liiw< ers for Ihe Plaintiffs' nitnrnBV-'i would like to have your iiuiiie address, nersnnwl telephone
umber and nersonal email address fvour "PriTOte Personal C'ontiirt liil'nrmation") so they may contact you to
obtain your input as to.whether the Piaintlfls' allegations are accurate.
This nulitc is being scut tu vnuTho Pnrlie.i hove t'td thai o Itlltr hg !.eiit to ynu to nro\-idc von with'the
nnortunitv lii tiecide whether vou tvant voui' Private Personal Cniilatt Infonniitinn JiscloseddeleriMtnc if YOU
uiiid objam to the Plaintiffs' attorneys riecelvine your cnntueti time mid pnyi'all liirurmiillun. Vuu iiiuy eieel
a j^a- t t * *fc^j%*aS*ljfc - • ^ • » ^ < f c — i i m l Ja•**** •K—JI/**.^ a^^fci^jilI >*4*j*wfcjj^ l^lfligliaff**^ jaa#jm^—^••f, ^mam ^ • • r t — • ! ^ 4af n r " ' * * * * ^
^ Vfl I I V | l l ' l r f l l - J U T ' * W T ^ r t f VT M I L i r • V * ^ • I l i l l J V V I | f l J ^ v i l l i I I I I V I I IISU I I I I I F vii l IlllllflVV-* l l l l l f • T I ^ J ' L * I T ^ P ^ ^ I f U IIU**'f il
1 'VIIKWKFORKi iif you uMtet tu th» diiinlonure nf vour towtmli time nnJ/of uavroll ii>l'onnatlon •SXK-7771
FacsiinileiniO) 888-1)109 |
• , Please note that, ul this time, rmiartlless nf whether and/or how vou respond lo this nolicc. vou arc nol legally
:uuit\:d 10 spcuk about Oils maticr with the PhiiUilTs' ntlomevs or their ugents or DefeiulantI Icaltli N c t ^ or its . i
I ttomeys... im reprfl.iciilnlivea of Defen Jnnt empliiyer in tliia innttur. Iiuve ii eonlliot of interest with you nfi nn Biii|iluyuo
lid poitfiiiiitl Clttiis Momhor. :
Exhibit C
Lee, Stephanie Gail
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Thursday, November 16,2017 4:39 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Norm Bjumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; AJ B; Piya Mukherjee;
thbmas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.conri; farrah@setarehlaw.com;
stacey@setarehlaw.com .
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of Caiifornia, Inc.
Attachments: p-Motion-02.pdf
Stephanie,
Plaintiffs regular rate claim includes, but is not limited to, the payments of cash made in \ieu of health benefits. Subject
to Defendant complying with discovery; we vyill identify other applicable payments. Defendant's current monopoly on
the discovery relevant to this case Is not a reason to limit the scope of Plaintiffs claims, pled |n good faith, on the
evidence available. That a plaintiff cannot prove her claims prior to conducting discovery is inherent in litigation and
anticipated; It is the reason the discovery process exists. 5e;e Williams v. Superior Court, 3 CaL S*** 531, 551 (2017)
("California law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of
discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse."). Plaintiff, therefore, has no
intention of striking any terms from her FAC.
There Is no bargain and, therefore, no reason to delay for your bifurcation debate because, as stated in our meet and
confer discussions on October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Spears propounded discovery that Is appropriate prior to certification,
regardless of whether any order Is issued bifurcating discovery. Plus, there is no longer any argument as to bifurcating or
delaying discovery for PAGA after Williams. If Defendant would like to moot Plaintiffs motion to compel by
supplementing its responses. Defendant is welcome to do so.
Regarding the Belaire notice, the clear intent is to distribute the notice to the recipients identified by the notice and the
complaint, per Williams. If it turns out the class is broader than the category as we have Identified it, we will revisit the
nnailing at that time. The motion Is attached.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail fmailto:stephanle.lee(5)orrick.com1
Sent: Thursday, November 16,2017 3:16 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio : Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. orrlck.com>; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomasg)setarehlaw.com:
scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah(g)sctarehlaw.com;stacev(S>setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
I think I see where we have been talking over each other. To confirm. Plaintiff Spears' regular rate claim is based on the
monies she received in the form of cash in lieu of medical benefits. As of right now. Plaintiff Spears does not have any
other basis for her regular rate claim and all other stated bases should be stricken from her FAC.
Regarding Defendant's discovery responses, we are following through on bur part of the agreement that you and I, and
Shaun and I struck during our meet and confer discussions on October 24, 2017. during those calls and as memorialized
in email correspondence, the parties agreed that they would submit the issue of bifurcating discovery between
certification and merits to the Court, for resolution at the upcoming CMC. Pursuant to our agreement. Defendant
agreed to supplement its responses to those requests and interrogatories it deems appropriate at this juncture ofthe
litigation. Defendant also agreed to extend Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to Decernber 15,2017. As
mentioned. Defendant intends to abide by its end ofthe bargain (and anticipates serving its supplemental responses
prior to the conference) and trusts that Plaintiff Spears will do so, as well.
Regarding the Belaire-West notice, I am unclear of your position. Are you saying that you will bring a motion to compel
the distribution of a Belaire-West notice that will not be issued to all putative class members?
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
las Anoeles ®
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanio.lee@orrick.cam
orrick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio lmailto:victoria(5)bamlawca.com1
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:36 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gall : Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, TimothyJ. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ 8 : Piya Mukherjee : thomascg)setarehlaw.com:
scott(S)setarehlaw.com: farrahPsetarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
As I explained in our previous conversations, my client received bonuses in the form of cash paid in lieu of medical
benefits. To determine any other non-discretionary bonuses that similarly should have been included in the regular rate
calculation, 1 need you to supplement the inadequate responses Defendant provided to our discovery requests, as well
as provide a responsive document production, including an electronic spreadsheet of Plaintiffs compensation. As
Defendant has yet to provide compliant responses, I am forced to file a motion to compel this Information.
As to the Belaire notice, the notice we will move fpr says exactly who should be the recipient of the notice.
