Preview
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOIIW LLP
NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL (SBN 068687)
2 APARAJIT BHOWMIK (SBN 248066)
VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO (SBN 275115)
3 2255 Calle Clara
LaJolla, CA 92037
4 Tel: 858.551.1223
Fax: 858.551.1232
5 norm@bamlawca.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual on behalf of Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly OE-GDS
12 situated,
13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO
vs. EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT
14 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
HEALTHNET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
15 Caiifomia Corporation; and DOES 1 through ADJUDICATION
50, inclusive.
16 Defendants.
17
Date: February 4, 2019
18 Time: 9:00 a.m.
TOM AS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Dept: 54
19 thers similarly situated.
Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 1,2017
20 V. Trial Date: None assigned
21 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Caiifomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
22 inclusive.
X Defendant.
23
Urn
>> 24
•u 25
26
27
u.
28
1.
PLAINTIFFS' OWECTtONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BV DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONERROR! UNKNOWN
DOCUMENT PROPERTY NAME.
2 Plaintiffs hereby submit the following evidentiary objections to the evidence offered by
3 Defendant Health Net of Caiifomia, Inc. ("Defendant") in Support of Defendant's Renewed
4 Motion for Summary Adjudication. All exhibits are attached the Declaration of Aparajit Bhowmik
5 in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication.
6
7 DECLARATION OF KELLY SARABIA
8 OBJECTION NUMBER 1
9 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 2 of the
10 "Declaration of Kelly Sarabia," which reads as follows:
"HNI processed HNCA's payroll from before 2012 through the end of 2016. As the payroll
12 processor, HNI tracked benefits received by HNCA employees on their pay stubs as earnings under
13 pay codes "MedFlxElct" and "DenFlxElct" and "MedFlxWave" and DenFlxWave. " lam
14 informed and believe that the benefits that I am referring to (also/known as "Flex Dollars") are
15 benefits provided to HNCA employees who participated and received benefits under the Health
16 Net, Inc. Associate Benefits Program (the "Plan").
17
18 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
19 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; contradicts Sarabia's sworn
20 deposition testimony (Exhibit 10. Sarabia Depo., 48:2-6 (defining "cash benefit" as only the
21 "employer contribution amount to offset the cost of medical and dental coverage.").
22
23 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
24 Overruled:
25
26 OBJECTION NUMBER 2
27 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 3 of the
28 "Declaration of Kelly Sarabia," which reads as follows:
2.
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
'The following table reflects the amount of benefits HNCA employees received under the
2 pay codes "MedFlxElct" and "DenFlxElct" and "MedFlxWave" and "DenFlxWave" for the years
3 2013 to 2016."
4
5 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
6 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; contradicts Sarabia's swom
7 deposition testimony (Exhibit 10, Sarabia Depo., 48:2-6 (defining "cash benefit" as only the
8 "employer contribution amount to offset the cost of medical and dental coverage.").
9
10 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
Overruled:
12
13 DECLARATION OF DEBBIE COLIA
14 OBJECTION NUMBER 3
15 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 1 of the
16 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
17 "HNI and HNCA were (and to my knowledge still are) separate corporate entities
18 during the time I was a Vice President of Organizational Effectiveness for HNI
19 and they operated as separate corporate entities, including for all purposes I
20 describe in this declaration.
21
22 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
23 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
24 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12,
25 84:18-85:6,48:15-24).
26
27 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
28 Overruled:
3^ • ^
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
OBJECTION NUMBER 4
2 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 2 of the
3 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
4 "Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas Arana were Plan Participants."
5
6 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
7 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
8 803).
9
10 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
11 Overruled:
12
13 OBJECTION NUMBER 5
14 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 4 of the
15 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
16 "To that end, HNI as the plan sponsor and administrator ensured that HNCA's
17 employer contributions to the plan were tracked, kept in a separate account, and
18 used only for proper Plan purposes related to providing the health and welfare
19 benefits to Plan Participants, including Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas
20 Arana, and their dependents."
21
22 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
23 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
24 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 98:2-9, 97:13-24,
25 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 129:9-131:25); lack of personal
26 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
27
28
4.
