Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) : ^ FILED
tilong(a),orrick.com EHOORSED
2 NICHOLAS J. HORTON (STATE BAR NO. 289417)
nhorton(%orrick.com Z0J04PR-3 PH 1:55
3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
4 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
5 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
6 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 28S379)
Stephanie.lee(a),orrick.com
7 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
9 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
10 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
15 situated. DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
16 Plaintiff MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
17 INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Date: April 16,2018
Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 inclusive, Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Kmeger
Dept.: 54
20 Defendants.
Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
21 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017
22
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself all
CO 23 others similarly situated. Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
<
24 Plaintiff,
z, 25
26
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
CALIFORNIA corporation; and DOES 1-50,
o 27
inclusive.
Defendant.
cc 28
D DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION 1
4 H. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2
5 A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Health Net 2
B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings 3
6
C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discovery Related To Class Certification 5
7
III. ARGUMENT 6
8 A. This Motion Is Unnecessary In Light Of Health Net's Pending Motion To
Sequence Discovery : ....7
9
B. Plaintiff Spears Speciously Asserts That Health Net's MSA Relies Upon
10 Information It Is Refusing To Produce '. 7
11 C. Classwide, Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based, Unduly Burdensome
And Premature (Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7 and 19) 8
12
C. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information 10
13 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture
(Interrogatory Nos. 11-12) 10
14
D. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague, Ambiguous And Overbroad 10
IS
E. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates
16 Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16 11
17 F. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And
Unduly Burdensome .....12
18 H. Plaintiff Spears' Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of
19 Monetary Sanctions 13
IV. CONCLUSION 14
20
21,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4
Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care,
5 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015). .9
6 City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court,
111 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2003) 10
7
Greyhound Corp., v. Superior Court,
8 56 Cal. 2d 355 (1961) .6
9
Leko V. Cornerstone Building Inspection Serv.,
10 86Cal. App. 4th 1109(2001) 13
11 Pettus V. Cole,
49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (1996) 10
12
Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp.,
13 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) 12
14 West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court,
56 Cal. 2d 407(1961) : 6
15
1g Williams v. Superior Court,
3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017) 6, 7, 11
17
Statutes
18
Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.020 7
19
Civ. Proc Code § 2023.010 13
20
Civ. Proc Code § 2030.300(d) 3
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 For a third time. Plaintiff Andrea Spears has filed two unnecessary discovery motions -
3 this motion and another based on her document requests (collectively, "Discovery Motions").
4 Again, she is attempting an end-around Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery, which is set
5 for hearing on April 9,2018, and addresses the issues Plaintiff Spears is raising in these Discovery
6 Motions. For this reason alone the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears'Spears' Discovery Motions.
7 Should the Court entertain Plaintiff Spears' Discovery Motions, however, there are three
8 basic reasons to deny them.
9 First, Health Net granted Plaintiff Spears an extension to file her Discovery Motions until
10 two weeks after this Court is expected torialeon the Motion to Sequence Discovery so that Plaintiff
11 Spears would not be prejudiced in the outside chance this Court did not address the issues
12 implicated by these Discovery Motions. In filing these Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Spears
13 disregarded Judge Cadei's admonition in his December 15, 2017, Order to "all counsel but
14 especially [Plaintiff Spears' counsel] that . . . there are simply not enough judicial resources
15 available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved
16 informally." There was no reason for Plaintiff Spears to file these Discovery Motions now.
17 Second, Plaintiff Spears' arguments are meritless. Health Net either properly objected to
18 the discovery in question or, and contrary to Plaintiff Spears' representations. Health Net has
19 already produced the information she is seeking.
20 Third, in this iteration of these Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Spears also adds a new
21 argument, without prior meet and confer, that Defendant relied upon the information that is the
22 subject of these motions in its pending Motion for Summary Adjudication ("MSA"). That
23 argument is specious, at best. The record is clear; Plaintiff Spears has not asked for (or about) the
24 undisputed evidence relied upon by Health Net in its MSA, nor has she served new discovery
25 requests seeking this information. The Court should decline Plaintiff s attempt to shoe-hom the
26 disputed merits based discovery into pre-certification discovery that Plaintiffhas never sought.
27 For all these reasons the Court should deny these Discovery Motions. The Court should
28 also do more. Health Net asked Plaintiff Spears' counsel to withdraw these needless motions,
• -1- , '
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 reminding counsel of the Court's prior admonition. Health Net also pointed out that i f Plaintiff
2 Spears refused to withdraw these Discovery Motions, Health Net would seek sanctions. Plaintiff
3 Spears' counsel refused to withdraw these Discovery Motions. As a result. Health Net requests that
4 the Court issue sanctions against Plaintiff Spears' counsel for having forced Health Net (and the
5 Court) to expend needless effort, and incur substantial costs for having to oppose these needless
6 Discovery Motions in the amount of $6,292.
7 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
8• A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Health Net
9 Plaintiff Spears is a former non-exempt customer service representative who worked for
10 Health Net for approximately two years at a call center located in Rancho Cordova. On April 5,
11 2017, she filed a putative wage-and-hour class action against Health Net, purporting to represent
12 all current and former non-exempt Health Net employees in Califomia from April 5, 2013 to the
13 present. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a first amended complaint adding PAGA
14 allegations. Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee ("Lee Dec"), Tl 2.
15 Plaintiff tomas Arana currently works for Health Net and has held various non-exempt and
16 exempt positions at the same Rancho Cordova call center at which Plaintiff Spears worked.
17 Plaintiff Arana filed his putative wage-and-hour class complaint against Health Net on August 1,
18 2017, purporting to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Health Net, among
19 others, and a subclass of exempt employees. Id. at Tl 3.
20 Upon stipulation of the parties, the Court consolidated the two cases on October 11, 2017.
21 Id.ai^A. On December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint alleging: (a) failure
22 to provide rneal periods, (b) failure to provide rest periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime
23 wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based oh Health Net's alleged failure to properly
24 calculate the regular rate, (e) unlawful rounding practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage
25 statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages, (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA
26 claims. Id. at Tl 4. Plaintiffs attempt to certify four classes, including a non-exempt class, an exerript
27 class, a rounding class, and a UCL class, as well as eight subclasses that, in total, would sweep in
28 nearly 5,000 current and former Health Net employees. Id. at Tl 4 and Tl 32, Exh. Q, (hereinafter,
-_2^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 "Rodes Dec"), TI 2. Health Net filed its Answer to the Consolidated Complaint on January 22,
2 2018, and filed a dispositive motion as to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims on Febmary
3 5,2018 Lee Dec, TIS. That motion is set for hearing on April 26, 2018. Id.