If there are any further issues you would like to discuss, please feel free to give me a call.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail (mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.coml
Sent: Friday, November 10,2017 3:20 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio : Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com:
scott@5etarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@5etarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
It is unfortunate that you feel this way. We are just trying to get this right. There are serious issues we need to discuss
regarding the Belaire-West notice, including, importantly, to whom it will be issued. To that end, we need to coordinate
with Plaintiff Arana's counsel.
If you still see the need to file your motion now, that is your prerogative. But again, we can tee this issue up to discuss
with the Court at the case management conference. In any event, I find it difficult to imagine that your motion will be
heard before then.
We remain willing to meet and confer and, to that end, suggest that you, me and Shaun finally get on a call together.
As an aside, you did tell me that you did not know whether your client received bonuses. You stated that that was what
discovery was for.
Thank you,.
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associate '
Orrick
Los Anoeles 0 ' '
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
orrick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio fmaHto:victoria@bamlawc3.com1
Sent: Thursday, November 9,2017 1:36 PM
To; Lee, Stephanie Gail.<5tephanle.lee@orrick.CDm>; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com:
scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
I write to follow up to the volcemail I just left.
The proposals you have outlined below regarding consolidating the complaints and continuing a meet and confer
process serve only to delay this straightforward and routine mailing. We have already exhausted the meet and confer
process.
You can deal with plaintiff Arana directly as to your concerns about that complaint. If you have an issue with our
complaint, you can file an appropriate motion because the issues you raise are baseless and a transparent attempt to
delay. I never told you our client did not receive bonuses. If ybu would like to discuss Plaintiffs compensation further,
please send me the payroll in excel without further delay. The cash back payments you refer to are another form of a
bonus that should have been included:
We also object to your delay tactic of making clearly inappropriate revisions to the Belaire notice that foreclose our
request'for payroll and time information and include your contact information without a dlsclalrner to these employees
as to your conflict of interest because you are working against their pecuniary interests In this matter.
If there Is anything further to discuss,' you can call me today or tomorrow, but if not, we will conclude you are not
interested In any actual discussion and the motion will be filed on Monday because there is no basis for this to be
delayed up to the CMC.
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.coml
Sent: Thursday, November09,2017 1:01 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kvie Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.corri:
scott@setarehlaw.com: farr3h@setarehlaw.com: stacev@5etarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
While I understand thatthe Court did not order that a consolidated complaint be filed, I suggested as such for a few
reasons. I explained those reasons over the telephone to you and Shaun separately, and I am summarizing them here:
• A consolidated complaint will make for ease of litigation going forward. It Is difficult to understand how the
parties will smoothly litigate this case as one matter when there are two separate complaints.
• Plaintiff Spears' FAC is vague and ambiguous with regard to her regular rate claim. You have told us that this
claim is really based on whether the "cash back" component of the cafeteria health plans should have been
included in the regular rate. However, the FAC seems to focus.on bonuses, which you told me you didn't even.
know if your client received. Filing an amended complaint would provide an opportunity to clarify Plaintiff
Spears' allegations, and delete one that should never have been asserted in the first place..
• Plaintiff Arana's proposed FAC was rejected by the Court. Is he planning on amending his
Complaint? Moreover, Plaintiff Arana purports tp represent employees Defendant does not and has not ever
employed.
All of these issues militate towards you and Shaun coordinating and filing a consolidated complaint. Should you choose
not to, we will raise the issue with the Court during the case management conference. In any event, the draft Belaire-,
West notice you sent has a number of deficiencies. For example, it does not include the entire putative class when
considering Plaintiff Arana's allegations. Moreover, the issues summarized above will Impact the language of the notice
- all the more reason to resolve them. Attached are our initial edits for your consideration. We look fonward to
continuing the meet and confer process.
It Is obviously your choice if you wish to file a motion. We suggest, however, that If we cannot resolve our differences
through the meet and confer process - which we do not consider to be exhausted - that we tee up the issue for
resolution by Judge Perkins at the case management conference.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Anoeles ®
T+1-213-612-2374
steph8nie.lee@omck.coni
orrick
Exhibit D
Lee, Stephanie Gaill
From: Lee. Stephanie Gail
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 7:32 AM
To: -Victoria Rivapalacio'; Shaun Setareh; 'H. Scott Leviant'; 'Stacey Shinri'
Cc: Long, Timothy J.
Subject Spears and Arana - Stip and Proposed Protective Order
Attachments: 767407060(2)_Spears and Arana - Stip and Proposed Protective Order.DOCX
Counsel,
Please see the attached draft protective order for your review and, if approved, signature.
Thank you,
Stephanie '
Stephanie Gaii Lee
Managing Associate .
Orrick ' , .
Los Anoeles © .
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.)ee@orrtckxom .
orrick
Exhibit E
I TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR. NO. 137591)
ijlong@omck.coin
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Sacramenlo.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@oiTick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, Califomia 90017
8 Telephone: (213)629-2020
Facsimile; (213)612-2499
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
II
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
15 of herself and on behalf ofall persons similarly CU^E-GDS
situated.
16 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT 35
17 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF
18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CALIFORNIA, INC'S
Caliromia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
19 inclusive, PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR
Dcrendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
20 ONE
21 Complaint Filed: April 5,2017
FAC Filed: June 29,2017
22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himseli; all
others similarly situated. Complaini Filed: August 1,2017
23
Piainiiff,
24
V.
25
HEALTI I NET, INC., a Delaware corporation;
26 and DOES 1-50, inclusive.
27 Defendant.
28
DH-ENDANT'S SUrPLOMEWr A l RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S RHQUCST.S FOR PRODUCTION OV DOCUMENTS. SET ONE
1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANDREA SPEARS
2 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA
3 SET: ONE (I)
4 Pursuant (o Califomia Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210 etseq.. Defendant Health
5 Net ofCalifornia, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby supplements its responses lo PlaintifT Andrea Spears'
6 ("Plaimifr') Requests for Production of Documcnls, Set One.