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
2 Overruled:
3
4 OBJECTION NUMBER 6
5 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 5 of the
6 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
7 "HNI treated HNCA as a third party for purposes of administering the Plan, and vice versa.
8 Pursuant to a funded arrangement with HNI, HNCA paid the actual costs of benefits under the Plan
9 (e.g., the cash benefits paid to Ms. Spears which I understand is the subject to of this Motion) for
10 its eligible employees who elected to participate in the Plan (i.e.. Plan Participants),including Ms.
11 Spears and Mr. Arana. HNCA paid to HNI in its capacity as Plan sponsor and administrator the full
12 amount necessary to cover HNCA's employer contributions as by the Plan. HNCA's employer
13 contributions included both core and optional benefits, and the cash benefits described below and
14 at issue in this Motion, which were paid by HNI as the Plan sponsor and administrator to certain
15 eligible Plan Participants, including Mr. Arana and Ms. Spears."
16 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
17 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
18 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12,
19 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24, 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21,
20 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24 -144:19, 96:2-8, 137:10-16, 38:5-16, 72:3-
21 8, 156:5-21,42:22-43:19,46:14-47:2, 144:23-146:4, 129:9-131:25); lack of personal knowledge
22 (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
23
24 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
25 Overruled:
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2
3 OBJECTION NUMBER 7
4 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 6 of the
5 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
6 "Pursuant to this funded arrangement with HNI, HNCA's employer contributions to the
7 Plan were deposited into an account maintained and controlled by HNI as the Plan's sponsor and
8 administrator. HNCA's contributions were irrevocable- once made to HNI, HNCA was unable to
9 recapture or divert the funds for HNCA's use or benefit. Instead, HNI as the Plan sponsor and
10 administrator, controlled those monies once these monies were deposited into that account. HNI
then used these funds from this account to pay for benefits provided by the Plan, including the cash
12 benefits at issue in this Motion, which were paid by HNI as the Plan's sponsor and administrator to
13 those Plan Participants who elected to waive certain benefits offered by the Plan, which included
14 Ms. Spears."
15
16 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
17 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
18 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12,
19 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24, 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21,
20 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24 -144:19, 96:2-8, 137:10-16, 38:5-16, 72:3-
21 8, 156:5-21,42:22-43:19,46:14-47:2, 144:23-146:4, 129:9-131:25); lack of personal knowledge
22 (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
23
24
25 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
26 Overruled:
27
28
6.
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
2 OBJECTION NUMBER 8
3 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 12 of the
4 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
5 "However, if a Plan Participant's Flex Dollars exceeded the cost of coverage or if
6 the Plan Participant waived medical and/or dental coverage, the Plan Participant
7 received a portion of the Flex Dollars as a cash benefit (which 1 understand is the
8 subject of this Motion). HNI, as the Plan sponsor and administrator, paid this cash
9 benefit to qualifying Plan Participants. HNI accomplished this functionally by
10 having the cash benefit paid to Plan Participants via their paychecks because in a
separate role, HNI also processed the payroll for the companies who participated
12 in the Plan, including HNCA. While Flex Dollars, paid to Plan Participants were
13 coded as "MedFlxElct" and "DenFlxElct" and "MedFlxWave" and "DenFlxWave"
14 on the Plan Participants' pay checks, this does not change the nature of the cash
15 benefit provided by the Plan. This cash benefit was a Plan benefit.
16
17 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
18 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
19 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 56:12-21, 20:19-
20 23:1,34:5-12,84:18-85:6,48:15-24,34:5-12,84:18-85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-
21 144:19, 96:2-8, 137:10-16, 42:22-43:19, 46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4, 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21,
22 129:9-131:25); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
23
24 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
25 Overruled:
26
27
28
1.
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
2
3 OBJECTION NUMBER 9
4 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 14 of the
5 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
6 "The actual cost of benefits (referenced in Paragraphs 1 and 6 above) paid by HNCA to
7 HNI, included all Flex Dollars Plan Participants received as a benefit of the Plan, specifically
8 including all Flex Dollars Plan Participants received as a cash benefit of the Plan, the same cash
9 benefit at issue in this Motion. As noted above. Plan Participants could receive Flex Dollars as cash
10 benefit of the Plan if their Flex Dollars either exceeded the cost of their optional coverage or if they
11 waived medical and/or dental coverage."