4 B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings
5 Prior to consolidation, both Plaintiffs propounded extensive written discovery on Health
6 Net. Plaintiff Spears served her first sets of document requests, special interrogatories, employment
7 law form interrogatories, and admission requests on July 25, 2017. Id.a\.^6. And, Plaintiff Arana
8 served his first and second sets of special interrogatories and first sets of document requests,
9 employment law form interrogatories, and admission requests on September 19, 2017. Id. at TI 7.
10 Health Net served responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery on September 12,'2017 and
11 produced additional responsive documents two days later. Id. at TI 8. After the Court's consolidation
12 of the two cases, counsel for Health Net initiated meet-and-confer discussions with both Plaintiffs'
13 counsel to discuss written discovery and a Belaire-West notice. Id. at Tl 9. During their October
14 24-25, 2017 meet and confer over the telephone and e-mail, all parties' counsel agreed to raise the
15 issue of phasing discovery at the December 8, 2017 initial CMC, and Health Net agreed that it
16 would provide class certification-related discovery in the interim. Id. The parties did not discuss
17 the specifics of any particular discovery request, and Health Net granted Plaintiff Spears an
18 extension to file any motion to compel until after the CMC so that Plaintiff Spears would not be
19 prejudiced. Id.
20 On November 24, 2017, counsel for Health Net e-mailed a stipulation and proposed
21 protective order to Plaintiffs' counsel in anticipation that it would govem the parties' exchange of
22 confidential documents and information. Id. at Til2, Exh. D. Instead of signing or providing
23 suggested revisions to the draft protective order, on December 1, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a
24 motion to compel further production of documents and on December 6, filed a motion to compel
25 further interrogatory responses regarding her first set of special interrogatories. M at Til 3.
26 As it had committed, on December 6 and 7, 2017, Health Net served its supplemental
27 documents and discovery responses, including supplemental responses to special interrogatories,
28 and agreed to produce additional documents once an appropriate protective order was in place. Id.
-3-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 at Tl 14, Exh. E. With respect to putative class members' contact information. Health Net agreed
2 that it would provide such information with an appropriate Belaire-West notice procedure to govem
3 the exchange. And although Health Net had previously provided Plaintiff Spears with its suggested
4 revisions to her draft Belaire-West notice. Plaintiff Spears outright rejected them and instead filed
5 her Motion for Opt-Out Privacy Notice to Be Sent to Putative Class Members ("BW Motion")
6 prematurely before engaging with Health Net on the language. Id. at TITI 10-11, Exhs. B, C.
7 At the December 8,2017 CMC, Judge Perkins set Febmary 15, 2018 as the hearing date for
8 Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at Tl 15, Exh. F. That aftemoon, Health Net's
9 counsel reached out to Plaintiffs' counsel and requested that Plaintiff Spears continue the hearing
10 dates on her then pending motions to compel until after Judge Perkins mled on the Motion to
11 Sequence. Health Net did so because many of the issues raised by those motions overlapped with
12 Health Net's forthcoming Motion to Sequence. Id. at TI 16, Exh. G. Plaintiff Spears' counsel did
13 not respond to Health Net's counsel's request. Id.
14 On December 15,2017, Plaintiffs finally provided their signatures on Health Net's proposed
15 protective order. Id. at Tl 17, Exh. H. Within two business days. Health Net served its supplemental
16 document production. /J. at Til 8.
17 The Court mled on Plaintiff Spears' BW Motion on December 15, 2017, continuing the
18 hearing to January 4, 2018, ordering the parties to further meet and confer and "remind[ing] all
19 counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears'] that given the number of motions such as this which must
20 be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve
21 each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally." Id.
22 at TI 19, Exh. I. After the Court's admonitions. Plaintiff Spears withdrew her discovery motions at
23 counsel for Health Net's request because the issues raised significantiy overlapped with Health
24 Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at TI 20, Exhs. J, K. Further, Health Net continued both
25 Plaintiffs' respective deadlines to bring motions to compel further responses to their written
26 discovery until March 1, 2018 - two weeks after Health Net anticipates receiving a mling on its
27 Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. On January 23, 2018, Health Net filed its Motion to Sequence
28 Discovery. M atTI21.
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Despite the Motion to Sequence and Health Net's extending her deadline to file motions to
2 compel. Plaintiff Spears filed these motions for a second time on January 18, 2018, setting them
3 for hearing prior to Defendant' Motion to Sequence. Id. at Tl 22.
4 After Plaintiff Spears' filing. Health Net requested that she withdraw her motions, and
5 likewise informed her that if she did not do so. Health Net would have no choice but to seek
6 sanctions. Id. at Tl 23, Ex. L. Plaintiff Spears initially refused Health Net's request, but then
7 withdrew these motions on the day Health Net's Oppositions were due (but did not notify Health
8 Net's counsel until after business hours - after it had already filed its Oppositions). Id.
9 Judge Perkins issued his mling on Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery on March 8, 2018,
10 determining that the issues presented are "rnuch better addressed and analyzed in detailed discovery
11 motioris" without addressing the merits of Health Net's motion. Id. at Tl 24, Exh. M. The Court
12 ultimately denied Health Net's motion "without prejudice to seek similar specific relief by the
13 appropriate discovery motion directed to the law and motion department." Id. Taking Judge
14 Perkins's order to heart. Health Net revised its motion to include a separate statement regarding the
15 specific requests at issue and filed the renewed Motion to Sequence Discovery the following day
16 in the law and motion department. Id. at TITI 25-26. That motion is set for hearing on April 9, 2018.
\1 Id
18 Despite Health Net's pending Motion to Sequence Discovery, and despite Health Net
19 having extended the deadline for Plaintiff Spears to file this motion in the outside chance the Court
20 does not resolve the issues raised by this motion when it mles on the pending Motion to Sequence
21 Discovery, Plaintiff Spears filed this motion for a third time. Lee Dec. TITI 27-30.
22 C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discoyery Related To Class Certification.
23 As detailed above, both Plaintiffs have propounded extensive written discovery on Health
24 Net. In response. Health Net provided detailed, expansive responses and documents, including:
25 • Plaintiffs' personnel files;
26 • Plaintiffs' payroll data;
27 • Plaintiffs'timesheetdata;
28 • Plaintiffs' wage statements;
-5-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS •
1 • ' Meal period policies for all putative class members;
2 • Employee policies, manuals and guides for all putative class members;
3 • Hourly compensation policies for all putative class members;
4 • Bonus compensation policies for all putative class members;
5 • Policies relating to health and welfare benefits for all putative class members;
6 • Meal premium policies for all putative class members; and
7 • Overtime compensation policies for all putative class members.