7 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
8 This Response is made solely for purposes of this action. Each response and/or production
9 is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and admissibility,
10 and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of ariy statements
11 contained herein, if such slatements were made by a witness present and testifying at court, all of
12 which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed al the lime of trial.
13 The following Response is based upon information presently available to Defendant.
14 Defendant is not making any incidental or implied admissions regarding the contents of these
15 documents. The fact that Defendant has responded or objected to any request or part thereof should
16' not be taken as an admission (hat Defendant accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or
17 assumed by PlaintifTs request, or that such response or objection constitutes admissible evidence.
18 The fact that Defendant has answered part or all of any request is not intended and shall not be
19 construed to be a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objections to any request.
20 Nothing contained herein or produced in response to the request herein consists of or should
21 be constrtied as an admission about (he existence or nonexistence of any document.
22 To the extent thai the request calls for infomiation which was prepared in anticipation of
23 litigation for trial or for infomiation or material covered by the work-product doctrine, or which
24 cons(i(ules information which is privileged or related to confidential (rade secrets or the privilege
25 of privacy (including the freedom of association and financial privacy), Defendant objects to
26 responding to such request and thus will not supply nor render any documents protected from
27 discovery by virtue of the work-produci doctrine, the attomey-client privilege, or the (rade secrets
28 or privacy privilege. Inadvertent production of any such document shall not constitute a waiver of
• . • ' ' ' -2- •
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PUINTIFI-S RCQUIiSTSTORPRODUCriON OF DOCIIMCWTS. SET ONE"
1 any privilege pr any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such document or any
2 other document, or with respect to the subject mailer thereof, or the information contained (herein,
3 nor shall inadvertent production waive Defendant'srightto object to the use of any such document
4 or the information contained therein during any subsequent proceeding.
5 Defendant objects to (he purported definitions and ihstmciions set forth in the document
6. requests on the grounds they arc vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and
7 Defendant undertakes no obligations except as (hose (hat may be provided by (he Califomia Code
8 of Civil Procedure.
9 Defendan( objec(s to the requests on the grounds that it did nol and docs not employ
10 Plainti Ffs or any individuals that Plaintiffs seek to represent in this lawsuit.
11 To the extent any request calls for the piroduction of eleclronically stored information
12 (including, for example, electronic mail messages). Defendant objects to the discovery of such
13 infomiation on the grounds that il is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of
14 undue burden and expense and. Defendant will not search the source in the abseiice of an agreement
15 with Plaintiff. Such eleclronically s(ored informadon includes Defendant's email boxes for
16- PlaintifT and for all of Defendant's employees..
17 Defendant incorporates by this reference each and all of the foregoing general responses
18 and objections into the following enumerated responses.
19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
20 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3;
21 Please produce, in electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, the daily time records for
22 PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
\ 23 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
24 In addilion to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to (his reques( on the
25 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited lo, the term "daily (ime records"
26 and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant objec(s to this request on the grounds that it is
27 overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects (o this request on (he grounds that it seeks
28
. '• -3- •
D
Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) tjlong@orrick.com EhO ' ORSED 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 2018 APR-3 PH 2=07 3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Lcl/i,rY Of SACRAHE.VTO 4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) stephanie.Iee@orrick.com 6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 8 Facsimile: +l-213-612-2499^ 9 Attomeys for Defendant , HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons CU-OE-GDS similarly situated, 15 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL Plaintiff, L E E IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S 16 OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S V. MOTIONS TQ COMPEL FURTHER 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC, a RESPONSES TQ HER SPECIAL Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS 18 50, inclusive, FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 19 Defendants. Date: April! 6,2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Krueger CO 21 Dept.: 54 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 < 22 others similarly situated, FAC Filed: June 29,2017 z 23 Plaintiff, Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017 Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017 24 o 25 26 HEALTH NET, INC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant. 27 28 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 I, Stephanie Gail Lee, hereby declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attomey duly admitted to practice before the courts df the State of Califomia 3 and am an associate in the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, attoiiieys of record for 4 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Health Net"). I make this declaration on personal 5 knowledge and, if iswom as a \yitness, could competently tesfify to the following facts except where 6 otherwise indicated. 7 2. On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Andrea Spears filed her putative wage-and-hour class 8 action Complaint against Health Net, purporting to represent all current and former non-exempt 9 -Health Net employees in Califomia from April 5, 2013 to the present. On or about June 29, 2017, 10 Plaintiff Spears filed her First Amended Complaint adding Private Attomeys General Act 11 allegations. 12 3. ' On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Tomas Arana filed his putative wagerand-hour class 13 action Complaint against Health Net, purporting to represent current and former non-exempt 14 ernployees of Health Net and a subclass of exempt employees. 15 4. On October 11, 2017, upon stipulation of the parties, the Court consolidated the 16 Spears and Arana matters under one case number. On December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a 17 Consolidated Complaint alleging: (a) failure to provide meal periods, (b) failure to provide rest 18 periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based 19 on Health Net's alleged failiu-e to properly calculate the regular rate, (e) unlavdiil roimding 20 practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages, 21 (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA claims. 22 5. Health Net filed its Answer to the Consolidated Complaint on January 22,2018, and 23 filied a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims on 24 February 5, 2018. Health Net's Motion for Summary Adjudication is set for hearing on April 26, 25 2018. 