12
13 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
14 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
15 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 34:5-12, 84:18-
16 85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-144:19,96:2-8, 137:10-16, 129:9-131:25,38:5-16,72:3-
17 8, 156:5-21,42:22-43:19,46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
18 702(a)).
19
20 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
21 Overruled:
22
23 OBJECTION NUMBER 10
24 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 15 of the
25 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
26 "All Flex Dollar cash benefit amounts were paid to Plan Participants by HNI as the sponsor
27 and administrator of the Plan, were first contributed by HNCA to the Plan when HNCA irrevocably
28 paid the actual cost of benefits to HNI as the Plan sponsor and administrator. As the administrator
8^
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORl OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 and sponsor of the Plan, HNI then used those contributions to pay for benefits provided by the
2 Plan, including Flex Dollars paid to Plan Participants, including cash benefits at issue in this
3 Motion, as well as amounts owed to providers of medical and/or dental services.
4
5 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
6 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
7 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 34:5-12, 84:18-
8 85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-144:19,96:2-8, 137:10-16, 129:9-131:25,38:5-16,72:3-
9 8, 156:5-21, 42:22-43:19, 46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4, 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24
10 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21 -35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21); lack of personal
11 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
12
13 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
14 Overruled:
15
16 OBJECTION NUMBER 11
17 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 16 of the
18 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows:
19 "It is incorrect to label cash benefits paid to Plan Participants as "cash in lieu of benefits,"
20 Flex Dollars are a benefit offered and paid by the Plan to eligible Plan Participants, such as Ms.
21 Spears. That in most cases the total amount of Flex Dollars a Plan Participant received was used in
22 whole to pay for elected coverage on a pre-tax basis does not change the nature of the Flex Dollars
23 they received from HNI the Plan Sponsor and administrator pursuant to the terms of the Plan.
24 These Flex Dollars, including the cash benefits referred to herein, were Plan benefits. Similarly,
25 and as mentioned above, how these Plan benefits were coded on a Plan Participant's pay stub did
26 not change the nature of the benefits: they were all Plan benefits. This includes Plan benefits coded
27 as "MedFlxWave" and "DenFlxWave" on the pay stubs of HNCA employees who were Plan
28 Participants. Plan Participants who elected for optional coverage received this benefit when the
9.
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS T O EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT I N SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
actual cost of their elected coverage was less than the amount of Flex Dollars they were entitled to
2 receive under the Plan. "
3
4 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
5 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
6 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 34:5-12, 84:18-
7 85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-144:19,96:2-8, 137:10-16, 129:9-131:25,38:5-16,72:3-
8 8, 156:5-21, 42:22-43:19, 46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4, 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24
9 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 66:24-67:14, 56:12-21);
10 lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
12 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
13 Overruled:
14
15
16 DECLARATION OF DIANE C. RODES
17 OBJECTION NUMBER 12
18 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 3 of the
19 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows:
20 " I understand that Plaintiffs allege that HNCA failed to properly calculate the regular rate
21 for overtime purposes on the basis that HNCA allegedly failed to include non-discretionary
22 bonuses in the regular rate calculation. At HNCA, and frankly at every other place I have worked,
23 bonuses are non-regular payments paid to employees in recognition of services they have
24 performed during a given period. As reflected in the pay codes listed Paragraphs 5 and 7, Plaintiffs'
25 eamings as non-exempt employees at HNCA fit into the following categories:
26
27
28
10
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
2 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
3 803); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
4
5 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
6 Overruled:
7
8 OBJECTION NUMBER 13
9 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 5 of the
10 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows:
"At no time during Ms. Spears's employment with HNCA did she receive any
12 form of additional compensation or remuneration that could be construed as a
13 bonus payment, as I have defined the term above. Her eamings were limited to
14 compensation she eamed through the hours she worked (both at the regular rate
15 and premium rates) and for certain periods of non-work time, and the Flex Dollars
16 she received pursuant to the Plan. The following lists all forms of eamings paid to
17 Ms. Spears during the relevant time period, as reflected in her payroll data
18 produced to Plaintiffs, none of which were considered a bonus by HNCA.