8 In total, Health Net has produced more than 2,600 pages of discovery and 21,880 lines of
9 data in Microsoft Excel sheets related to Plaintiffs' personal claims, class certification and the
10 merits of Plaintiffs'regular rate and rounding claims. Id. atT133.
11 However, as described in Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery, not all of the
12 discovery Plaintiffs seek is relevEuit and proper at this juncture. For example. Plaintiff Spears seeks
13 discovery for claims she does not personally have, like claims based on improper commission pay.
14 In addition, much of the discovery Plaintiff Spears seeks goes to the merits of her claims, is unduly
15 burdensome, and infringes on privacy rights of non-party employees. For this reason. Health Net
16 objected to providing certain information and documents, amd filed its pending Motion to Sequence.
17 The sequencing Health Net proposes avoids costly and unnecessary discovery, appropriately defers
18 difficult discovery issues, and does not unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs.
19 III. ARGUMENT
20 While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. See Williams v. Superior
21 Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017). As Williams acknowledges, trial courts may limit discovery
22 where it is unduly burdensome and the expense outweighs the utility of the information sought.
.23 Id.; Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.020(A); see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d
24 407, 417 (1961) (trial court may sustain objections to interrogatories due to undue burden). The
25 trial court has broad discretion to manage, stmcture, and limit discovery. Greyhound Corp., v.
26 Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 382 (1961).
21 III
28 III
-_6^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
• INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 A. This Motion Is Unnecessary In Light Of Health Net's Pending Motion To
Sequence Discovery.
2
3 Health Net's Motion to Sequence is based on the Court's authority to "establish the
4 sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests
5 of justice" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020(b). See Williams, 3 Cal. Sth at
6 551 (trial court may sequence discovery upon motion under section 2019.020(b)). Health Net asks
7 the Court to sequence discovery on seven categories of claims asserted by Plaintiffs: (1) meal and
8 rest break, (2) off-the-clock and (3) misclassification claims, and derivative (4) wage statement, (5)
9 waiting time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims. Good cause exists for the Court to
10 exercise its statutory and inherent power to sequence discovery so that the parties first address
11 whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs have standing to represent other allegedly
12 aggrieved employees. Structuring discovery in this manner promotes judicial economy, the
13 convenience of the parties and the interests of justice contemplated in Code of Civil Procedure
14 section 2019.020.
15 B. Plaintiff Spears Speciously Asserts That Health Net's MSA Relies Upon
Information It Is Refusing To Produce.
16
17 Plaintiff Spears argues that the information sought is relevant to class certification, in part,
18 because Defendaht relied upon such information in its pending MSA. But that argument is a non-
19 sequitur. Not only has Health Net produced all requested information that is relevant to proper pre-
20 certification discovery in this case, but Plaintiff has never sought, in any form of discovery, the
21 undisputed evidence Health Net relies upon in its MSA.
22 Plaintiff Spears disingenuously contends, without any supporting evidence, that Health Net
23 "unilaterally gathered and used [classwide payroll data] for Defendant's own benefit in filing the
24 MSA." Motion at 2. But Plaintiff Spears' quotation from Health Net's MSA reveals that Health
25 Net did not rely on "classwide payroll data." See Motion at 5 (quoting Health Net's MSA's
26 statement that "the total cash benefits provided to Participants who waived dental and/or medical
27 coverage represented a very small percentage of HNCA's contributions provided under the Plan
28 for the elected dental and/or medical coverage: 1.4% in 2013, 1.3% in 2014; 0.9% in 2015; and
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 0.9% in 2016."). Far from being individual "classwide payroll data," this evidence is simply a
2 comparison of money that Health Net of Califomia paid out in total for medical coverage versus
3 money it paid out in total for cash benefits related to waived medical coverage. See Lee Dec. TI 33,
4 Ex. S, Declaration of Kelly Sarabia ISO D e f s MSA. It is not a pay period by pay period analysis
5 of data for every potential putative class member as Plaintiff Spears suggests and as her discovery
6 requests require.
7 In any event. Plaintiff has never propounded any discovery conceming the undisputed
8 evidence Health Net relies upon in its MSA. And such evidence in no way proves that the
9 information actually requested by Plaintiff Spears is somehow relevant or easy to produce; it is
10 neither—as proven by the uncontroverted declarations in support of Health Net's Motion to
11 Sequence Discovery and in opposition to these Discovery Motions.
12 C. Classwide, Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based. Undiily Burdensome
And Premature (Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7 and 19).
14 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, the
15 pay periods when they were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
16 same period (No. 6), the number of putative class members who were paid overtime and cash
17 payments in lieu of health benefits during the same period (No. 7) and the total number of meal
18 premiums paid to putative class members (No. 19), irrespective of the burden on Health Net and
19 the fact that she has not certified a class.' She is mistaken.
20 The Interrogatories seek detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, TI 2.
21 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. These merits-based, classwide
22 interrogatories not only require compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, they
23 require detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Lee Dec, TI 31,
24 Exh. Q, (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), TITI 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and
25 timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health Net, and archived
26 •
27 ' Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears because she is an actual plaintiff in
this matter, not a speculative putative plaintiff for an alleged class that may not, and likely will not,
28 ever be certified.
-8-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 information from that database is not readily accessible. Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll
2 and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than
3 the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application
4 to gather the information necessary to respond to these Interrogatories from the archive, so
5 collecting the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data.
6 Id. at TITI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would not fit into Microsoft Excel
7 spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or database to host it. Id. at f 7.
8 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no
9 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at TI 8. In sum, this process would take
10 an enormous amount of time £md would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in
11 addition to their regular duties. Id. at TITI 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information
12 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the
13 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the
14 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands, /c/. at TI 24.