26 6. Both Plaintiffs have propounded written discovery on Health Net seeking, among 27 other things, the contact information of putative class members. Plaintiff Spears served her first 28 -2- DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 set of document requests, special interrogatories, employment law form interrogatories, and 2 admissiohrequestson July 25, 2017. 3 7. Plaintiff Arana served his first and second sets of special interrogatories, and first 4 sets of document requests, employment law form interrogatories, and admission requests on 5 September 19,2017. 6 8. On September 12,2017, Health Net timely served responses its responses to Plaintiff 7 Spears' first sets of special interrogatories and document requests, and produced responsive 8 documents two days later. 9 9. On October 17, 2017,1 sent an e-mail to Victoria Rivapalacio, counsel for Plaintiff 10 Spears, and Shaun Setareh, coimsel for Plaintiff Arana, requesting that all parties' counsel 11 collectively discuss written discovery and specifically, Plamtiff Spears' proposed Belaire-West 12 notice (the "Nofice") in light of the Court's consolidation order. During our ensuing October 24- 13 25,2017 meet and confer over the telephone and e-mail, Ms. Rivapalacio, Mr. Setareh and I agreed 14 to raise the issue of phasing discovery at the December 8,2017 initial case management conference 15 ("CMC") and Healtii Net agreed that it would provide class certification-related discovery in the 16 interim. The parties did not discuss the specifics of any particular discovery request, and Health 17 Net granted Plaintiff Spears an extension to file any motion to compel on any outstanding discovery 18 until after the CMC so that Plaintiff Spears would not be prejudiced. Attached hereto as Exhibit A 19 isa tme and correct copy of my October 24-25,2017 e-mail correspondence with Ms. Rivapalacio 20 and Mr. Setareh. 21 10. On November 9, 2017, I provided Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh with Health 22 Net's suggested revisions to Plaintiff Spears' draft Notice via e-mail. In my e-mail, I invited Ms. 23 Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh to continue to meet and confer over the contents of the Notice. 24 Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of my November 9, 2017 e-mail to Ms. 25 Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh. 26 11. Notwithstanding my meet and confer efforts to resolve the issue conceming the 27 contents ofthe Notice, including to whom it should be issued, Ms. Rivapalacio stated in e-mail, "If 28 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 it turns out the class is broader than the category as we have identified it, we will revisit the mailing 2 at that time. The motion is attached." Plaintiff Spears filed her Motion for Opt-Out Privacy Notice 3 to Be Sent to Putative Class Members ("BW Mofion") on November 16,2017. Attached hereto as 4 Exhibit C is a tme and correct copy of my November 9-16, 2017 e-mail exchange with Ms. 5 Rivapalacio without the attachment. 6 12. On November 24, 2017, I e-mailed a stipulation and proposed protective order to 7 Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh in anticipation that it would govern the parties' exchange of 8 confidential documents and information. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a tme and correct copy 9 of my November 24,2017 e-mail to Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh without the attachment. 10 13. On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed her first mofion to compel further 11 responses to requests for production, set one, and on December 6, filed another motion to compel 12 further responses to her first set of special interrogatories. 13 14. On December 6 and 7,2017, Health Net served its supplemental discovery responses 14 and documents to Plaintiff Spears, and agreed to produce additional documents once an appropriate 15 protective order was in place. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a tme and correct copy of Health 16 Net's December 6,2017 supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' first set of docimient requests. 17 15. I attended the December 8, 2017 imtial CMC before Judge Perkins. During this 18 CMC, Judge Perkins set Febmary 15,2018 as the hearing date for Health Net's Motion to Sequence 19 Discovery, Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a tme and correct copy of the Court's minute order 20 regarding the December 8,2017 CMC 21 16. On the afternoon of December 8,2017,1, e-mailed Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh 22 requesting that Plaintiff Spears continue the hearing dates on her pending discovery motions until 23 after Judge Perkins mled on the Motion to Sequence. Many of the issues raised by Plaintiff Spears' 24 discovery motions overlapped with Health Net's then-forthcoming Motion to Sequence. Ms. 25 Rivapalacio did not respond to my request. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is^a tme and correct copy 26 of my December 8, 2017 e-mail correspondence to Ms. Rivapalacio and Mr. Setareh. 27 28 -4 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECLM. INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE 1 17. On December 15, 2017,1 received an e-mail from Ms. Rivapalacio attaching her 2 and Plaintiff Arana's counsel's signature on the proposed protective order. Attached hereto as 3 Exhibit H is a tme and correct copy ofthe December 15, 2017 e-mail I received from Ms. 4 Rivapalacio without the attachments. 5 18. On December 19, 2017, my office served Health Net's supplemental document 6 production pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order. 7 19. The Court mled on Plaintiff Spears' BW Motion on December 15,2017, continuing 8 the hearing to January 4,2018, and ordering the parties to fiirther meet and confer and "remind[ing] 9 all counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears'] that given the number of motions such as this which 10 must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to 11 resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved 12 informally." Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a tme and correct copy of the Court's December 15, 13 2017 Order on Plaintiff Spears'BW Motion. 14 20. After the Court's admonitions, Plamtiff Spears withdrew her discovery motions at 15 counsel for Health Net's request because the issues raised sigmficantly overlapped with Health 16 Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Further, Health Net continued both Plaintiffs' respective 17 deadlmes to bring motions to compel further responses to their "written discovery until March 1, 18 2018 - two weeks after Health Net anticipated receiving a mling on its Motion to Sequence 19 Discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibits J and K are tme and correct copies of my December 18, 20 2017 and January 8, 2018 e-mails to Ms. Rivapalacio and Stacey Shim, Mr. Setareh's colleague, 21 respectively. On January 23, 2018, Health Net filed its Motion to Sequence Discovery. 22 21. Despite the Motion to Sequence and Health Net's extending her deadline to file 23 discovery motions. Plaintiff Spears refiled her two motions to compel, setting the hearing for 24 Febmary 13, 2018 - before Judge Perkins would hear Health Net's Motion to Sequence. 