19 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
20 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
21 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7, Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21-
22 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal
23 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
24 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
25 Overruled:
26
27
28
IL
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2
3 OBJECTION NUMBER 14
4 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 16 of the
5 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows:
6 "Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, eligible HNCA employees who elected
7 to participate ("Participants") in the Plan were provided "Flex Dollars" pursuant to the terms of the
8 Plan to help pay for the cost of medical and dental insurance coverage. Flex Dollars provided were
9 reflected in Participants' paychecks.
10
Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
12 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
13 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7. Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21-
14 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal
15 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
16
17 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
18 Overruled:
19
20 OBJECTION NUMBER 15
21 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 17 of the
22 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes ," which reads as follows:
23 "The Flex Dollars provided to HNCA's employees, including the cash benefit paid by HNI
24 as the Plan sponsor and administrator to Ms. Spears, were a benefit HNCA employees were
25 provided pursuant to the Plan and were not a bonus.'
26
27 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
28 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
12^
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7, Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21
2 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal
3 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
4
5 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
6 Overruled:
7
8
9 OBJECTION NUMBER 16
10 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 18 of the
"Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows:
12 "The amount of benefits HNCA employees received were not tied to hours worked or
13 performance, nor were they provided as any sort of bonus or incentive for them to work harder,
14 better or more efficiently. Rather, these benefits were provided to eligible employees pursuant to
15 the terms of the Plan as Plan Participants, regardless of hours worked or the quality of their work..
16
17 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
18 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
19 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7, Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21 -
20 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal
21 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
22
23 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
24 Overruled:
25
26
27
28
13^
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
OBJECTION NUMBER 17
2 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 20 of the
3 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows:
4 "Ms. Spears waived medical coverage during her employment with HNCA. So, as reflected
5 in her July 2, 2015 wage statement, for example, HNI as the Plan sponsor and administrator paid
6 her a Flex Dollar benefit of $20.00 (the cash benefits at issue in this Motion) for her waiver of
7 medical coverage under the Plan. This Flex Dollar benefit was coded as "MedFlxWave" on her
8 wage statement and as "Medical Flex $ for Waive" in her payroll data. HNI paid her this cash
9 every pay period."
10
11 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405);
12 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code §
13 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7. Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21-
14 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal
15 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)).
16
17 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained:
18 Overruled:
19
Respectfully submitted,
20 DATED: January 18,2019 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG
21 BHOWMIK DE BLOUW L L P
22
23
By:.
24 Norman B. Blumenthal
A.J. Bhowmik
25 Attomeys for Plaintiff
26
27
28
15^
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
3 I, AJ Bhowmik, am employed in the County of San Diego, State of Caiifomia. 1 am over
the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2255 Calle Clara, La
4 Jolla, California 92037.
5 On January 18, 2019,1 served the document(s) described as:
6
1. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN
7 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
8
9 X (FEDERAL EXPRESS): I caused the above-described document to be delivered via
ovemight delivery (Federal Express), by placing a copy in a separate FEDERAL EXPRESS
10 mailer and attaching a completed Federal Express air bill, with Standard Overnight
delivery/Priority Delivery requested, and caused said mailer to deposited in the Federal
Express collection box at San Diego, Caiifomia.
Timothy J. Long SETAREH LAW GROUP
, O R R I C K , HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Shaun Setareh
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 H. Scott Leviant
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
14 Telephone: (916) 447-9200 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Facsimile: (916) 329-4900 Telephone: (310) 888-7771
15 Email: tjlong@orrick.com Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
tf- Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
'" VIA EMAIL SERVICE ONLY
17
18
X (State): I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia that the
19 above is true and correct.