15 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health
16 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and
17 health and welfare benefits.. Providing detailed, individualized meal premium information and
18 listing pay periods in which putative class members' received both overtime and "cash payments
19 in lieu of health benefits" makes little sense considering the information will be irrelevant if she
20 never certifies this case as a class action.^ Such discovery should be deferred until and unless
21 Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against
22 the significant resources, time, and expense necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for
23 thousands of Health Net's current and former employees over several years, the Court is well within
24 its discretion to deny this merits-based discovery at this early juncture.
25
25 ^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos.
6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No. 19 is not
27 relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral
Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively
28 modifiedtimerecords to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here.
^9^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears' Motion as to these Interrogatories.
2 G. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information.
3 Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive certain health
4 benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy rights.
5 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contact information after they
6 are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve additional privacy
7 protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is personal. Ask any
8 ordinary reasonable person ifhe or she would want their payroll information routinely disclosed to
9 parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v.
10 Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is entitled to even more
11 stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996) (medical privacy is a
12 quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class member privacy rights
13 before Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action.
14 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture
(Interrogatory Nos. 11-12).
.15 •
16 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitied to, for each and every putative class member,
17 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for
18 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to
19 class certification.^ All ofthe information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be irrelevant if she never
20 certifies this case as a class action.
21 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories.
22 D. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague. Ambiguous And Overbroad.
23 Interrogatory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were
24 "eligible to receive[]." Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), TI 3, Exh. 1.
25 Health Net objected to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health
26 Net does not know what "forms of compensation" means. "Forms of compensation" might include
27
28 3 Heaitij produced this information for Plaintiff Spears.
- 10-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 hourly and overtime wages. It might require a breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime
2 versus commission versus bonuses. It might entail the value of health benefits, paid time off
3 holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave, disability policies, etc. It might include payouts for
4 benefits or unused paid time off It might include a plethora of things which comprise an
5 employee's total compensation package and perks. Health Net does not know because the
6 Interrogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plaintiff Spears for clarification, she has provided none.
7 Lee Dec, Tl 34."* Health Net should not be left to guess at what it is being asked to answer.
8 Furthermore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information regarding "forms of
9 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Spears did not receive, it is overbroad
10 and seeks irrelevant information. There is nothing in Plaintiff Spears' complaint or moving papers
11 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation
12 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitied to information that did not apply to her
13 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring.
14 E. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates
Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16.
16 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive
17 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates
18 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918,
19 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Rivapalacio Dec, TI 7, Ex. 7. Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as
20 she attached correspondence identifying these documents to her Motion. Id. And Plaintiffs
21 evidence belies her argument that Health Net refused a specific request as to these interrogatories
22 because the evidence demonstrates that these two interrogatories were not addressed during the
23 meet and confer process after Health Net's December 19, 2017, correspondence that identified the
24 bates numbers. Id., Tl 8, Ex. 8 (December 21, 2017 email from Spears' counsel confirming meet
25 and confer continued as to "RFP Nos. 8, 11, and 20-22 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 14, 18
26 ,
Plaintiff Spears' counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she
27 actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description
of such pay codes (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special
28 Interrogatory, she should have stated as such.
-11 -
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
. INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 and 19). Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion on this issue. In any
2 event, her motion should be denied.
3 F. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And
^ Unduly Burdensome.
5 Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks performed by the non-exempt putative
6 class members. This Interrogatory seeks job tities and duties for thousands of current and former
7 employees. Rodes Dec. TI 6. Responding to this Interrogatory would involve far more than flipping
8 a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions. Id. This Interrogatory seeks information
9 from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull through many electronic and hard
10 copy files to locate information responsive to this Interrogatory. Id. The job would be more
11 challenging because many of the documents that contain this information have been archived and
12 area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be burdensome for Health Net to respond
13 to this Interrogatory. Id.
14 The information sought is also irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
15 discovery of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class
16 members are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears' allegations. The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are
17 not necessary to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non-
18 exempt putative class member was misclassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into
19 question any of the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no
20 justification for burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the information sought is
21 irrelevant.
22 Plaintiff Spears' reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still
23 subject to valid objections, including that it is irrelevant and burdensome.
24 Health Net produced Plaintiff Spears' job description, which included her job duties. That
25 is this all that is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce
26 ,
5 Forexample, in Tierno v. Rite AidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016),
27 the court ordered the defendant to provide job duties of putative class members because the plaintiff
in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misclassified. Id. at *2. Plaintiff
28 Spears does not assert a misclassification claim.
- 12-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
• INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempt putative class members when they
2 are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears' claims.
^ H. Plaintiff Spears' Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of
^ Monetary Sanctions.
^ Under section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must impose monetary
^ sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. "Failing
^ to confer . . . with an opposing party or attomey in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve
8 informally any dispute conceming discovery" qualifies as a misuse of the discovery process that
^ warrants the imposition of sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010; see also Leko v. Cornerstone
I^ Building Inspection Serv., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1122-24 (2001) (affirming the award of sanctions
II against the moving party's attomey for failing to meet and confer in good faith). Moreover, the
12 Court must impose a monetary sanction against whichever party loses the motion to compel -
1-^ including the party who brought the motion, unless that party did so with substantial justification.
14 Civ. Proc Code § 2030.300(d).
1^ Plaintiff Spears' counsel cannot be said to have engaged in any meaningful, good faith
1^ meet-and-confer before she filed these Discovery Motions. Had counsel done so and taken to heart
1^ this Court's prior admonition "that... there are simply not enough judicial resources available to
18 resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved
1^ informally," she never would have filed these Discovery Motions. There was no reason to file these
2^ Discovery Motions now. Health Net asked counsel for Plaintiff Spears to withdraw these
21 Discovery Motions, but she still persisted. There was no legitimate justification for doing so.
22 The Discovery Motions similarly lack substantial justification. Health Net has already
23 produced much of the information/data Plaintiff Spears is seeking, including contact information
24 for thefie/a/re-ffe^radministrator. As for the remaining discovery in dispute, Health Net asserted
25 legitimate objections, all of which are part of the reasons why Health Net is seeking to have this
26 Court sequence discovery.
27 Ill • •
28
- 13 -
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Health Net's counsel spent in excess of ten (10) hours preparing its Opposition and
2 supporting papers. Declaration of Timothy J. Long, TI 3. Health Net's counsel's hourly rate is$572.
3 Id. Health Net's counsel expects to spend an additional one (1) hour preparing for and appearing
4 in Court for the hearing on this Motion. Id.
5 Therefore, sanctions in the amount of $6,292 are reasonable and just.
6 IV. CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears' Motion and impose
8 sanctions against Plaintiff Spears in the amount of $6,292.