25 22. After Plaintiff Spears's filing, I requested that Ms. Rivapalacio withdraw Plaintiff 26 Spears' motions, and likewise informed her that if she did not do so, Health Net would have no 27 choice but to seek sanctions. I also reconfirmed that Health Net had given Plaintiff Spears a two- 28 -5- DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 week extension of time to file any motion to compel after Judge Perkins ruled on the Motion to 2 Sequence. Ms. Rivapalacio initially refiased Health Net's request to withdraw her motions, but then 3 withdrew them on the day Health Net's Oppositions were due (but did not notify me until after 4 business hours - after Health Net had already filed its Oppositions). Attached hereto as Exhibit L 5 is a tme and correct copy of the e-mails exchanged betv/een myself and Ms. Rivapalacio. 6 23. On March 9, 2018, Judge Perkins denied Health Net's Motion to Sequence 7 Discovery without prejudice "to seek similar specific relief by appropriate discovery motion 8 directed to the law and motion department " Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a tme and correct 9 copy of Judge Perkins'March 9,2018 Order. 10 24. After Judge Perkins' Order was issued and before Health Net filed its Motion to 11 Sequence Discovery in this Department, I met and conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel and 12 specifically invited Ms. Rivapalacio to present Plaintiff Spears' proposals to resolve or narrow the 13 issues in dispute. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a tme and 14 correct copy of my March 9, 2018 e-mail exchange with Ms. Rivapalacio. Plaintiff Tomas Arana 15 did not oppose Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery when it was pending before Judge 16 Perkins. 17 25. On March 9,2018 (the day after Judge Perkins' tentative mling), having confirmed 18 that the parties' positions remained the same and heeding Judge Perkins' mling that the issues in 19 the Motion to Sequence Discovery needed to be addressed in a formal discovery motion before the 20 law and motion department, Health Net prepared a separate statement and refiled its Motion to 21 Sequence Discovery before this department. That motion is set for hearing on April 9, 2018. 22 26. On March 20,2018, Plaintiff Spears again refiled her two discovery motions without 23 any additional meet and confer. 24 27. On March 21, 2018,1 offered Plaintiff Arana an extension of time - until April 23, 25 2018 - within which to bring any necessary motions to compel following the Court's mling on 26 Health Net's pending Motion to Sequence Discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a tme and 27 correct copy of my e-mail correspondence to William Pao, Mr. Setareh's colleague, 28 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECL^L INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE 1 28. 0nMarch21,2O18,1 asked Ms. Rivapalacio to withdraw Plaintiff Spears'discovery 2 motions by noon on March 23,2018, and granted Plaintiff Spears an extension until April 23,2018, 3 to file any discovery mofions that Plaintiff Spears believes necessary following this Court's mling 4 on the pending Motion to Sequence Discovery. T also informed Ms. Rivapalacio that Health Net 5 would seek sanctions for any expenses it incurred after noon on March 23, 2018, in opposmg these 6 motions. Ms. Rivapalacio did not withdraw Plaintiff Spears' motions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 P is a tme and correct copy of my March 21-22,2018 e-mail correspondence with Ms. Rivapalacio. 8 29. If, for some reason, the Court has not mled on the Motion to Sequence Discovery 9 by April 23,2018, Health Net will, as it has repeatedly done, grant Plaintiffs an additional extension 10 of time to bring any discovery motions so that they are not prejudiced by waiting for resolution of 11. Health Net's pending Motion to Sequence Discovery.. 12 30. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a tme and correct copy of the Declaration of Chrissy 13 Schneider In Support of Defendant's Motion to Sequence Discovery. 14 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a tme and cori-ect copy of the Declaration of Diane 15 Rodes In Support of Deferidant's Opposition to Plaintiffs previously filed Motions to Compel. 16 32. Attached hereto as Exhibit S. is a tme and correct copy of the Declaration of Kelly 17 Sarabia In Support of Defendanf s Motion for Summary Adjudication. 18 33. In response to Plaintiffs discovery in this case, Health Net provided detailed, 19 expansive responses and documents, including: 20 • Plaintiffs' personnel files; 21 • Plaintiffs'payroll data; 22 • Plaintiffs' timesheet data; 23 • Plaintiffs' wage statements; 24 • Meal period policies for all putative class members; 25 • Employee policies, manuals and guides for all putative class members; 26 • Hourly compensation policies for all putative class members; 27 • Bonus compensation policies for all putative class members; 28 -7- DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE 1 • Policies relating to health and welfare benefits for all putative class members; 2 • Meal premium policies for all putative class members; and 3 • Overtime compensation policies for all putative class members. 4 In total, Health Net has produced more than 2,600 pages of discovery and 21,880 lines of 5 data in Microsoft Excel sheets related to Plaintiffs' personal claims, class certification and the 6 merits of Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims. 7 34. - On December 20,2017,1 spoke over the telephone with Ms. Rivapalacio to discuss, 8 among other things. Plaintiff Spears' Special Interrogatory No. 14. I communicated Health Net's 9 position that Plaintiff Spears' request for "all forms of Compensation" the non-exempt putative 10 class members were "eligible tp receive[]" was vague and ambiguous. In response, Ms. 11 Rivapalacio communicated that Plaintiff Spears actually seeks their pay codes and a description of 12 such pay codes (her Special Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). My December 20, 2017, e-mail 13 correspondence to Ms. Rivapalacio memorializing our conversation was previously attached as 14 Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Victoria Rivapalacio. 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing 16 is tme and correct. Executed this 3rd day of April, 2018. 17 18 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE GAIL LEE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE Exhibit A Thank you for your message. Yes, Defendant will serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery it deems appropriate at this juncture of the litigation. As to the issue of the discovery relevant to class certification versus merits, we agreed to raise the issue with the Court-at the initial case management conference on December 8,2017. Confirmed that Defendant agrees to continue Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15,2017. Because, Shaun, you were not on this telephone cail, still outstanding is the issue of coordinating discovery. This is important, particulady with respect to the Belaire-West notice procedure. On that note, I will circulate a draft protective order and edits to Plaintiff Spears' draft Se/o/re-West notice. However, we should discuss how we're going to coordinate. Regards, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associaia Orrick Los Angelas Q T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com orncU From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victorta(S>bamlawca.