20 Executed on January 18, 2019, at La Jolla, Caiifomia
21
22 APARAJIT BHOWMIK
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
Preview
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOIIW LLP NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL (SBN 068687) 2 APARAJIT BHOWMIK (SBN 248066) VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO (SBN 275115) 3 2255 Calle Clara LaJolla, CA 92037 4 Tel: 858.551.1223 Fax: 858.551.1232 5 norm@bamlawca.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual on behalf of Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU- herself and on behalf of all persons similarly OE-GDS 12 situated, 13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO vs. EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT 14 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S HEALTHNET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 Caiifomia Corporation; and DOES 1 through ADJUDICATION 50, inclusive. 16 Defendants. 17 Date: February 4, 2019 18 Time: 9:00 a.m. TOM AS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Dept: 54 19 thers similarly situated. Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 1,2017 20 V. Trial Date: None assigned 21 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Caiifomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, 22 inclusive. X Defendant. 23 Urn >> 24 •u 25 26 27 u. 28 1. PLAINTIFFS' OWECTtONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BV DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONERROR! UNKNOWN DOCUMENT PROPERTY NAME. 2 Plaintiffs hereby submit the following evidentiary objections to the evidence offered by 3 Defendant Health Net of Caiifomia, Inc. ("Defendant") in Support of Defendant's Renewed 4 Motion for Summary Adjudication. All exhibits are attached the Declaration of Aparajit Bhowmik 5 in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication. 6 7 DECLARATION OF KELLY SARABIA 8 OBJECTION NUMBER 1 9 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 2 of the 10 "Declaration of Kelly Sarabia," which reads as follows: "HNI processed HNCA's payroll from before 2012 through the end of 2016. As the payroll 12 processor, HNI tracked benefits received by HNCA employees on their pay stubs as earnings under 13 pay codes "MedFlxElct" and "DenFlxElct" and "MedFlxWave" and DenFlxWave. " lam 14 informed and believe that the benefits that I am referring to (also/known as "Flex Dollars") are 15 benefits provided to HNCA employees who participated and received benefits under the Health 16 Net, Inc. Associate Benefits Program (the "Plan"). 17 18 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 19 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; contradicts Sarabia's sworn 20 deposition testimony (Exhibit 10. Sarabia Depo., 48:2-6 (defining "cash benefit" as only the 21 "employer contribution amount to offset the cost of medical and dental coverage."). 22 23 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 24 Overruled: 25 26 OBJECTION NUMBER 2 27 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 3 of the 28 "Declaration of Kelly Sarabia," which reads as follows: 2. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 'The following table reflects the amount of benefits HNCA employees received under the 2 pay codes "MedFlxElct" and "DenFlxElct" and "MedFlxWave" and "DenFlxWave" for the years 3 2013 to 2016." 4 5 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 6 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; contradicts Sarabia's swom 7 deposition testimony (Exhibit 10, Sarabia Depo., 48:2-6 (defining "cash benefit" as only the 8 "employer contribution amount to offset the cost of medical and dental coverage."). 9 10 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: Overruled: 12 13 DECLARATION OF DEBBIE COLIA 14 OBJECTION NUMBER 3 15 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 1 of the 16 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 17 "HNI and HNCA were (and to my knowledge still are) separate corporate entities 18 during the time I was a Vice President of Organizational Effectiveness for HNI 19 and they operated as separate corporate entities, including for all purposes I 20 describe in this declaration. 21 22 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 23 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 24 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 25 84:18-85:6,48:15-24). 26 27 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 28 Overruled: 3^ • ^ PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OBJECTION NUMBER 4 2 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 2 of the 3 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 4 "Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas Arana were Plan Participants." 5 6 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 7 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 8 803). 9 10 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 11 Overruled: 12 13 OBJECTION NUMBER 5 14 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 4 of the 15 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 16 "To that end, HNI as the plan sponsor and administrator ensured that HNCA's 17 employer contributions to the plan were tracked, kept in a separate account, and 18 used only for proper Plan purposes related to providing the health and welfare 19 benefits to Plan Participants, including Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas 20 Arana, and their dependents." 21 22 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 23 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 24 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 25 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 129:9-131:25); lack of personal 26 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 27 28 4. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 2 Overruled: 3 4 OBJECTION NUMBER 6 5 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 5 of the 6 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 7 "HNI treated HNCA as a third party for purposes of administering the Plan, and vice versa. 8 Pursuant to a funded arrangement with HNI, HNCA paid the actual costs of benefits under the Plan 9 (e.g., the cash benefits paid to Ms. Spears which I understand is the subject to of this Motion) for 10 its eligible employees who elected to participate in the Plan (i.e.. Plan Participants),including Ms. 11 Spears and Mr. Arana. HNCA paid to HNI in its capacity as Plan sponsor and administrator the full 12 amount necessary to cover HNCA's employer contributions as by the Plan. HNCA's employer 13 contributions included both core and optional benefits, and the cash benefits described below and 14 at issue in this Motion, which were paid by HNI as the Plan sponsor and administrator to certain 15 eligible Plan Participants, including Mr. Arana and Ms. Spears." 16 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 17 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 18 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 19 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24, 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 20 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24 -144:19, 96:2-8, 137:10-16, 38:5-16, 72:3- 21 8, 156:5-21,42:22-43:19,46:14-47:2, 144:23-146:4, 129:9-131:25); lack of personal knowledge 22 (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 23 24 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 25 Overruled: 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 2 3 OBJECTION NUMBER 7 4 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 6 of the 5 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 6 "Pursuant to this funded arrangement with HNI, HNCA's employer contributions to the 7 Plan were deposited into an account maintained and controlled by HNI as the Plan's sponsor and 8 administrator. HNCA's contributions were irrevocable- once made to HNI, HNCA was unable to 9 recapture or divert the funds for HNCA's use or benefit. Instead, HNI as the Plan sponsor and 10 administrator, controlled those monies once these monies were deposited into that account. HNI then used these funds from this account to pay for benefits provided by the Plan, including the cash 12 benefits at issue in this Motion, which were paid by HNI as the Plan's sponsor and administrator to 13 those Plan Participants who elected to waive certain benefits offered by the Plan, which included 14 Ms. Spears." 15 16 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 17 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 18 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 19 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24, 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 20 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24 -144:19, 96:2-8, 137:10-16, 38:5-16, 72:3- 21 8, 156:5-21,42:22-43:19,46:14-47:2, 144:23-146:4, 129:9-131:25); lack of personal knowledge 22 (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 23 24 25 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 26 Overruled: 27 28 6. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 2 OBJECTION NUMBER 8 3 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 12 of the 4 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 5 "However, if a Plan Participant's Flex Dollars exceeded the cost of coverage or if 6 the Plan Participant waived medical and/or dental coverage, the Plan Participant 7 received a portion of the Flex Dollars as a cash benefit (which 1 understand is the 8 subject of this Motion). HNI, as the Plan sponsor and administrator, paid this cash 9 benefit to qualifying Plan Participants. HNI accomplished this functionally by 10 having the cash benefit paid to Plan Participants via their paychecks because in a separate role, HNI also processed the payroll for the companies who participated 12 in the Plan, including HNCA. While Flex Dollars, paid to Plan Participants were 13 coded as "MedFlxElct" and "DenFlxElct" and "MedFlxWave" and "DenFlxWave" 14 on the Plan Participants' pay checks, this does not change the nature of the cash 15 benefit provided by the Plan. This cash benefit was a Plan benefit. 16 17 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 18 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 19 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 56:12-21, 20:19- 20 23:1,34:5-12,84:18-85:6,48:15-24,34:5-12,84:18-85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24- 21 144:19, 96:2-8, 137:10-16, 42:22-43:19, 46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4, 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 22 129:9-131:25); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 23 24 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 25 Overruled: 26 27 28 1. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 2 3 OBJECTION NUMBER 9 4 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 14 of the 5 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 6 "The actual cost of benefits (referenced in Paragraphs 1 and 6 above) paid by HNCA to 7 HNI, included all Flex Dollars Plan Participants received as a benefit of the Plan, specifically 8 including all Flex Dollars Plan Participants received as a cash benefit of the Plan, the same cash 9 benefit at issue in this Motion. As noted above. Plan Participants could receive Flex Dollars as cash 10 benefit of the Plan if their Flex Dollars either exceeded the cost of their optional coverage or if they 11 waived medical and/or dental coverage." 12 13 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 14 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 15 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5, Colia Depo., 34:5-12, 84:18- 16 85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-144:19,96:2-8, 137:10-16, 129:9-131:25,38:5-16,72:3- 17 8, 156:5-21,42:22-43:19,46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 18 702(a)). 