9
10 Dated: April 3,2018 ORRICK,\HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
11
12
NICHOLAS J. HORTON
13 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) : ^ FILED tilong(a),orrick.com EHOORSED 2 NICHOLAS J. HORTON (STATE BAR NO. 289417) nhorton(%orrick.com Z0J04PR-3 PH 1:55 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 4 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 5 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 6 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 28S379) Stephanie.lee(a),orrick.com 7 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 9 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 10 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS 15 situated. DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 16 Plaintiff MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 17 INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Date: April 16,2018 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 inclusive, Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Kmeger Dept.: 54 20 Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 21 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself all CO 23 others similarly situated. Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 < 24 Plaintiff, z, 25 26 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CALIFORNIA corporation; and DOES 1-50, o 27 inclusive. Defendant. cc 28 D DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1 4 H. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 5 A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Health Net 2 B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings 3 6 C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discovery Related To Class Certification 5 7 III. ARGUMENT 6 8 A. This Motion Is Unnecessary In Light Of Health Net's Pending Motion To Sequence Discovery : ....7 9 B. Plaintiff Spears Speciously Asserts That Health Net's MSA Relies Upon 10 Information It Is Refusing To Produce '. 7 11 C. Classwide, Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based, Unduly Burdensome And Premature (Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7 and 19) 8 12 C. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information 10 13 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12) 10 14 D. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague, Ambiguous And Overbroad 10 IS E. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates 16 Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16 11 17 F. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And Unduly Burdensome .....12 18 H. Plaintiff Spears' Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of 19 Monetary Sanctions 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 20 21, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 5 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015). .9 6 City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2003) 10 7 Greyhound Corp., v. Superior Court, 8 56 Cal. 2d 355 (1961) .6 9 Leko V. Cornerstone Building Inspection Serv., 10 86Cal. App. 4th 1109(2001) 13 11 Pettus V. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (1996) 10 12 Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 13 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) 12 14 West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407(1961) : 6 15 1g Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017) 6, 7, 11 17 Statutes 18 Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.020 7 19 Civ. Proc Code § 2023.010 13 20 Civ. Proc Code § 2030.300(d) 3 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 For a third time. Plaintiff Andrea Spears has filed two unnecessary discovery motions - 3 this motion and another based on her document requests (collectively, "Discovery Motions"). 4 Again, she is attempting an end-around Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery, which is set 5 for hearing on April 9,2018, and addresses the issues Plaintiff Spears is raising in these Discovery 6 Motions. For this reason alone the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears'Spears' Discovery Motions. 7 Should the Court entertain Plaintiff Spears' Discovery Motions, however, there are three 8 basic reasons to deny them. 9 First, Health Net granted Plaintiff Spears an extension to file her Discovery Motions until 10 two weeks after this Court is expected torialeon the Motion to Sequence Discovery so that Plaintiff 11 Spears would not be prejudiced in the outside chance this Court did not address the issues 12 implicated by these Discovery Motions. In filing these Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Spears 13 disregarded Judge Cadei's admonition in his December 15, 2017, Order to "all counsel but 14 especially [Plaintiff Spears' counsel] that . . . there are simply not enough judicial resources 15 available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved 16 informally." There was no reason for Plaintiff Spears to file these Discovery Motions now. 17 Second, Plaintiff Spears' arguments are meritless. Health Net either properly objected to 18 the discovery in question or, and contrary to Plaintiff Spears' representations. Health Net has 19 already produced the information she is seeking. 20 Third, in this iteration of these Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Spears also adds a new 21 argument, without prior meet and confer, that Defendant relied upon the information that is the 22 subject of these motions in its pending Motion for Summary Adjudication ("MSA"). That 23 argument is specious, at best. The record is clear; Plaintiff Spears has not asked for (or about) the 24 undisputed evidence relied upon by Health Net in its MSA, nor has she served new discovery 25 requests seeking this information. The Court should decline Plaintiff s attempt to shoe-hom the 26 disputed merits based discovery into pre-certification discovery that Plaintiffhas never sought. 27 For all these reasons the Court should deny these Discovery Motions. The Court should 28 also do more. Health Net asked Plaintiff Spears' counsel to withdraw these needless motions, • -1- , ' DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 reminding counsel of the Court's prior admonition. Health Net also pointed out that i f Plaintiff 2 Spears refused to withdraw these Discovery Motions, Health Net would seek sanctions. Plaintiff 3 Spears' counsel refused to withdraw these Discovery Motions. As a result. Health Net requests that 4 the Court issue sanctions against Plaintiff Spears' counsel for having forced Health Net (and the 5 Court) to expend needless effort, and incur substantial costs for having to oppose these needless 6 Discovery Motions in the amount of $6,292. 7 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 8• A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Health Net 9 Plaintiff Spears is a former non-exempt customer service representative who worked for 10 Health Net for approximately two years at a call center located in Rancho Cordova. On April 5, 11 2017, she filed a putative wage-and-hour class action against Health Net, purporting to represent 12 all current and former non-exempt Health Net employees in Califomia from April 5, 2013 to the 13 present. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a first amended complaint adding PAGA 14 allegations. Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee ("Lee Dec"), Tl 2. 15 Plaintiff tomas Arana currently works for Health Net and has held various non-exempt and 16 exempt positions at the same Rancho Cordova call center at which Plaintiff Spears worked. 17 Plaintiff Arana filed his putative wage-and-hour class complaint against Health Net on August 1, 18 2017, purporting to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Health Net, among 19 others, and a subclass of exempt employees. Id. at Tl 3. 20 Upon stipulation of the parties, the Court consolidated the two cases on October 11, 2017. 21 Id.ai^A. On December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint alleging: (a) failure 22 to provide rneal periods, (b) failure to provide rest periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime 23 wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based oh Health Net's alleged failure to properly 24 calculate the regular rate, (e) unlawful rounding practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage 25 statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages, (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA 26 claims. Id. at Tl 4. Plaintiffs attempt to certify four classes, including a non-exempt class, an exerript 27 class, a rounding class, and a UCL class, as well as eight subclasses that, in total, would sweep in 28 nearly 5,000 current and former Health Net employees. Id. at Tl 4 and Tl 32, Exh. Q, (hereinafter, -_2^ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 "Rodes Dec"), TI 2. Health Net filed its Answer to the Consolidated Complaint on January 22, 2 2018, and filed a dispositive motion as to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims on Febmary 3 5,2018 Lee Dec, TIS. That motion is set for hearing on April 26, 2018. Id. 4 B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings 5 Prior to consolidation, both Plaintiffs propounded extensive written discovery on Health 6 Net. Plaintiff Spears served her first sets of document requests, special interrogatories, employment 7 law form interrogatories, and admission requests on July 25, 2017. Id.a\.^6. And, Plaintiff Arana 8 served his first and second sets of special interrogatories and first sets of document requests, 9 employment law form interrogatories, and admission requests on September 19, 2017. Id. at TI 7. 10 Health Net served responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery on September 12,'2017 and 11 produced additional responsive documents two days later. Id. at TI 8. After the Court's consolidation 12 of the two cases, counsel for Health Net initiated meet-and-confer discussions with both Plaintiffs' 13 counsel to discuss written discovery and a Belaire-West notice. Id. at Tl 9. During their October 14 24-25, 2017 meet and confer over the telephone and e-mail, all parties' counsel agreed to raise the 15 issue of phasing discovery at the December 8, 2017 initial CMC, and Health Net agreed that it 16 would provide class certification-related discovery in the interim. Id. The parties did not discuss 17 the specifics of any particular discovery request, and Health Net granted Plaintiff Spears an 18 extension to file any motion to compel until after the CMC so that Plaintiff Spears would not be 19 prejudiced. Id. 20 On November 24, 2017, counsel for Health Net e-mailed a stipulation and proposed 21 protective order to Plaintiffs' counsel in anticipation that it would govem the parties' exchange of 22 confidential documents and information. Id. at Til2, Exh. D. Instead of signing or providing 23 suggested revisions to the draft protective order, on December 1, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a 24 motion to compel further production of documents and on December 6, filed a motion to compel 25 further interrogatory responses regarding her first set of special interrogatories. M at Til 3. 26 As it had committed, on December 6 and 7, 2017, Health Net served its supplemental 27 documents and discovery responses, including supplemental responses to special interrogatories, 28 and agreed to produce additional documents once an appropriate protective order was in place. Id. -3- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 at Tl 14, Exh. E. With respect to putative class members' contact information. Health Net agreed 2 that it would provide such information with an appropriate Belaire-West notice procedure to govem 3 the exchange. And although Health Net had previously provided Plaintiff Spears with its suggested 4 revisions to her draft Belaire-West notice. Plaintiff Spears outright rejected them and instead filed 5 her Motion for Opt-Out Privacy Notice to Be Sent to Putative Class Members ("BW Motion") 6 prematurely before engaging with Health Net on the language. Id. at TITI 10-11, Exhs. B, C. 7 At the December 8,2017 CMC, Judge Perkins set Febmary 15, 2018 as the hearing date for 8 Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at Tl 15, Exh. F. That aftemoon, Health Net's 9 counsel reached out to Plaintiffs' counsel and requested that Plaintiff Spears continue the hearing 10 dates on her then pending motions to compel until after Judge Perkins mled on the Motion to 11 Sequence. Health Net did so because many of the issues raised by those motions overlapped with 12 Health Net's forthcoming Motion to Sequence. Id. at TI 16, Exh. G. Plaintiff Spears' counsel did 13 not respond to Health Net's counsel's request. Id. 14 On December 15,2017, Plaintiffs finally provided their signatures on Health Net's proposed 15 protective order. Id. at Tl 17, Exh. H. Within two business days. Health Net served its supplemental 16 document production. /J. at Til 8. 17 The Court mled on Plaintiff Spears' BW Motion on December 15, 2017, continuing the 18 hearing to January 4, 2018, ordering the parties to further meet and confer and "remind[ing] all 19 counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears'] that given the number of motions such as this which must 20 be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve 21 each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally." Id. 22 at TI 19, Exh. I. After the Court's admonitions. Plaintiff Spears withdrew her discovery motions at 23 counsel for Health Net's request because the issues raised significantiy overlapped with Health 24 Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at TI 20, Exhs. J, K. Further, Health Net continued both 25 Plaintiffs' respective deadlines to bring motions to compel further responses to their written 26 discovery until March 1, 2018 - two weeks after Health Net anticipates receiving a mling on its 27 Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. On January 23, 2018, Health Net filed its Motion to Sequence 28 Discovery. M atTI21. DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Despite the Motion to Sequence and Health Net's extending her deadline to file motions to 2 compel. Plaintiff Spears filed these motions for a second time on January 18, 2018, setting them 3 for hearing prior to Defendant' Motion to Sequence. Id. at Tl 22. 4 After Plaintiff Spears' filing. Health Net requested that she withdraw her motions, and 5 likewise informed her that if she did not do so. Health Net would have no choice but to seek 6 sanctions. Id. at Tl 23, Ex. L. Plaintiff Spears initially refused Health Net's request, but then 7 withdrew these motions on the day Health Net's Oppositions were due (but did not notify Health 8 Net's counsel until after business hours - after it had already filed its Oppositions). Id. 9 Judge Perkins issued his mling on Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery on March 8, 2018, 10 determining that the issues presented are "rnuch better addressed and analyzed in detailed discovery 11 motioris" without addressing the merits of Health Net's motion. Id. at Tl 24, Exh. M. The Court 12 ultimately denied Health Net's motion "without prejudice to seek similar specific relief by the 13 appropriate discovery motion directed to the law and motion department." Id. Taking Judge 14 Perkins's order to heart. Health Net revised its motion to include a separate statement regarding the 15 specific requests at issue and filed the renewed Motion to Sequence Discovery the following day 16 in the law and motion department. Id. at TITI 25-26. That motion is set for hearing on April 9, 2018. \1 Id 18 Despite Health Net's pending Motion to Sequence Discovery, and despite Health Net 19 having extended the deadline for Plaintiff Spears to file this motion in the outside chance the Court 20 does not resolve the issues raised by this motion when it mles on the pending Motion to Sequence 21 Discovery, Plaintiff Spears filed this motion for a third time. Lee Dec. TITI 27-30. 22 C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discoyery Related To Class Certification. 23 As detailed above, both Plaintiffs have propounded extensive written discovery on Health 24 Net. In response. Health Net provided detailed, expansive responses and documents, including: 25 • Plaintiffs' personnel files; 26 • Plaintiffs' payroll data; 27 • Plaintiffs'timesheetdata; 28 • Plaintiffs' wage statements; -5- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS • 1 • ' Meal period policies for all putative class members; 2 • Employee policies, manuals and guides for all putative class members; 3 • Hourly compensation policies for all putative class members; 4 • Bonus compensation policies for all putative class members; 5 • Policies relating to health and welfare benefits for all putative class members; 6 • Meal premium policies for all putative class members; and 7 • Overtime compensation policies for all putative class members. 8 In total, Health Net has produced more than 2,600 pages of discovery and 21,880 lines of 9 data in Microsoft Excel sheets related to Plaintiffs' personal claims, class certification and the 10 merits of Plaintiffs'regular rate and rounding claims. Id. atT133. 11 However, as described in Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery, not all of the 12 discovery Plaintiffs seek is relevEuit and proper at this juncture. For example. Plaintiff Spears seeks 13 discovery for claims she does not personally have, like claims based on improper commission pay. 14 In addition, much of the discovery Plaintiff Spears seeks goes to the merits of her claims, is unduly 15 burdensome, and infringes on privacy rights of non-party employees. For this reason. Health Net 16 objected to providing certain information and documents, amd filed its pending Motion to Sequence. 17 The sequencing Health Net proposes avoids costly and unnecessary discovery, appropriately defers 18 difficult discovery issues, and does not unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs. 19 III. ARGUMENT 20 While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. See Williams v. Superior 21 Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017). As Williams acknowledges, trial courts may limit discovery 22 where it is unduly burdensome and the expense outweighs the utility of the information sought. .23 Id.; Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.020(A); see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 24 407, 417 (1961) (trial court may sustain objections to interrogatories due to undue burden). The 25 trial court has broad discretion to manage, stmcture, and limit discovery. Greyhound Corp., v. 26 Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 382 (1961). 21 III 28 III -_6^ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL • INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 A. This Motion Is Unnecessary In Light Of Health Net's Pending Motion To Sequence Discovery. 2 3 Health Net's Motion to Sequence is based on the Court's authority to "establish the 4 sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests 5 of justice" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020(b). See Williams, 3 Cal. Sth at 6 551 (trial court may sequence discovery upon motion under section 2019.020(b)). Health Net asks 7 the Court to sequence discovery on seven categories of claims asserted by Plaintiffs: (1) meal and 8 rest break, (2) off-the-clock and (3) misclassification claims, and derivative (4) wage statement, (5) 9 waiting time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims. Good cause exists for the Court to 10 exercise its statutory and inherent power to sequence discovery so that the parties first address 11 whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs have standing to represent other allegedly 12 aggrieved employees. Structuring discovery in this manner promotes judicial economy, the 13 convenience of the parties and the interests of justice contemplated in Code of Civil Procedure 14 section 2019.020. 15 B. Plaintiff Spears Speciously Asserts That Health Net's MSA Relies Upon Information It Is Refusing To Produce. 16 17 Plaintiff Spears argues that the information sought is relevant to class certification, in part, 18 because Defendaht relied upon such information in its pending MSA. But that argument is a non- 19 sequitur. Not only has Health Net produced all requested information that is relevant to proper pre- 20 certification discovery in this case, but Plaintiff has never sought, in any form of discovery, the 21 undisputed evidence Health Net relies upon in its MSA. 22 Plaintiff Spears disingenuously contends, without any supporting evidence, that Health Net 23 "unilaterally gathered and used [classwide payroll data] for Defendant's own benefit in filing the 24 MSA." Motion at 2. But Plaintiff Spears' quotation from Health Net's MSA reveals that Health 25 Net did not rely on "classwide payroll data." See Motion at 5 (quoting Health Net's MSA's 26 statement that "the total cash benefits provided to Participants who waived dental and/or medical 27 coverage represented a very small percentage of HNCA's contributions provided under the Plan 28 for the elected dental and/or medical coverage: 1.4% in 2013, 1.3% in 2014; 0.9% in 2015; and DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 0.9% in 2016."). Far from being individual "classwide payroll data," this evidence is simply a 2 comparison of money that Health Net of Califomia paid out in total for medical coverage versus 3 money it paid out in total for cash benefits related to waived medical coverage. See Lee Dec. TI 33, 4 Ex. S, Declaration of Kelly Sarabia ISO D e f s MSA. It is not a pay period by pay period analysis 5 of data for every potential putative class member as Plaintiff Spears suggests and as her discovery 6 requests require. 7 In any event. Plaintiff has never propounded any discovery conceming the undisputed 8 evidence Health Net relies upon in its MSA. And such evidence in no way proves that the 9 information actually requested by Plaintiff Spears is somehow relevant or easy to produce; it is 10 neither—as proven by the uncontroverted declarations in support of Health Net's Motion to 11 Sequence Discovery and in opposition to these Discovery Motions. 12 C. Classwide, Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based. Undiily Burdensome And Premature (Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7 and 19). 14 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, the 15 pay periods when they were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 16 same period (No. 6), the number of putative class members who were paid overtime and cash 17 payments in lieu of health benefits during the same period (No. 7) and the total number of meal 18 premiums paid to putative class members (No. 19), irrespective of the burden on Health Net and 19 the fact that she has not certified a class.' She is mistaken. 20 The Interrogatories seek detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, TI 2. 21 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. These merits-based, classwide 22 interrogatories not only require compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, they 23 require detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Lee Dec, TI 31, 24 Exh. Q, (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), TITI 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and 25 timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health Net, and archived 26 • 27 ' Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears because she is an actual plaintiff in this matter, not a speculative putative plaintiff for an alleged class that may not, and likely will not, 28 ever be certified. -8- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 information from that database is not readily accessible. Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll 2 and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than 3 the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application 4 to gather the information necessary to respond to these Interrogatories from the archive, so 5 collecting the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. 6 Id. at TITI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would not fit into Microsoft Excel 7 spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or database to host it. Id. at f 7. 8 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no 9 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at TI 8. In sum, this process would take 10 an enormous amount of time £md would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in 11 addition to their regular duties. Id. at TITI 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information 12 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the 13 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the 14 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands, /c/. at TI 24. 15 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health 16 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and 17 health and welfare benefits.. Providing detailed, individualized meal premium information and 18 listing pay periods in which putative class members' received both overtime and "cash payments 19 in lieu of health benefits" makes little sense considering the information will be irrelevant if she 20 never certifies this case as a class action.^ Such discovery should be deferred until and unless 21 Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against 22 the significant resources, time, and expense necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for 23 thousands of Health Net's current and former employees over several years, the Court is well within 24 its discretion to deny this merits-based discovery at this early juncture. 25 25 ^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No. 19 is not 27 relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively 28 modifiedtimerecords to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here. ^9^ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears' Motion as to these Interrogatories. 2 G. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information. 3 Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive certain health 4 benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy rights. 5 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contact information after they 6 are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve additional privacy 7 protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is personal. Ask any 8 ordinary reasonable person ifhe or she would want their payroll information routinely disclosed to 9 parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. 10 Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is entitled to even more 11 stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996) (medical privacy is a 12 quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class member privacy rights 13 before Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action. 