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2017 4:45 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. orrick.com>: Norm Blumenthal bamlawca.com>: Kyle Nordrehaug .: AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee :thomas(S>setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.. Stephanie, I write to confirm that we met and conferred this afternoon regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. Defendant offered to continue Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline from December 1,2017 to December 15,2017, a week after the Case Management Conference. Defendant is in the process oif drafting supplemental responses, but vyill not provide a timeline as to when those will be provided. Defendant will circulate a draft of a protective order and will return the opt-out notice reflecting any revisions it might have. Plaintiff agrees to pay for the costs of the mailing. Thank you, Victoria ^"^hibit B Lee, Stephanie Gail From: Lee, Stephanie Gail Sent Thursday, November 9, 2017 1;01 PM To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio'; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Norm Blumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; Al B; Piya Mukherjee; th0ma5@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com , Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Attachments: 767592667(2LSpear5_Arana - Consolidated Belaire-West Notice with OHS EdiU.DOCX Victoria, ' While I understand thatthe Court did not order that a consolidated complaint be filed, I suggested as such fora few reasons. I explained those reasons over the telephone to you and Shaun separately, and I am summarizing them here: • A consolidated complaint will make for ease of litigation going forward. It is difficult to understand how the parties will smoothly litigate this case as one matter when there are two separate complaints. • Plaintiff Spears' FAC Is vague and ambiguous with regard to her regular rate claim. You have told us that this claim is really based on whether the "cash back" component of the cafeteria health plans should have been Included In the regular rate. However, the FAC seems to focus on bonuses, which you told me you didn't even know if your client received. Filing an amended complaint would provide an opportunity to clarify Plaintiff Spears' allegations, and delete one that should never have been asserted in the first place. • Plaintiff Arana's proposed FAC was rejected by the Court. Is he planning on amending his Complaint? Moreover, Plaintiff Arana purports to represent employees Defendant does not and has not ever employed. All of these Issues militate towards you and Shauti coordinating and filing a consolidated complaint. Should you choose not to, we will raise the issue with the Court during the case management conference. In any event, the draft Belaire- West notice you sent has a number of deficiencies. For example, it does not include the entire putative class when considering Plaintiff Arana's allegations. Moreover, the issues summarized above will impact the language of the notice - all the more reason to resolve them. Attached are our initial edits for your consideration. We look forward to continuing the meet and confer process. It is obviously your choice ifyou wish to file a motion. We suggest, however, that If we cannot resolve our differences through the meet and confer procesis - which we do not consider to be exhausted - that we tee up the issue for resolution by Judge Perkins at the case management conference. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orridt Los Angeles Q T-•1-213-612-2374 Stephanie. Iee@orrlck.coin. NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES O F HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE PKItSONAl. C'.0NTA<:T INFORMATION To: pURRENf ANDFbRMERNON-EXEM CALIFORNIA,jNCiBE-nVEE^^ 2013 AND THE PRESENT' ""^ I _ . ,.. • I Cominefited [1]: Tliii doa noi induds ihe entire puum-c ctoi. W« ntaitefl$uw Ihii OVL . •(v^A law8uite(<:Ww»:-3'l 2() 17-003 Hmi4feiS;piwy"^tf^^ WtwWi. - Cofflmeited I2]l His nam or (he esn^ is cattalidaled, is lenif Calif Ofniu, Cfconsoli.lnimlcase Nwo. 34-20l7-Qb210560-CU-On-GD"sfliavii liumirtld.!HTIJ arorv»* u i i u iendrtiiti The Court does not endorse any ofthe statements contained Iwriwin this iniiillne. .The Court has not rendered any opinion as to the merits of this case. The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class action on behalf of themselves and the current < nd fonner non^exempiVmployees who were employed by pefendant^ .The Court has not yet detennined whether or. - ( C4]t SamsaCorainait 1 r i>l,thc lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. .Ifyou receive this notice, and il'ihc Coun hilcr (fcicriiiinci lhai this law.tuii shall be mitiniaincd as a class actinn. vou may be a member ofthe proposed class. >' J The liiw< ers for Ihe Plaintiffs' nitnrnBV-'i would like to have your iiuiiie address, nersnnwl telephone umber and nersonal email address fvour "PriTOte Personal C'ontiirt liil'nrmation") so they may contact you to obtain your input as to.whether the Piaintlfls' allegations are accurate. This nulitc is being scut tu vnuTho Pnrlie.i hove t'td thai o Itlltr hg !.eiit to ynu to nro\-idc von with'the nnortunitv lii tiecide whether vou tvant voui' Private Personal Cniilatt Infonniitinn JiscloseddeleriMtnc if YOU uiiid objam to the Plaintiffs' attorneys riecelvine your cnntueti time mid pnyi'all liirurmiillun. Vuu iiiuy eieel a j^a- t t * *fc^j%*aS*ljfc - • ^ • » ^ < f c — i i m l Ja•**** •K—JI/**.^ a^^fci^jilI >*4*j*wfcjj^ l^lfligliaff**^ jaa#jm^—^••f, ^mam ^ • • r t — • ! ^ 4af n r " ' * * * * ^ ^ Vfl I I V | l l ' l r f l l - J U T ' * W T ^ r t f VT M I L i r • V * ^ • I l i l l J V V I | f l J ^ v i l l i I I I I V I I IISU I I I I I F vii l IlllllflVV-* l l l l l f • T I ^ J ' L * I T ^ P ^ ^ I f U IIU**'f il 1 'VIIKWKFORKi iif you uMtet tu th» diiinlonure nf vour towtmli time nnJ/of uavroll ii>l'onnatlon •SXK-7771 FacsiinileiniO) 888-1)109 | • , Please note that, ul this time, rmiartlless nf whether and/or how vou respond lo this nolicc. vou arc nol legally :uuit\:d 10 spcuk about Oils maticr with the PhiiUilTs' ntlomevs or their ugents or DefeiulantI Icaltli N c t ^ or its . i I ttomeys... im reprfl.iciilnlivea of Defen Jnnt empliiyer in tliia innttur. Iiuve ii eonlliot of interest with you nfi nn Biii|iluyuo lid poitfiiiiitl Clttiis Momhor. : Exhibit C Lee, Stephanie Gail From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Thursday, November 16,2017 4:39 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J.; Norm Bjumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; AJ B; Piya Mukherjee; thbmas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.conri; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com . Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of Caiifornia, Inc. Attachments: p-Motion-02.pdf Stephanie, Plaintiffs regular rate claim includes, but is not limited to, the payments of cash made in \ieu of health benefits. Subject to Defendant complying with discovery; we vyill identify other applicable payments. Defendant's current monopoly on the discovery relevant to this case Is not a reason to limit the scope of Plaintiffs claims, pled |n good faith, on the evidence available. That a plaintiff cannot prove her claims prior to conducting discovery is inherent in litigation and anticipated; It is the reason the discovery process exists. 