19 20 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 21 Overruled: 22 23 OBJECTION NUMBER 10 24 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 15 of the 25 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 26 "All Flex Dollar cash benefit amounts were paid to Plan Participants by HNI as the sponsor 27 and administrator of the Plan, were first contributed by HNCA to the Plan when HNCA irrevocably 28 paid the actual cost of benefits to HNI as the Plan sponsor and administrator. As the administrator 8^ PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORl OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 and sponsor of the Plan, HNI then used those contributions to pay for benefits provided by the 2 Plan, including Flex Dollars paid to Plan Participants, including cash benefits at issue in this 3 Motion, as well as amounts owed to providers of medical and/or dental services. 4 5 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 6 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 7 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 34:5-12, 84:18- 8 85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-144:19,96:2-8, 137:10-16, 129:9-131:25,38:5-16,72:3- 9 8, 156:5-21, 42:22-43:19, 46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4, 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24 10 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21 -35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21); lack of personal 11 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 12 13 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 14 Overruled: 15 16 OBJECTION NUMBER 11 17 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 16 of the 18 "Declaration of Debbie Colia," which reads as follows: 19 "It is incorrect to label cash benefits paid to Plan Participants as "cash in lieu of benefits," 20 Flex Dollars are a benefit offered and paid by the Plan to eligible Plan Participants, such as Ms. 21 Spears. That in most cases the total amount of Flex Dollars a Plan Participant received was used in 22 whole to pay for elected coverage on a pre-tax basis does not change the nature of the Flex Dollars 23 they received from HNI the Plan Sponsor and administrator pursuant to the terms of the Plan. 24 These Flex Dollars, including the cash benefits referred to herein, were Plan benefits. Similarly, 25 and as mentioned above, how these Plan benefits were coded on a Plan Participant's pay stub did 26 not change the nature of the benefits: they were all Plan benefits. This includes Plan benefits coded 27 as "MedFlxWave" and "DenFlxWave" on the pay stubs of HNCA employees who were Plan 28 Participants. Plan Participants who elected for optional coverage received this benefit when the 9. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS T O EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT I N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION actual cost of their elected coverage was less than the amount of Flex Dollars they were entitled to 2 receive under the Plan. " 3 4 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 5 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 6 803); contradicts Colia's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 5. Colia Depo., 34:5-12, 84:18- 7 85:6,66:24-67:14, 138:11-139:5, 143:24-144:19,96:2-8, 137:10-16, 129:9-131:25,38:5-16,72:3- 8 8, 156:5-21, 42:22-43:19, 46:14-47:2; 144:23-146:4, 20:19-23:1, 34:5-12, 84:18-85:6, 48:15-24 9 98:2-9, 97:13-24, 34:21-35:1, 35:2-15, 49:8-19; 38:5-16, 72:3-8, 156:5-21, 66:24-67:14, 56:12-21); 10 lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 12 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 13 Overruled: 14 15 16 DECLARATION OF DIANE C. RODES 17 OBJECTION NUMBER 12 18 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 3 of the 19 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows: 20 " I understand that Plaintiffs allege that HNCA failed to properly calculate the regular rate 21 for overtime purposes on the basis that HNCA allegedly failed to include non-discretionary 22 bonuses in the regular rate calculation. At HNCA, and frankly at every other place I have worked, 23 bonuses are non-regular payments paid to employees in recognition of services they have 24 performed during a given period. As reflected in the pay codes listed Paragraphs 5 and 7, Plaintiffs' 25 eamings as non-exempt employees at HNCA fit into the following categories: 26 27 28 10 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 2 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 3 803); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 4 5 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 6 Overruled: 7 8 OBJECTION NUMBER 13 9 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 5 of the 10 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows: "At no time during Ms. Spears's employment with HNCA did she receive any 12 form of additional compensation or remuneration that could be construed as a 13 bonus payment, as I have defined the term above. Her eamings were limited to 14 compensation she eamed through the hours she worked (both at the regular rate 15 and premium rates) and for certain periods of non-work time, and the Flex Dollars 16 she received pursuant to the Plan. The following lists all forms of eamings paid to 17 Ms. Spears during the relevant time period, as reflected in her payroll data 18 produced to Plaintiffs, none of which were considered a bonus by HNCA. 19 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 20 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 21 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7, Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21- 22 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal 23 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 24 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 25 Overruled: 26 27 28 IL PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 2 3 OBJECTION NUMBER 14 4 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 16 of the 5 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows: 6 "Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2016, eligible HNCA employees who elected 7 to participate ("Participants") in the Plan were provided "Flex Dollars" pursuant to the terms of the 8 Plan to help pay for the cost of medical and dental insurance coverage. Flex Dollars provided were 9 reflected in Participants' paychecks. 10 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 12 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 13 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7. Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21- 14 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal 15 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 16 17 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 18 Overruled: 19 20 OBJECTION NUMBER 15 21 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 17 of the 22 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes ," which reads as follows: 23 "The Flex Dollars provided to HNCA's employees, including the cash benefit paid by HNI 24 as the Plan sponsor and administrator to Ms. Spears, were a benefit HNCA employees were 25 provided pursuant to the Plan and were not a bonus.' 26 27 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 28 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 12^ PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7, Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21 2 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal 3 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 4 5 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 6 Overruled: 7 8 9 OBJECTION NUMBER 16 10 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 18 of the "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows: 12 "The amount of benefits HNCA employees received were not tied to hours worked or 13 performance, nor were they provided as any sort of bonus or incentive for them to work harder, 14 better or more efficiently. Rather, these benefits were provided to eligible employees pursuant to 15 the terms of the Plan as Plan Participants, regardless of hours worked or the quality of their work.. 16 17 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 18 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 19 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7, Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21 - 20 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal 21 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 22 23 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 24 Overruled: 25 26 27 28 13^ PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OBJECTION NUMBER 17 2 Plaintiff objects to and moves to strike the following portion of Paragraph 20 of the 3 "Declaration of Diane C. Rodes," which reads as follows: 4 "Ms. Spears waived medical coverage during her employment with HNCA. So, as reflected 5 in her July 2, 2015 wage statement, for example, HNI as the Plan sponsor and administrator paid 6 her a Flex Dollar benefit of $20.00 (the cash benefits at issue in this Motion) for her waiver of 7 medical coverage under the Plan. This Flex Dollar benefit was coded as "MedFlxWave" on her 8 wage statement and as "Medical Flex $ for Waive" in her payroll data. HNI paid her this cash 9 every pay period." 10 11 Grounds for Objection: Improper legal conclusion; lack of foundation (Evid. Code §§ 403, 405); 12 lack of factual or evidentiary support; vague and ambiguous; inadmissible opinion (Evid. Code § 13 803); contradicts Rodes's swom deposition testimony (Exhibit 7. Rodes Depo., 24:19-22, 25:21- 14 26:2, 29:14-21, 53:9-16, 59:13-60:25, 64:4-22, 72:5-73:7, 85:24-86:16); lack of personal 15 knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)). 16 17 Court's Ruling on Objection: Sustained: 18 Overruled: 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 DATED: January 18,2019 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG 21 BHOWMIK DE BLOUW L L P 22 23 By:. 24 Norman B. Blumenthal A.J. Bhowmik 25 Attomeys for Plaintiff 26 27 28 15^ PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3 I, AJ Bhowmik, am employed in the County of San Diego, State of Caiifomia. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2255 Calle Clara, La 4 Jolla, California 92037. 5 On January 18, 2019,1 served the document(s) described as: 6 1. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFENDANT IN 7 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 8 9 X (FEDERAL EXPRESS): I caused the above-described document to be delivered via ovemight delivery (Federal Express), by placing a copy in a separate FEDERAL EXPRESS 10 mailer and attaching a completed Federal Express air bill, with Standard Overnight delivery/Priority Delivery requested, and caused said mailer to deposited in the Federal Express collection box at San Diego, Caiifomia. Timothy J. Long SETAREH LAW GROUP , O R R I C K , HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Shaun Setareh 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 H. Scott Leviant Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 14 Telephone: (916) 447-9200 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Facsimile: (916) 329-4900 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 15 Email: tjlong@orrick.com Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 tf- Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com '" VIA EMAIL SERVICE ONLY 17 18 X (State): I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia that the 19 above is true and correct. 20 Executed on January 18, 2019, at La Jolla, Caiifomia 21 22 APARAJIT BHOWMIK 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Case No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS