Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 03/09/2018 TIME: 11:30:00 AM DEPT: 35
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Alan Perkins
CLERK: D. Lashley
REPORTER/ERM: NONE
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: NONE
CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Complex
ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS
APPEARANCES
TENTATIVE RULING:
Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Friday, March 9, 2018.
The motion of Defendant Health Net of California, Inc. ("Health Net"), pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2019.020(b), for an order sequencing discovery on seven categories of claims
asserted by Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas Arana ("Plaintiffs") in the above matter, is denied
without prejudice as set forth below.
Health Net seeks a discovery sequencing order "for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice" impacting discovery as to: (1) meal and rest breaks, (2) off-the-clock time and (3)
misclassification claims, and derivatives (4) wage statements, (5) waiting time, (6) unfair competition and
(7) PAGA claims. Health Net contends that good cause exists to sequence discovery so that the parties
first address whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs have standing to represent other
allegedly aggrieved employees. Health Net asserts that structuring discovery in this manner promotes
judicial economy, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice because it avoids
burdensome, costly and problematic discovery, all of which would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs cannot
establish certification and that they have standing to proceed on a representative basis.
Health Net specifically requests a "pause" on the "merits-based and classwide discovery of Plaintiffs'
meal and rest break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims unless and until they establish that
certification is appropriate and that they have standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved
employees." (HealthNet MPA, p. 5:4-7.) The list of impacted discovery subject matter and pending
Plaintiff discovery requests, lists 15 specified matters, including all: (1) putative class members' payroll
records (Spears RFP No, 20); (2) putative class members' time records (Spears RFP No. 21; Arana RFP
No. 8); (3) putative class members' wage statements (Spears RFP No. 22; Arana RPF No. 9); (4)
putative class members' time adjustment records (Arana RFP No. 13); and (5) data itemizing the total
number of meal period premiums paid in the last four and a half years. (Id., p. 5:8-6:3.) Health Net's
proposed order lists 19 categories of discovery to be impacted. Health Net also seeks in footnote 5 of
DATE: 03/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 35 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
its brief for a stay on its duty to provide further response to pending discovery identified in footnote 2 of
its brief (Spears RFP Nos. 8 and 11, and Rog Nos. 11,12,14-16 and 18). Health Net requests that the
Court either defer Health Net having to respond to this discovery until and unless Plaintiffs can establish
that the discovery they seek is in any way relevant to the claims asserted in this lawsuit or that the
responses (and documents) Health Net has already provided are somehow deficient.
Health Net also presents evidence demonstrating the effort and resources that it estimates will be
required to collect, analyze, and produce the information and material sought in the impacted discovery.
Health Net also raises the financial and personal privacy interests of non-party employees whose
sensitive information is encompassed by much of the discovery.
Health Net's proposed order, if the motion is granted, would direct the parties that they shall first engage
in discovery concerning whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and
Tomas Arana ... have standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees on their (1) meal and
rest break, (2) off the clock, (3) misclassification claims, and derivative (4) wage statement, (5) waiting
time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims. Only after Plaintiffs successfully certify a class and
establish that they have standing as specified could they then proceed with the impacted discovery.
Plaintiff Spears opposes the motion arguing in summary that the impacted discovery subject matter in
substantial part is necessary to support a viable class certification motion, and that the threshold of
certification for lifting the stay requested by Health Net is inapplicable to the PAGA claims. Plaintiff
argues that "discovery that is often classified as 'merits discovery' is also the evidence that common
questions predominate, that the class representative's claims are typical of those of the class, that the
action will be manageable at trial as a class action, and that the class members are ascertainable, all of
which are requirements for certification. Plaintiff does not strongly deny that some of the numerical
discovery will be burdensome for Health Net, but contends that such data is necessary to support the
standard challenges in class certification and that it is Plaintiff's counsel's experience that when a class
defendant needs such data for its own benefit, it is quickly and easily amassed.
The court does not discount or reject the merits of all Health Net's position and concerns. Likewise, the
court does not find Plaintiff's position entirely unreasonable either. The motion as presented, and
postured after argument in the briefs, is all or nothing. The court is left to page through the 15 or 19
broad categories of impacted discovery without substantial detail to determine whether it is entirely
irrelevant and unnecessary for Plaintiff to present the best position on class certification. Moreover, the
court is faced with the reality that the Plaintiffs allege a PAGA claim that is not subject to the same stay
threshold of certification proposed by Health Net.
The court is also aware of both: 1) the pending motion for summary adjudication, which may have
significant implications for the scope and subject matter of future discovery, and 2) the fact that there
have already been a significant number of discovery motions in this case that have been, or will be,
heard by the law and motion department.
Given this status, the court is persuaded that the issues of burden, privacy, relevance/necessity, and
timing are all much better addressed and analyzed in detailed discovery motions (motions to compel,
motions for protective order) than by a broad stay on virtually all discovery without the detailed
substance necessary to assess such issues.
Thus, Health Net's motion as framed is denied without prejudice to seek similar specific relief by
appropriate discovery motion directed to the law and motion department, including motions for protective
orders.
DATE: 03/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 35 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
NOTICE:
To request oral argument on this matter, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7885 (Department 35) by
4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the
opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. Local Rule
1.06. Unless otherwise ordered, the plaintiff shall give actual written notice of all final rulings of the court.
COURT'S RULLING:
The Tentative Ruling was accepted and no appearance was requested.
DATE: 03/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 35 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/09/2018 TIME: 11:30:00 AM DEPT: 35 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Alan Perkins CLERK: D. Lashley REPORTER/ERM: NONE BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: NONE CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017 CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Complex ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS APPEARANCES TENTATIVE RULING: Below is the tentative ruling for the hearing on Friday, March 9, 2018. The motion of Defendant Health Net of California, Inc. ("Health Net"), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020(b), for an order sequencing discovery on seven categories of claims asserted by Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas Arana ("Plaintiffs") in the above matter, is denied without prejudice as set forth below. Health Net seeks a discovery sequencing order "for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice" impacting discovery as to: (1) meal and rest breaks, (2) off-the-clock time and (3) misclassification claims, and derivatives (4) wage statements, (5) waiting time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims. Health Net contends that good cause exists to sequence discovery so that the parties first address whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs have standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees. Health Net asserts that structuring discovery in this manner promotes judicial economy, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice because it avoids burdensome, costly and problematic discovery, all of which would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs cannot establish certification and that they have standing to proceed on a representative basis. Health Net specifically requests a "pause" on the "merits-based and classwide discovery of Plaintiffs' meal and rest break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims unless and until they establish that certification is appropriate and that they have standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees." (HealthNet MPA, p. 5:4-7.) The list of impacted discovery subject matter and pending Plaintiff discovery requests, lists 15 specified matters, including all: (1) putative class members' payroll records (Spears RFP No, 20); (2) putative class members' time records (Spears RFP No. 21; Arana RFP No. 8); (3) putative class members' wage statements (Spears RFP No. 22; Arana RPF No. 9); (4) putative class members' time adjustment records (Arana RFP No. 13); and (5) data itemizing the total number of meal period premiums paid in the last four and a half years. (Id., p. 5:8-6:3.) Health Net's proposed order lists 19 categories of discovery to be impacted. Health Net also seeks in footnote 5 of DATE: 03/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 35 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS its brief for a stay on its duty to provide further response to pending discovery identified in footnote 2 of its brief (Spears RFP Nos. 8 and 11, and Rog Nos. 11,12,14-16 and 18). Health Net requests that the Court either defer Health Net having to respond to this discovery until and unless Plaintiffs can establish that the discovery they seek is in any way relevant to the claims asserted in this lawsuit or that the responses (and documents) Health Net has already provided are somehow deficient. Health Net also presents evidence demonstrating the effort and resources that it estimates will be required to collect, analyze, and produce the information and material sought in the impacted discovery. Health Net also raises the financial and personal privacy interests of non-party employees whose sensitive information is encompassed by much of the discovery. Health Net's proposed order, if the motion is granted, would direct the parties that they shall first engage in discovery concerning whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas Arana ... have standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees on their (1) meal and rest break, (2) off the clock, (3) misclassification claims, and derivative (4) wage statement, (5) waiting time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims. Only after Plaintiffs successfully certify a class and establish that they have standing as specified could they then proceed with the impacted discovery. Plaintiff Spears opposes the motion arguing in summary that the impacted discovery subject matter in substantial part is necessary to support a viable class certification motion, and that the threshold of certification for lifting the stay requested by Health Net is inapplicable to the PAGA claims. Plaintiff argues that "discovery that is often classified as 'merits discovery' is also the evidence that common questions predominate, that the class representative's claims are typical of those of the class, that the action will be manageable at trial as a class action, and that the class members are ascertainable, all of which are requirements for certification. Plaintiff does not strongly deny that some of the numerical discovery will be burdensome for Health Net, but contends that such data is necessary to support the standard challenges in class certification and that it is Plaintiff's counsel's experience that when a class defendant needs such data for its own benefit, it is quickly and easily amassed. The court does not discount or reject the merits of all Health Net's position and concerns. Likewise, the court does not find Plaintiff's position entirely unreasonable either. The motion as presented, and postured after argument in the briefs, is all or nothing. The court is left to page through the 15 or 19 broad categories of impacted discovery without substantial detail to determine whether it is entirely irrelevant and unnecessary for Plaintiff to present the best position on class certification. Moreover, the court is faced with the reality that the Plaintiffs allege a PAGA claim that is not subject to the same stay threshold of certification proposed by Health Net. The court is also aware of both: 1) the pending motion for summary adjudication, which may have significant implications for the scope and subject matter of future discovery, and 2) the fact that there have already been a significant number of discovery motions in this case that have been, or will be, heard by the law and motion department. Given this status, the court is persuaded that the issues of burden, privacy, relevance/necessity, and timing are all much better addressed and analyzed in detailed discovery motions (motions to compel, motions for protective order) than by a broad stay on virtually all discovery without the detailed substance necessary to assess such issues. Thus, Health Net's motion as framed is denied without prejudice to seek similar specific relief by appropriate discovery motion directed to the law and motion department, including motions for protective orders. DATE: 03/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 35 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS NOTICE: To request oral argument on this matter, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7885 (Department 35) by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. Local Rule 1.06. Unless otherwise ordered, the plaintiff shall give actual written notice of all final rulings of the court. COURT'S RULLING: The Tentative Ruling was accepted and no appearance was requested. DATE: 03/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 35 Calendar No.