5e;e Williams v. Superior Court, 3 CaL S*** 531, 551 (2017) ("California law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse."). Plaintiff, therefore, has no intention of striking any terms from her FAC. There Is no bargain and, therefore, no reason to delay for your bifurcation debate because, as stated in our meet and confer discussions on October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Spears propounded discovery that Is appropriate prior to certification, regardless of whether any order Is issued bifurcating discovery. Plus, there is no longer any argument as to bifurcating or delaying discovery for PAGA after Williams. If Defendant would like to moot Plaintiffs motion to compel by supplementing its responses. Defendant is welcome to do so. Regarding the Belaire notice, the clear intent is to distribute the notice to the recipients identified by the notice and the complaint, per Williams. If it turns out the class is broader than the category as we have Identified it, we will revisit the nnailing at that time. The motion Is attached. Thank you, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail fmailto:stephanle.lee(5)orrick.com1 Sent: Thursday, November 16,2017 3:16 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio : Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. orrlck.com>; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomasg)setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah(g)sctarehlaw.com;stacev(S>setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, I think I see where we have been talking over each other. To confirm. Plaintiff Spears' regular rate claim is based on the monies she received in the form of cash in lieu of medical benefits. As of right now. Plaintiff Spears does not have any other basis for her regular rate claim and all other stated bases should be stricken from her FAC. Regarding Defendant's discovery responses, we are following through on bur part of the agreement that you and I, and Shaun and I struck during our meet and confer discussions on October 24, 2017. during those calls and as memorialized in email correspondence, the parties agreed that they would submit the issue of bifurcating discovery between certification and merits to the Court, for resolution at the upcoming CMC. Pursuant to our agreement. Defendant agreed to supplement its responses to those requests and interrogatories it deems appropriate at this juncture ofthe litigation. Defendant also agreed to extend Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to Decernber 15,2017. As mentioned. Defendant intends to abide by its end ofthe bargain (and anticipates serving its supplemental responses prior to the conference) and trusts that Plaintiff Spears will do so, as well. Regarding the Belaire-West notice, I am unclear of your position. Are you saying that you will bring a motion to compel the distribution of a Belaire-West notice that will not be issued to all putative class members? Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associate Orrick las Anoeles ® T+1-213-612-2374 stephanio.lee@orrick.cam orrick From: Victoria Rivapalacio lmailto:victoria(5)bamlawca.com1 Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:36 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gall : Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, TimothyJ. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ 8 : Piya Mukherjee : thomascg)setarehlaw.com: scott(S)setarehlaw.com: farrahPsetarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, As I explained in our previous conversations, my client received bonuses in the form of cash paid in lieu of medical benefits. To determine any other non-discretionary bonuses that similarly should have been included in the regular rate calculation, 1 need you to supplement the inadequate responses Defendant provided to our discovery requests, as well as provide a responsive document production, including an electronic spreadsheet of Plaintiffs compensation. As Defendant has yet to provide compliant responses, I am forced to file a motion to compel this Information. As to the Belaire notice, the notice we will move fpr says exactly who should be the recipient of the notice. If there are any further issues you would like to discuss, please feel free to give me a call. Thank you, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail (mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.coml Sent: Friday, November 10,2017 3:20 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio : Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@5etarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@5etarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, It is unfortunate that you feel this way. We are just trying to get this right. There are serious issues we need to discuss regarding the Belaire-West notice, including, importantly, to whom it will be issued. To that end, we need to coordinate with Plaintiff Arana's counsel. If you still see the need to file your motion now, that is your prerogative. But again, we can tee this issue up to discuss with the Court at the case management conference. In any event, I find it difficult to imagine that your motion will be heard before then. We remain willing to meet and confer and, to that end, suggest that you, me and Shaun finally get on a call together. As an aside, you did tell me that you did not know whether your client received bonuses. You stated that that was what discovery was for. Thank you,. Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associate ' Orrick Los Anoeles 0 ' ' T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com orrick From: Victoria Rivapalacio fmaHto:victoria@bamlawc3.com1 Sent: Thursday, November 9,2017 1:36 PM To; Lee, Stephanie Gail.<5tephanle.lee@orrick.CDm>; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, I write to follow up to the volcemail I just left. The proposals you have outlined below regarding consolidating the complaints and continuing a meet and confer process serve only to delay this straightforward and routine mailing. We have already exhausted the meet and confer process. You can deal with plaintiff Arana directly as to your concerns about that complaint. If you have an issue with our complaint, you can file an appropriate motion because the issues you raise are baseless and a transparent attempt to delay. I never told you our client did not receive bonuses. If ybu would like to discuss Plaintiffs compensation further, please send me the payroll in excel without further delay. The cash back payments you refer to are another form of a bonus that should have been included: We also object to your delay tactic of making clearly inappropriate revisions to the Belaire notice that foreclose our request'for payroll and time information and include your contact information without a dlsclalrner to these employees as to your conflict of interest because you are working against their pecuniary interests In this matter. If there Is anything further to discuss,' you can call me today or tomorrow, but if not, we will conclude you are not interested In any actual discussion and the motion will be filed on Monday because there is no basis for this to be delayed up to the CMC. Thanks, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.coml Sent: Thursday, November09,2017 1:01 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kvie Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.corri: scott@setarehlaw.com: farr3h@setarehlaw.com: stacev@5etarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears V. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, While I understand thatthe Court did not order that a consolidated complaint be filed, I suggested as such for a few reasons. I explained those reasons over the telephone to you and Shaun separately, and I am summarizing them here: • A consolidated complaint will make for ease of litigation going forward. It Is difficult to understand how the parties will smoothly litigate this case as one matter when there are two separate complaints. • Plaintiff Spears' FAC is vague and ambiguous with regard to her regular rate claim. You have told us that this claim is really based on whether the "cash back" component of the cafeteria health plans should have been included in the regular rate. However, the FAC seems to focus.on bonuses, which you told me you didn't even. know if your client received. Filing an amended complaint would provide an opportunity to clarify Plaintiff Spears' allegations, and delete one that should never have been asserted in the first place.. • Plaintiff Arana's proposed FAC was rejected by the Court. Is he planning on amending his Complaint? Moreover, Plaintiff Arana purports tp represent employees Defendant does not and has not ever employed. All of these issues militate towards you and Shaun coordinating and filing a consolidated complaint. Should you choose not to, we will raise the issue with the Court during the case management conference. In any event, the draft Belaire-, West notice you sent has a number of deficiencies. For example, it does not include the entire putative class when considering Plaintiff Arana's allegations. Moreover, the issues summarized above will Impact the language of the notice - all the more reason to resolve them. Attached are our initial edits for your consideration. We look fonward to continuing the meet and confer process. It Is obviously your choice if you wish to file a motion. We suggest, however, that If we cannot resolve our differences through the meet and confer process - which we do not consider to be exhausted - that we tee up the issue for resolution by Judge Perkins at the case management conference. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Anoeles ® T+1-213-612-2374 steph8nie.lee@omck.coni orrick Exhibit D Lee, Stephanie Gaill From: Lee. Stephanie Gail Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 7:32 AM To: -Victoria Rivapalacio'; Shaun Setareh; 'H. Scott Leviant'; 'Stacey Shinri' Cc: Long, Timothy J. Subject Spears and Arana - Stip and Proposed Protective Order Attachments: 767407060(2)_Spears and Arana - Stip and Proposed Protective Order.DOCX Counsel, Please see the attached draft protective order for your review and, if approved, signature. Thank you, Stephanie ' Stephanie Gaii Lee Managing Associate . Orrick ' , . Los Anoeles © . T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.)ee@orrtckxom . orrick Exhibit E I TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR. NO. 137591) ijlong@omck.coin 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Sacramenlo.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@oiTick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, Califomia 90017 8 Telephone: (213)629-2020 Facsimile; (213)612-2499 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. II SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 15 of herself and on behalf ofall persons similarly CU^E-GDS situated. 16 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT 35 17 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF 18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CALIFORNIA, INC'S Caliromia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO 19 inclusive, PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR Dcrendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 20 ONE 21 Complaint Filed: April 5,2017 FAC Filed: June 29,2017 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himseli; all others similarly situated. Complaini Filed: August 1,2017 23 Piainiiff, 24 V. 25 HEALTI I NET, INC., a Delaware corporation; 26 and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 27 Defendant. 28 DH-ENDANT'S SUrPLOMEWr A l RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S RHQUCST.S FOR PRODUCTION OV DOCUMENTS. SET ONE 1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANDREA SPEARS 2 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA 3 SET: ONE (I) 4 Pursuant (o Califomia Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210 etseq.. Defendant Health 5 Net ofCalifornia, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby supplements its responses lo PlaintifT Andrea Spears' 6 ("Plaimifr') Requests for Production of Documcnls, Set One. 7 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 8 This Response is made solely for purposes of this action. Each response and/or production 9 is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and admissibility, 10 and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of ariy statements 11 contained herein, if such slatements were made by a witness present and testifying at court, all of 12 which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed al the lime of trial. 13 The following Response is based upon information presently available to Defendant. 14 Defendant is not making any incidental or implied admissions regarding the contents of these 15 documents. The fact that Defendant has responded or objected to any request or part thereof should 16' not be taken as an admission (hat Defendant accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or 17 assumed by PlaintifTs request, or that such response or objection constitutes admissible evidence. 18 The fact that Defendant has answered part or all of any request is not intended and shall not be 19 construed to be a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objections to any request. 20 Nothing contained herein or produced in response to the request herein consists of or should 21 be constrtied as an admission about (he existence or nonexistence of any document. 22 To the extent thai the request calls for infomiation which was prepared in anticipation of 23 litigation for trial or for infomiation or material covered by the work-product doctrine, or which 24 cons(i(ules information which is privileged or related to confidential (rade secrets or the privilege 25 of privacy (including the freedom of association and financial privacy), Defendant objects to 26 responding to such request and thus will not supply nor render any documents protected from 27 discovery by virtue of the work-produci doctrine, the attomey-client privilege, or the (rade secrets 28 or privacy privilege. Inadvertent production of any such document shall not constitute a waiver of • . • ' ' ' -2- • DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PUINTIFI-S RCQUIiSTSTORPRODUCriON OF DOCIIMCWTS. SET ONE" 1 any privilege pr any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such document or any 2 other document, or with respect to the subject mailer thereof, or the information contained (herein, 3 nor shall inadvertent production waive Defendant'srightto object to the use of any such document 4 or the information contained therein during any subsequent proceeding. 5 Defendant objects to (he purported definitions and ihstmciions set forth in the document 6. requests on the grounds they arc vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive and 7 Defendant undertakes no obligations except as (hose (hat may be provided by (he Califomia Code 8 of Civil Procedure. 9 Defendan( objec(s to the requests on the grounds that it did nol and docs not employ 10 Plainti Ffs or any individuals that Plaintiffs seek to represent in this lawsuit. 11 To the extent any request calls for the piroduction of eleclronically stored information 12 (including, for example, electronic mail messages). Defendant objects to the discovery of such 13 infomiation on the grounds that il is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of 14 undue burden and expense and. Defendant will not search the source in the abseiice of an agreement 15 with Plaintiff. Such eleclronically s(ored informadon includes Defendant's email boxes for 16- PlaintifT and for all of Defendant's employees.. 17 Defendant incorporates by this reference each and all of the foregoing general responses 18 and objections into the following enumerated responses. 19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 20 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3; 21 Please produce, in electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, the daily time records for 22 PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. \ 23 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 24 In addilion to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to (his reques( on the 25 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited lo, the term "daily (ime records" 26 and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant objec(s to this request on the grounds that it is 27 overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects (o this request on (he grounds that it seeks 28 . '• -3- • D