14 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). .15 • 16 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitied to, for each and every putative class member, 17 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for 18 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to 19 class certification.^ All ofthe information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be irrelevant if she never 20 certifies this case as a class action. 21 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories. 22 D. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague. Ambiguous And Overbroad. 23 Interrogatory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were 24 "eligible to receive[]." Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), TI 3, Exh. 1. 25 Health Net objected to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health 26 Net does not know what "forms of compensation" means. "Forms of compensation" might include 27 28 3 Heaitij produced this information for Plaintiff Spears. - 10- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 hourly and overtime wages. It might require a breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime 2 versus commission versus bonuses. It might entail the value of health benefits, paid time off 3 holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave, disability policies, etc. It might include payouts for 4 benefits or unused paid time off It might include a plethora of things which comprise an 5 employee's total compensation package and perks. Health Net does not know because the 6 Interrogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plaintiff Spears for clarification, she has provided none. 7 Lee Dec, Tl 34."* Health Net should not be left to guess at what it is being asked to answer. 8 Furthermore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information regarding "forms of 9 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Spears did not receive, it is overbroad 10 and seeks irrelevant information. There is nothing in Plaintiff Spears' complaint or moving papers 11 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation 12 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitied to information that did not apply to her 13 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring. 14 E. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16. 16 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive 17 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates 18 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918, 19 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Rivapalacio Dec, TI 7, Ex. 7. Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as 20 she attached correspondence identifying these documents to her Motion. Id. And Plaintiffs 21 evidence belies her argument that Health Net refused a specific request as to these interrogatories 22 because the evidence demonstrates that these two interrogatories were not addressed during the 23 meet and confer process after Health Net's December 19, 2017, correspondence that identified the 24 bates numbers. Id., Tl 8, Ex. 8 (December 21, 2017 email from Spears' counsel confirming meet 25 and confer continued as to "RFP Nos. 8, 11, and 20-22 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 14, 18 26 , Plaintiff Spears' counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she 27 actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description of such pay codes (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special 28 Interrogatory, she should have stated as such. -11 - DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL . INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 and 19). Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion on this issue. In any 2 event, her motion should be denied. 3 F. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And ^ Unduly Burdensome. 5 Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks performed by the non-exempt putative 6 class members. This Interrogatory seeks job tities and duties for thousands of current and former 7 employees. Rodes Dec. TI 6. Responding to this Interrogatory would involve far more than flipping 8 a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions. Id. This Interrogatory seeks information 9 from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull through many electronic and hard 10 copy files to locate information responsive to this Interrogatory. Id. The job would be more 11 challenging because many of the documents that contain this information have been archived and 12 area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be burdensome for Health Net to respond 13 to this Interrogatory. Id. 14 The information sought is also irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 15 discovery of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class 16 members are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears' allegations. The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are 17 not necessary to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non- 18 exempt putative class member was misclassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into 19 question any of the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no 20 justification for burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the information sought is 21 irrelevant. 22 Plaintiff Spears' reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still 23 subject to valid objections, including that it is irrelevant and burdensome. 24 Health Net produced Plaintiff Spears' job description, which included her job duties. That 25 is this all that is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce 26 , 5 Forexample, in Tierno v. Rite AidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016), 27 the court ordered the defendant to provide job duties of putative class members because the plaintiff in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misclassified. Id. at *2. Plaintiff 28 Spears does not assert a misclassification claim. - 12- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL • INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempt putative class members when they 2 are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears' claims. ^ H. Plaintiff Spears' Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of ^ Monetary Sanctions. ^ Under section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must impose monetary ^ sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. "Failing ^ to confer . . . with an opposing party or attomey in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve 8 informally any dispute conceming discovery" qualifies as a misuse of the discovery process that ^ warrants the imposition of sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010; see also Leko v. Cornerstone I^ Building Inspection Serv., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1122-24 (2001) (affirming the award of sanctions II against the moving party's attomey for failing to meet and confer in good faith). Moreover, the 12 Court must impose a monetary sanction against whichever party loses the motion to compel - 1-^ including the party who brought the motion, unless that party did so with substantial justification. 14 Civ. Proc Code § 2030.300(d). 1^ Plaintiff Spears' counsel cannot be said to have engaged in any meaningful, good faith 1^ meet-and-confer before she filed these Discovery Motions. Had counsel done so and taken to heart 1^ this Court's prior admonition "that... there are simply not enough judicial resources available to 18 resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved 1^ informally," she never would have filed these Discovery Motions. There was no reason to file these 2^ Discovery Motions now. Health Net asked counsel for Plaintiff Spears to withdraw these 21 Discovery Motions, but she still persisted. There was no legitimate justification for doing so. 22 The Discovery Motions similarly lack substantial justification. Health Net has already 23 produced much of the information/data Plaintiff Spears is seeking, including contact information 24 for thefie/a/re-ffe^radministrator. As for the remaining discovery in dispute, Health Net asserted 25 legitimate objections, all of which are part of the reasons why Health Net is seeking to have this 26 Court sequence discovery. 27 Ill • • 28 - 13 - DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Health Net's counsel spent in excess of ten (10) hours preparing its Opposition and 2 supporting papers. Declaration of Timothy J. Long, TI 3. Health Net's counsel's hourly rate is$572. 3 Id. Health Net's counsel expects to spend an additional one (1) hour preparing for and appearing 4 in Court for the hearing on this Motion. Id. 5 Therefore, sanctions in the amount of $6,292 are reasonable and just. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears' Motion and impose 8 sanctions against Plaintiff Spears in the amount of $6,292. 9 10 Dated: April 3,2018 ORRICK,\HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 11 12 NICHOLAS J. HORTON 13 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 14- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS