Preview
FILED
Li... .
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 201]NOV 16 AH II: 25
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) i-l: w.. , . . . - ' ' . I •i.;.:iwA
3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) CGU.n Y Qr SACiiMi-.tiiTG
Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115)
4 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6
Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
II
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
BYFAX
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on CASE No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-
12 behalf of herself and on behalf of all GDS
persons similarly situated,
13 consolidated with
14 Plaintiff, Arana v. Health Net of California Inc., Case
No. 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS
15
vs.
CLASS ACTION
16 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
a Califomia Corporation; and Does 1
17 through 50, Inclusive, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR
18 OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE TO BE
SENT TO THE CLASS MEMBERS;
19 Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
20
21 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B.
RIVAPALACIO IN SUPPORT
22 Telephone Appearance
23 Date: December 18,2017
24 Time: 9:00 a.m.
25 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
Dept.: 54
26 Action Filed: April 5,2017
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Please be advised that on December 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the above
3 entitled Court, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff) will move for an order for an opt-out privacy
4 notice to be sent to all the individuals alleged to be "aggrieved employees" or "putative class members"
5 in this matter. This motion will be made pursuant to Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (2017)
6 where the Supreme Court ofCalifomia confirmed that in actions brought pursuant to the Califomia
7 Private Attomey General Act (the "PAGA") a plaintiff has the right to receive the names, contact
8 information, and employment information of employees alleged in the complaint to be "aggrieved"
9 before any ruling are made as to merits of the underlying substantive claims as the "essential first
10 step" to prosecution ofthe claim. Id. at 544 (emphasis added). The right to this discovery, however,
11 requires that these witnesses be provided the ability to maintain their privacy by receiving notice of the
12 lawsuit so as to have the chance to affirmatively opt out of having their information disclosed. Plaintiff
13 is, therefore, moving for an order approving an opt out notice to be sent, approving a third party
14 administrator ("TPA"), and setting a date certain by which Defendant HEALTH NET OF
15 CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") must provide the names and addresses to the TPA so that the
16 mailing can be promptly commenced. The motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying
17 memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio and exhibits lodged
18 thereto, the argument of counsel, and upon such other material contained in the file and pleadings of
19 this action.
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this
2 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text ofthe tentative rulings
3 for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. Ifthe party does not have online
4 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local
5 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the
6 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. Ifyou do not call the court and opposing party on the
7 court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
8
9
10 Dated: November 15, 2017 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP
11
12
13 By:
Victoria B. Rivapalaifio, Esq.
14 Attomeys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 L INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff) respectfully moves for an order authorizing the mailing of
4 an opt-out notice to all non-exempt employees who are or previously were employed by Defendant in
5 Califomia during the time period of April 5, 2013 to the present (the "Employees").
6 The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") attaches as Exhibit 1 and incorporates by reference a
7 letter that Plaintiff sent to the Califomia Workforce and Development Agency (the "LWDA") by
8 certified mail advising the LWDA that Plaintiff is seeking to act as a proxy for the State of Califomia
9 to obtain civil penalties that were suffered by the Aggrieved Employees by Defendant's failure to pay
10 them premium wages for hours worked more than eight (8) in a day or forty (40) in a week ("overtime").
11 The LWDA did not respond within 33 days. Plaintiff was, therefore, allowed to file the FAC to assert
12 the PAGA action.
13 "PAGA was intended to advance the state's public policy of affording employees workplaces free
14 of Labor Code violations, notwithstanding the inability of state agencies to monitor every employer or
15 industry." Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 546. The right to discovery in PAGA actions was recently reaffirmed.
16 By expanding the universe of those who might enforce the law, and the sanctions
violators might be subject to, the Legislature sought to remediate present violations and
17 deter future ones. These purposes would be ill served by presuming, notwithstanding
the failure explicitly to so indicate in the text, that deputized aggrieved employees
18 must satisfy a PAGA-specific heightened proof standard at the threshold, before
discovery.
19
Id.'
20
April 5,2013 through the present is the current class period, but it also encompasses the shorter
21
time period of April 5, 2016 through the present, which is the time period associated with Plaintiffs
22
PAGA claim. The PAGA claims is brought for violations suffered by all the same Class Members who
23
worked during the one (1) year statutory period and, thus, is inclusive of all the employees whose
24
grievances Plaintiff seeks addressed in the instant action. Under Williams, the full prosecution of PAGA
25
claims can no longer be arbitrarily delayed.
26
Plaintiff served written discovery requesting the names and contact information of the Employees
27
28
' Emphasis added unless otherwise stated.
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 on July 25, 2017. (Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("R. Decl.") ^ 2.) Defendant requested and
2 was granted an extension and served responses on September 12, 2017 and now 2 months later
3 Plaintiff still has received no contact information for any Class Member or Aggrieved Employee.
4 (Id.) Plaintiff provided a draft Belaire-West opt-out notice on September 22, 2017. (Id. at ^ 3.) The
5 Spears action was consolidated with a related action, Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no.
6 34-2017-00216685 (the ''Arana Action"), on October 11,2017. (Id. at If 4.) Plaintiff provided a revised
7 and updated Belaire- West opt-out notice on October 25,2017 that incorporated the consolidated Arana
8 Action. (Opt-Out Notice, Exhibit 1.^) Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel have met and
9 conferred telephonically regarding the opt-out notice both on October 24,2017 and on October 30,2017.
10 (R. Decl., ^ 5.) Counsel for plaintiff Arana approved the Belaire-West opt-out notice in its current form
11 on October 26, 2017. (Id. at ^ 5.) Defendant provided revisions on November 9, 2017. (Id. at ^ 6.)
12 However, based on subsequent meet and confer efforts, the Parties have reached an impasse as to the
13 language of the notice. (Id.)
14 Plaintiffs motion to compel filing deadline is December 15, 2017 and Defendant's responses
15 to Plaintiffs discovery asking for percipient witnesses are solely objections on the grounds that no
16 Belaire-West notice has been distributed. Defendant cannot have it both ways and delay responding to
17 the written discovery on the basis that the Employees have not had an opportunity to opt-out of
18 disclosing their contact information while also delaying cooperating with sending the Belaire notice.
19 Accordingly, Plaintiff is filing this motion seeking an order for the mailing of the opt-out notice
20 to address Defendant's objection to providing this routine information about the Employees on the basis
21 that they have not had a chance to opt out. Further, this mailing should occur prior to Plaintiffs motion
22 to compel filing deadline as it will prevent Defendant from continuing to assert this avoidable objection
23 as its basis for withholding routine discovery.
24 The law is now more clear than ever that as explained in Williams that "[t]he disclosure of the
25 names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essentia! part of pretrial discovery."
26 Williams, 3 Cal. at 543-544. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court approve the Belaire Notice
27
28
^ All exhibits attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio.
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
2 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as Exhibit 1 for mailing. Plaintiff also requests
2 that the Court approve KCC as a third party administrator (the "TPA") for the mailing and set deadlines
3 for Defendant to provide the names and addresses to the TPA within seven (7) days of the hearing such
4 that the notice may be mailed seven (7) days thereafter. Plaintiff also requests that thirty (30) days be
5 set as the time for the aggrieved employees to opt out.
6
7 H. ARGUMENT
8 A. Williams Clarifies the Broad Scope of Discoverv and Explains the Importance ofthe
Production of Witness Contact Information
9
On July 13, 2017, the Supreme Court of California held that requests for all statewide
10
contact information and employment information for ali witnesses who are percipient to the
11
allegations in a complaint falls squarely within the scope of discovery permitted under CCP
12
2017.010. Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th at 542-544.
13
Williams was a wage and hour representative action which alleged that the defendant violated
14
the Califomia Labor Code by failing to pay wages. Id. at 537-8. The plaintiff in Williams also asserted
15
derivative claims for the employer's failure to provide timely wage payment and accurate, itemized
16
wage statements. Id. at 538. The trial court in Williams denied the plaintiffs motion seeking statewide
17
contact information and employment histories for the employees at issue and instead ordered that the
18
discovery be limited to a sample. Id. The plaintiff sought writ relief from the trial court's denial of
19
discovery to all stores but the one where the plaintiff worked and the Court of Appeal denied relief Id.
20
The Supreme Court ofCalifomia held that the courts below erroneously limited the plaintiffs
21
ability to obtain contact information for all the percipient witnesses who would have discoverable
22
information related to the claims pled in the wage and hour action. The court confirmed the broad scope
23
of discovery which, in representative actions, includes statewide discovery and confirmed that the trial
24
court had "no discretion to disregard the allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide
25
representative action from its inception." Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 531.
26
Now that the Supreme Court of Califomia has held that trial courts cannot make orders limiting
27
discovery in a way that "would grant the defendant a monopoly on access to its ... employees and
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
4 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 their experiences and artificially tilt the scales in the ensuing litigation," Defendant's objections to
2 producing this information cannot be sustained. Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 544. (citations omitted).
3 Here, all the Employees are potential percipient witnesses to the alleged illegalities in the
4 Complaint. Defendant, therefore, has no basis under Williams to either refrain entirely from providing
5 their contact information or to pick and choose which of these witnesses are disclosed to Plaintiff as the
6 proxy for the State of Califomia in this PAGA action. "If the Legislature intended to demand more
7 than mere allegations as a condition to thefilingof suit or preliminary discovery, it could have
8 specified as much. That it did not implies no such heightened requirement was intended." Williams,
9 3 Cal. 5th at 546. As a result. Plaintiff is not required to affirmatively prove any commonality or
10 typicality as between herself or the employees who held the other job titles identified in the Complaint.
11 All Plaintiff must do for purposes of discovery is point to the allegations and under Williams that is
12 enough to satisfy the request for preliminary discovery of their contact and employment information.
13 B. Mailing the Belaire Notice Is the "First Step" to Prosecution And. Therefore.
Should Not Be Further Delayed
14
Defendant also has no right to object that the Belaire notice should be delayed given that the
15
Williams Court stated that access to contact and employment information, including telephone numbers
16
is an "essential first step to prosecution of any representative action." Id. at 544. At this point more
17
than three (3) months after Plaintiffs discovery requests were served. Defendant's objection that the
18
"essential first step to prosecution" of this case should be put off any longer should be overmled.
19
In light of the Supreme Court of Califomia's instmctions regarding the broad scope of discovery
20
in class and representative actions. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the mailing ofthe
21
opt out notice attached to the Rivapalacio Declaration as Exhibit 1 to all the percipient witnesses who
22
are alleged to be aggrieved employees or putative class members as defined in the complaint.
23
The cases here have been consolidated and Plaintiffs revised Belaire notice includes both
24
actions. As a result. Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff should wait until after consolidating the
25
complaint does not make sense in light of the clarification that the Belaire notice is a "first step" in
26
litigation. The Defendant's proposed delay of the notice procedure only results in wasted time. To
27
circumvent this inefficiency. Plaintiff appropriately proposes that the notice procedure be commenced
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 forthwith.
2 C. Williams Confirms that Privacy Interests for Class Members and Aggrieved
Employees Are Protected With Issuance of anOpt-Out Notice
3
The Supreme Court in Williams held that the issuance of a Belaire-West opt-out notice provided
4
sufficient protection to the privacy interests of putative class members and aggrieved employees to
5
warrant the disclosure of their contact information. Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 555 ("... there is no
6
justification for concluding disclosure of contact information, after affording affected individuals the
7
opportunity to opt out, would entail a serious invasion of privacy."). As such, the Supreme Court in
8
Williams agreed with prior precedent regarding the protection of privacy interests for putative class
9
members. See Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 4th 958, 969 (2008) (citing Puerto
10
V. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-50 (2008) (Disclosure ofthe telephone numbers of
11
putative class members is particularly appropriate where as here, the putative class members "may
12
reasonably be supposed to want their information disclosed to counsel whose communications in the
13
course of investigating the claims asserted in [PlaintifFs] lawsuit may alert them to similar claims they
14
may be able to assert.").
15
16 D. Williams Supports Plaintiffs' Draft of the Belaire Notice
17 Plaintiffs request that, if Defendant's contact information is included, a disclaimer should also
18 be included to inform the putative class members of Defendant's confiict of interest as to their interests
19 in this lawsuit. That Defendant employer has a conflict of interest with an employee's interest in the
20 outcome ofa wage and hour class action lawsuit is inherent in the process. Williams made clear that,
21 instead, "the interests of plaintiff, counsel, and other potentially aggrieved employees are largely
22 aligned." Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 548-49. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs' interests and, therefore, opposes
23 the interests of the Class Members, which are aligned with Plaintiffs'. Thus, Plaintiffs' draft opt-out
24 notice alerts the recipients of the notice ofthis conflict.
25 Further, Plaintiffs seek the time and payroll records of the Class Members in response to other
26 discovery requests and, thus, to protect the Class Members' privacy and to moot an objection by
27 Defendant to the production of this information based on privacy. Plaintiffs propose informing the Class
28
PLAIN'HFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 Members through this same notification process that they may opt-out of this disclosure. Williams
2 reiterated case law that states that fellow employees would likely wish their information be shared with
3 a plaintiff seeking to vindicate their rights and obtain relief for violations of employment laws. Id. at
4 553. Because "any residual privacy concems can be protected by issuing so-called Belaire-West notices
5 affording notice and an opportunity to opt out from disclosure," the best mechanism for protecting the
6 privacy ofthe Class Members, including in regard to their time and payroll information, is by disclosing
7 that the information may be provided to Plaintiffs and by offering them the opportunity to opt out. Id.
8 at 553. While the inclusion of this language does not mandate the production ofthe time and payroll
9 information of the Class Members, it at least affords the affected employees the opportunity to protect
10 their privacy and addresses a single objection asserted by Defendant. This language, therefore, should
11 be included.
12
13 IH. CONCLUSION
14 As the Supreme Court has made clear: "[i]n wage and hour collective actions, fellow employees
15 would not be expected to want to conceal their contact infonnation from plaintiffs asserting employment
16 law violations, the state policies in favor of effective enforcement of these laws weigh on the side of
17 disclosure, and any residual privacy concerns can be protected by issuing so-called Belaire-West notices
18 affording notice and an opportunity to opt out from disclosure." Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 553.
19 Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the opt-out form provided and also
20 approve KCC as a third party administrator (the "TPA") for the mailing of an opt out privacy notice and
21 set deadlines for Defendant to provide the names and addresses to the TPA within seven (7) days of the
22 hearing such that the notice may be mailed seven (7) days thereafter. Plaintiff also requests that thirty
23 (30) days be set as the time for class members to opt out.
24
25 Dated: November 15, 2017 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP
26
By:
27 Victoria B. Rivapalacio
Counsel for Plaintiff
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO
2 1. I am an attomey at law licensed to practice in all ofthe Courts ofthe State of
3 Califomia. I am one of the attomeys of record for Plaintiff in the above entitled action, and I have
4 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and could testify competently thereto, under oath, if
5 called to do so.
6 2. On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff served written discovery requesting the names and contact
7 information of all non-exempt employees who are or previously were employed by Defendant in
8 Califomia during the time period of April 5, 2013 to the present (the "Employees"). Defendant
9 requested and was granted an extension and served responses on September 12, 2017, objecting to
10 providing this information on the basis of privacy and on the basis that the parties had not yet agreed
11 upon a Belaire-West notice.
12 3. Plaintiff provided a draft Belaire-West opt-out notice on September 22, 2017.
13 4. The Spears action was consolidated with a related action, Arana v. Health Net of
14 California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-00216685 (the ''Arana Action"), on October 11, 2017. Plaintiff
15 provided a revised and updated Belaire-West opt-out notice incorporating the consolidated Arana
16 Action on October 25, 2017. A tme and correct copy of this updated version is attached as Exhibit 1.
17 5. Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel have met and conferred telephonically
18 regarding the opt-out notice both on October 24, 2017 and on October 30, 2017. Counsel for plaintiff
19 Arana approved the Belaire-West opt-out notice in its current form on October 26, 2017. A tme and
20 correct copy of the email exchange is attached as Exhibit 2.
21 6. Defendant provided revisions on November 9, 2017, removing language disclosing
22 Defendant's counsel's conflict of interest with the Class Members and removing references to the
23 production ofthe Class Members' time and payroll information. The Parties subsequently met and
24 conferred via electronic mail regarding the revisions and have reached an impasse. A tme and
25 correct copy ofthe email exchange is attached as Exhibit 3.
26
27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the foregoing
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 is true and correct.
2
3 EXECUTED this 15th day of November, 2017, at La Jolla, California.
4 /
5
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT 1
28
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER E M P L O Y E E S O F H E A L T H NET O F
C A L I F O R N L \ , INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
To: CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT E M P L O Y E E S EMPLOYED BY H E A L T H NET O F
CALIFORNIA, INC. BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND T H E PRESENT
Two lawsuits (Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Sind Arana v. Health Net of California, consolidated
case no. 34-2017-00210560) have been filed and are pending in the Superior Court of Califomia, County of
Sacramento on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees ("Class Members") employed by Health Net of
Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant"). This is not a lawsuit against you, and you are not being sued. The former employees
("Plaintiffs") make claims against Defendant for, among other things, failing to calculate the regular rate of pay and
compensate Class Members for all overtime worked, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to
issue accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, penalties and interest.
This correspondence is being sent to you pursuant to an agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and
Defendant. The Court does not endorse any of the statements contained herein. The Court has not rendered any
opinion as to the merits ofthis case.
The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class action on behalf of themselves and the current
and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant. The Court has not yet determined whether the
lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. If you receive this notice, you may be a member of the
proposed class.
Plaintiffs' attorneys would like to have your address, telephone number and email address so they may
contact ybu to obtain your input as to whether the Plaintiffs' allegations are accurate.
The Parties have agreed that a letter be sent to you to determine ifyou would object to Plaintiffs'
attorneys receiving your contact, time and payroll information. You may elect not to provide your contact, time
and/or payroll information to Plaintiffs' attorneys on the grounds of privacy.
THEREFORE, ifyou object to the disclosure ofyour contact, time and/or payroll information to the
PlaintifTs attorneys, you must sign and return the enclosed (postage pre-paid) postcard to Health Net of
California Class Action, c/o K C C Class Action Services, P.O. Box , Petaluma, California on
or before [One (1) Month from Mailing].
You have the right to contact the Plaintiffs' attomeys directly:
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK SETAREH LAW GROUP
Nicholas De Blouw Shaun Setareh
deblouvv^(S),bamlawlj.com shaun@,setarehlaw.com
2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858)952-0354 Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
Attomeys for Plaintiff Spears Attomeys for Plaintiff Arana
Please note that Defendant's attomeys, as representatives ofDefendant employer in this matter, have a conflict
of interest with you as an employee and potential Class Member.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 2
28
PLAIN-nFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
Victoria Rivapalacio
From: Victoria Rivapalacio
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:51 AM
To: 'Shaun Setareh '; 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.'; Norm Blumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; AJ B; Piya Mukherjee;
'thomas@setarehlaw.com'; 'scott@setarehlaw.com'; 'farrah@setarehlaw.com';
'stacey@setarehlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Attachments: belaire notice Ol.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Due By: Monday, October 30, 2017 11:00 AM
Flag Status: Completed
Great.
Stephanie, any revisions?
Thanks,
Victoria
From: Shaun Setareh [mailto:shaun@setarehlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:37 AM
To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio' ; 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Norm Blumenthal' ; 'Kyle Nordrehaug'
; 'AJ B' ; 'Piya Mukherjee' ;
thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
This looksfineto me.
.S E T .\ R E H
l,.'\VV (.;K(,Hil'
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907
Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone: 310-888-7771
Facsimile: 310-888-0109
e-mail: shaun(a),setarehla\v.com
Intemet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttomev.net:
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:33 PM
To: Shaun Setareh : Lee, Stephanie Gail
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com;
scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Counsel:
I have revised the previously proposed opt out notice to reflect both cases. Please make any revisions in redline.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Shaun Setareh rmailto:shaun@setarehlaw.com1
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:37 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' ; 'Victoria Rivapalacio'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Norm Blumenthal' : 'Kyle Nordrehaug'
; 'AJ B' : 'Piya Mukherjee' ;
thomas@setarehiaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie:
Thank you for the e-mail.
We have recently served our own discovery; which seeks the class list. I think it makes sense to send one
omnibus notice to the class.
As to whether discovery should be phased; I am fine to deferring that particular issue until after the status
conference.
I presume that we will file one stipulated protective order.
Please advise.
Thank you,
SLG S E T A R E l-l
L.AVV C;R()U1>
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907
Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone: 310-888-7771
Facsimile: 310-888-0109
e-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
Internet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttorney.net;
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:08 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com;
2
scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
Thank you for your message. Yes, Defendant will serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery it deems
appropriate at this juncture of the litigation. As to the issue of the discovery relevant to class certification versus merits,
we agreed to raise the issue with the Court at the initial case management conference on December 8, 2017.
Confirmed that Defendant agrees to continue Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15, 2017.
Because, Shaun, you were not on this telephone call, still outstanding is the issue of coordinating discovery. This is
important, particularly with respect to the Belaire-West notice procedure. On that note, I will circulate a draft
protective order and edits to Plaintiff Spears' draft Belaire-West notice. However, we should discuss how we're going to
coordinate.
Regards,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles ©
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:45 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com;
scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw,com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
i write to confirm that we met and conferred this afternoon regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's discovery
requests.
Defendant offered to continue Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline from December 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017, a
week afterthe Case Management Conference. Defendant is in the process of drafting supplemental responses, but will
not provide a timeline as to when those will be provided.
Defendant will circulate a draft of a protective order and will return the opt-out notice reflecting any revisions it might
have. Plaintiff agrees to pay for the costs of the mailing.
Thank you.
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:57 AM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com;
scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
We can use this conference line: 1-877-211-3621; passcode 295938.
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles 0
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@omck.com
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.coml
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:32 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com:
scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
What is the dial in information for tomorrow's call?
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 11:56 AM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' ; 'Shaun Setareh '
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ;
'thomas@setarehlaw.com' : '$cott@setarehlaw.com' :
'farrah@setarehlaw.com' : 'stacev@setarehlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
That's fine for me.
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:02 PM
To: Shaun Setareh ; 'Victoria Rivapalacio'
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; 'Norm Blumenthal' ; 'Kyle Nordrehaug'
; 'AJ B' ; 'Piya Mukherjee' ;
thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria and Shaun,
Does 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday work?
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
IVlanaging Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles 0
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
From: Shaun Setareh [mailto:shaun@setarehlaw.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:43 PM
To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio' ; Lee, Stephanie Gail
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; 'Norm Blumenthal' ; 'Kyle Nordrehaug'
; 'AJ B' ; 'Piya Mukherjee' ;
thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehiaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
All,
Monday and Tuesday afternoon are ideal for me.
Please advise.
Thank you,
SLG S ET A R E H
LAW GROLiP
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907
Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone: 310-888-7771
Facsimile: 310-888-0109
e-mail: shaunrg).setareii 1 aw.com
Internet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com, vmw.TerminationAttornev.net;
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:vlctoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:58 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@5etarehlaw.com;
thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie:
Next week, I am available Monday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday morning, Thursday anytime, and Friday
afternoon.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:36 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com;
thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Counsel,
Now that the Court has consolidated both matters for all purposes and under one case number, I propose that we all
participate in a telephone call next week to discuss outstanding issues. Please let me know your availability.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles 0
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
orrick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:24 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com;
thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
Please respond with a time you are available to speak.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:11 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com'
; 'thomas@setarehlaw.com' ; 'scott@setarehlaw.com'
; 'farrah@setarehlaw.com' ; 'stacev@setarehlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
On September 28,1 was told "next week." On October 4,1 was told "shortly." Yesterday, October 10, you stated "in the
next week or so." A conference of counsel to discuss discovery should not be subject to such delays.
Further, a prolonged letter-writing campaign is less efficient and less productive than a simple and straight-forward
telephone conversation. Accordingly, please provide a time when you are available to meet and confer telephonically
tomorrow.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [maiito:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:01 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com:
thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
I will send a responsive meet and confer letter, which I hope to do in the next week or so.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles 0
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
ornek
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B : Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com:
thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
Following up. Please respond.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 5:51 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
I write to follow up. Please provide a time this week when you are available to meet and confer.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 2:07 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
Please provide a time during the coming week when you are available to meet and confer regarding Defendant's
discovery responses and the opt-out notice.
8
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 2:36 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Thank you for the extension to December 1, 2017, Stephanie.
Are you available later this week for a call regarding Defendant's discovery responses and the opt-out notice?
Regards,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:07 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I understand that you are concerned about timing. So that the parties
may have adequate time to meet and confer, Defendant is amenable to granting Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time - to
December 1, 2017 - within which to file any necessary motion to compel Defendant's further responses to her first sets
of document requests, requests for admissions, special interrogatories and employment law form interrogatories. In the
meantime, I anticipate getting back to you shortly on the substance of your meet and confer correspondences.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles ©
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
ornek
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail
9
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie:
Following up. Please provide a time when you are available to meet and confer.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 2:33 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
I look forward to your providing me with a time and date to discuss this discovery letter that I sent you last week, on
September 21, 2017.
My compel date is October 27, 2017 and the large number of deficient responses require no further delay given the time
I will need to prepare and file the motion.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 2:10 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
I am unavailable at that time. As mentioned, we are aiming to get back to you sometime next week.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associate
Oriick
Los Angeles 0
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
10
ornek
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 1:19 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
I will call you Monday, Oct. 2, 2017 at 2 p.m. unless I hear from you that another time works better.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:10 PM
To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail'
Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
Thanks for getting back to me. I am available Monday of next week at 2 pm. Does that work for you? I can call you then.
Regards,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:35 PM
To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio'
Cc: Long, Timothy J.
Subject: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
I understand you reached out to Tim. He is out of pocket, but we'll look to getting back to you sometime next week.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles ©
11
T+1-213-612-2374
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/A'Avw.orricl<.coin.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http./A'/ww.orrick.com.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit htlp://www.orrick.com.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/Af/ww.orrick.com.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.ornck.com.
12
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only
Preview
FILED Li... . 1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 201]NOV 16 AH II: 25 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) i-l: w.. , . . . - ' ' . I •i.;.:iwA 3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) CGU.n Y Qr SACiiMi-.tiiTG Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) 4 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 5 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 II IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO BYFAX ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on CASE No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE- 12 behalf of herself and on behalf of all GDS persons similarly situated, 13 consolidated with 14 Plaintiff, Arana v. Health Net of California Inc., Case No. 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS 15 vs. CLASS ACTION 16 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 17 through 50, Inclusive, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR 18 OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE TO BE SENT TO THE CLASS MEMBERS; 19 Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; 20 21 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO IN SUPPORT 22 Telephone Appearance 23 Date: December 18,2017 24 Time: 9:00 a.m. 25 Judge: Raymond M. Cadei Dept.: 54 26 Action Filed: April 5,2017 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Please be advised that on December 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the above 3 entitled Court, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff) will move for an order for an opt-out privacy 4 notice to be sent to all the individuals alleged to be "aggrieved employees" or "putative class members" 5 in this matter. This motion will be made pursuant to Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (2017) 6 where the Supreme Court ofCalifomia confirmed that in actions brought pursuant to the Califomia 7 Private Attomey General Act (the "PAGA") a plaintiff has the right to receive the names, contact 8 information, and employment information of employees alleged in the complaint to be "aggrieved" 9 before any ruling are made as to merits of the underlying substantive claims as the "essential first 10 step" to prosecution ofthe claim. Id. at 544 (emphasis added). The right to this discovery, however, 11 requires that these witnesses be provided the ability to maintain their privacy by receiving notice of the 12 lawsuit so as to have the chance to affirmatively opt out of having their information disclosed. Plaintiff 13 is, therefore, moving for an order approving an opt out notice to be sent, approving a third party 14 administrator ("TPA"), and setting a date certain by which Defendant HEALTH NET OF 15 CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") must provide the names and addresses to the TPA so that the 16 mailing can be promptly commenced. The motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying 17 memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio and exhibits lodged 18 thereto, the argument of counsel, and upon such other material contained in the file and pleadings of 19 this action. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this 2 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text ofthe tentative rulings 3 for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. Ifthe party does not have online 4 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local 5 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the 6 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. Ifyou do not call the court and opposing party on the 7 court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held. 8 9 10 Dated: November 15, 2017 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP 11 12 13 By: Victoria B. Rivapalaifio, Esq. 14 Attomeys for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 L INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff) respectfully moves for an order authorizing the mailing of 4 an opt-out notice to all non-exempt employees who are or previously were employed by Defendant in 5 Califomia during the time period of April 5, 2013 to the present (the "Employees"). 6 The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") attaches as Exhibit 1 and incorporates by reference a 7 letter that Plaintiff sent to the Califomia Workforce and Development Agency (the "LWDA") by 8 certified mail advising the LWDA that Plaintiff is seeking to act as a proxy for the State of Califomia 9 to obtain civil penalties that were suffered by the Aggrieved Employees by Defendant's failure to pay 10 them premium wages for hours worked more than eight (8) in a day or forty (40) in a week ("overtime"). 11 The LWDA did not respond within 33 days. Plaintiff was, therefore, allowed to file the FAC to assert 12 the PAGA action. 13 "PAGA was intended to advance the state's public policy of affording employees workplaces free 14 of Labor Code violations, notwithstanding the inability of state agencies to monitor every employer or 15 industry." Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 546. The right to discovery in PAGA actions was recently reaffirmed. 16 By expanding the universe of those who might enforce the law, and the sanctions violators might be subject to, the Legislature sought to remediate present violations and 17 deter future ones. These purposes would be ill served by presuming, notwithstanding the failure explicitly to so indicate in the text, that deputized aggrieved employees 18 must satisfy a PAGA-specific heightened proof standard at the threshold, before discovery. 19 Id.' 20 April 5,2013 through the present is the current class period, but it also encompasses the shorter 21 time period of April 5, 2016 through the present, which is the time period associated with Plaintiffs 22 PAGA claim. The PAGA claims is brought for violations suffered by all the same Class Members who 23 worked during the one (1) year statutory period and, thus, is inclusive of all the employees whose 24 grievances Plaintiff seeks addressed in the instant action. Under Williams, the full prosecution of PAGA 25 claims can no longer be arbitrarily delayed. 26 Plaintiff served written discovery requesting the names and contact information of the Employees 27 28 ' Emphasis added unless otherwise stated. PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 on July 25, 2017. (Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("R. Decl.") ^ 2.) Defendant requested and 2 was granted an extension and served responses on September 12, 2017 and now 2 months later 3 Plaintiff still has received no contact information for any Class Member or Aggrieved Employee. 4 (Id.) Plaintiff provided a draft Belaire-West opt-out notice on September 22, 2017. (Id. at ^ 3.) The 5 Spears action was consolidated with a related action, Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 6 34-2017-00216685 (the ''Arana Action"), on October 11,2017. (Id. at If 4.) Plaintiff provided a revised 7 and updated Belaire- West opt-out notice on October 25,2017 that incorporated the consolidated Arana 8 Action. (Opt-Out Notice, Exhibit 1.^) Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel have met and 9 conferred telephonically regarding the opt-out notice both on October 24,2017 and on October 30,2017. 10 (R. Decl., ^ 5.) Counsel for plaintiff Arana approved the Belaire-West opt-out notice in its current form 11 on October 26, 2017. (Id. at ^ 5.) Defendant provided revisions on November 9, 2017. (Id. at ^ 6.) 12 However, based on subsequent meet and confer efforts, the Parties have reached an impasse as to the 13 language of the notice. (Id.) 14 Plaintiffs motion to compel filing deadline is December 15, 2017 and Defendant's responses 15 to Plaintiffs discovery asking for percipient witnesses are solely objections on the grounds that no 16 Belaire-West notice has been distributed. Defendant cannot have it both ways and delay responding to 17 the written discovery on the basis that the Employees have not had an opportunity to opt-out of 18 disclosing their contact information while also delaying cooperating with sending the Belaire notice. 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff is filing this motion seeking an order for the mailing of the opt-out notice 20 to address Defendant's objection to providing this routine information about the Employees on the basis 21 that they have not had a chance to opt out. Further, this mailing should occur prior to Plaintiffs motion 22 to compel filing deadline as it will prevent Defendant from continuing to assert this avoidable objection 23 as its basis for withholding routine discovery. 24 The law is now more clear than ever that as explained in Williams that "[t]he disclosure of the 25 names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essentia! part of pretrial discovery." 26 Williams, 3 Cal. at 543-544. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court approve the Belaire Notice 27 28 ^ All exhibits attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio. PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE 2 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 attached to the Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio as Exhibit 1 for mailing. Plaintiff also requests 2 that the Court approve KCC as a third party administrator (the "TPA") for the mailing and set deadlines 3 for Defendant to provide the names and addresses to the TPA within seven (7) days of the hearing such 4 that the notice may be mailed seven (7) days thereafter. Plaintiff also requests that thirty (30) days be 5 set as the time for the aggrieved employees to opt out. 6 7 H. ARGUMENT 8 A. Williams Clarifies the Broad Scope of Discoverv and Explains the Importance ofthe Production of Witness Contact Information 9 On July 13, 2017, the Supreme Court of California held that requests for all statewide 10 contact information and employment information for ali witnesses who are percipient to the 11 allegations in a complaint falls squarely within the scope of discovery permitted under CCP 12 2017.010. Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th at 542-544. 13 Williams was a wage and hour representative action which alleged that the defendant violated 14 the Califomia Labor Code by failing to pay wages. Id. at 537-8. The plaintiff in Williams also asserted 15 derivative claims for the employer's failure to provide timely wage payment and accurate, itemized 16 wage statements. Id. at 538. The trial court in Williams denied the plaintiffs motion seeking statewide 17 contact information and employment histories for the employees at issue and instead ordered that the 18 discovery be limited to a sample. Id. The plaintiff sought writ relief from the trial court's denial of 19 discovery to all stores but the one where the plaintiff worked and the Court of Appeal denied relief Id. 20 The Supreme Court ofCalifomia held that the courts below erroneously limited the plaintiffs 21 ability to obtain contact information for all the percipient witnesses who would have discoverable 22 information related to the claims pled in the wage and hour action. The court confirmed the broad scope 23 of discovery which, in representative actions, includes statewide discovery and confirmed that the trial 24 court had "no discretion to disregard the allegations ofthe complaint making this case a statewide 25 representative action from its inception." Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 531. 26 Now that the Supreme Court of Califomia has held that trial courts cannot make orders limiting 27 discovery in a way that "would grant the defendant a monopoly on access to its ... employees and 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE 4 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 their experiences and artificially tilt the scales in the ensuing litigation," Defendant's objections to 2 producing this information cannot be sustained. Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 544. (citations omitted). 3 Here, all the Employees are potential percipient witnesses to the alleged illegalities in the 4 Complaint. Defendant, therefore, has no basis under Williams to either refrain entirely from providing 5 their contact information or to pick and choose which of these witnesses are disclosed to Plaintiff as the 6 proxy for the State of Califomia in this PAGA action. "If the Legislature intended to demand more 7 than mere allegations as a condition to thefilingof suit or preliminary discovery, it could have 8 specified as much. That it did not implies no such heightened requirement was intended." Williams, 9 3 Cal. 5th at 546. As a result. Plaintiff is not required to affirmatively prove any commonality or 10 typicality as between herself or the employees who held the other job titles identified in the Complaint. 11 All Plaintiff must do for purposes of discovery is point to the allegations and under Williams that is 12 enough to satisfy the request for preliminary discovery of their contact and employment information. 13 B. Mailing the Belaire Notice Is the "First Step" to Prosecution And. Therefore. Should Not Be Further Delayed 14 Defendant also has no right to object that the Belaire notice should be delayed given that the 15 Williams Court stated that access to contact and employment information, including telephone numbers 16 is an "essential first step to prosecution of any representative action." Id. at 544. At this point more 17 than three (3) months after Plaintiffs discovery requests were served. Defendant's objection that the 18 "essential first step to prosecution" of this case should be put off any longer should be overmled. 19 In light of the Supreme Court of Califomia's instmctions regarding the broad scope of discovery 20 in class and representative actions. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order the mailing ofthe 21 opt out notice attached to the Rivapalacio Declaration as Exhibit 1 to all the percipient witnesses who 22 are alleged to be aggrieved employees or putative class members as defined in the complaint. 23 The cases here have been consolidated and Plaintiffs revised Belaire notice includes both 24 actions. As a result. Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff should wait until after consolidating the 25 complaint does not make sense in light of the clarification that the Belaire notice is a "first step" in 26 litigation. The Defendant's proposed delay of the notice procedure only results in wasted time. To 27 circumvent this inefficiency. Plaintiff appropriately proposes that the notice procedure be commenced 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE 1 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 forthwith. 2 C. Williams Confirms that Privacy Interests for Class Members and Aggrieved Employees Are Protected With Issuance of anOpt-Out Notice 3 The Supreme Court in Williams held that the issuance of a Belaire-West opt-out notice provided 4 sufficient protection to the privacy interests of putative class members and aggrieved employees to 5 warrant the disclosure of their contact information. Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 555 ("... there is no 6 justification for concluding disclosure of contact information, after affording affected individuals the 7 opportunity to opt out, would entail a serious invasion of privacy."). As such, the Supreme Court in 8 Williams agreed with prior precedent regarding the protection of privacy interests for putative class 9 members. See Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 4th 958, 969 (2008) (citing Puerto 10 V. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-50 (2008) (Disclosure ofthe telephone numbers of 11 putative class members is particularly appropriate where as here, the putative class members "may 12 reasonably be supposed to want their information disclosed to counsel whose communications in the 13 course of investigating the claims asserted in [PlaintifFs] lawsuit may alert them to similar claims they 14 may be able to assert."). 15 16 D. Williams Supports Plaintiffs' Draft of the Belaire Notice 17 Plaintiffs request that, if Defendant's contact information is included, a disclaimer should also 18 be included to inform the putative class members of Defendant's confiict of interest as to their interests 19 in this lawsuit. That Defendant employer has a conflict of interest with an employee's interest in the 20 outcome ofa wage and hour class action lawsuit is inherent in the process. Williams made clear that, 21 instead, "the interests of plaintiff, counsel, and other potentially aggrieved employees are largely 22 aligned." Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 548-49. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs' interests and, therefore, opposes 23 the interests of the Class Members, which are aligned with Plaintiffs'. Thus, Plaintiffs' draft opt-out 24 notice alerts the recipients of the notice ofthis conflict. 25 Further, Plaintiffs seek the time and payroll records of the Class Members in response to other 26 discovery requests and, thus, to protect the Class Members' privacy and to moot an objection by 27 Defendant to the production of this information based on privacy. Plaintiffs propose informing the Class 28 PLAIN'HFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 Members through this same notification process that they may opt-out of this disclosure. Williams 2 reiterated case law that states that fellow employees would likely wish their information be shared with 3 a plaintiff seeking to vindicate their rights and obtain relief for violations of employment laws. Id. at 4 553. Because "any residual privacy concems can be protected by issuing so-called Belaire-West notices 5 affording notice and an opportunity to opt out from disclosure," the best mechanism for protecting the 6 privacy ofthe Class Members, including in regard to their time and payroll information, is by disclosing 7 that the information may be provided to Plaintiffs and by offering them the opportunity to opt out. Id. 8 at 553. While the inclusion of this language does not mandate the production ofthe time and payroll 9 information of the Class Members, it at least affords the affected employees the opportunity to protect 10 their privacy and addresses a single objection asserted by Defendant. This language, therefore, should 11 be included. 12 13 IH. CONCLUSION 14 As the Supreme Court has made clear: "[i]n wage and hour collective actions, fellow employees 15 would not be expected to want to conceal their contact infonnation from plaintiffs asserting employment 16 law violations, the state policies in favor of effective enforcement of these laws weigh on the side of 17 disclosure, and any residual privacy concerns can be protected by issuing so-called Belaire-West notices 18 affording notice and an opportunity to opt out from disclosure." Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 553. 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the opt-out form provided and also 20 approve KCC as a third party administrator (the "TPA") for the mailing of an opt out privacy notice and 21 set deadlines for Defendant to provide the names and addresses to the TPA within seven (7) days of the 22 hearing such that the notice may be mailed seven (7) days thereafter. Plaintiff also requests that thirty 23 (30) days be set as the time for class members to opt out. 24 25 Dated: November 15, 2017 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, LLP 26 By: 27 Victoria B. Rivapalacio Counsel for Plaintiff 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO 2 1. I am an attomey at law licensed to practice in all ofthe Courts ofthe State of 3 Califomia. I am one of the attomeys of record for Plaintiff in the above entitled action, and I have 4 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and could testify competently thereto, under oath, if 5 called to do so. 6 2. On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff served written discovery requesting the names and contact 7 information of all non-exempt employees who are or previously were employed by Defendant in 8 Califomia during the time period of April 5, 2013 to the present (the "Employees"). Defendant 9 requested and was granted an extension and served responses on September 12, 2017, objecting to 10 providing this information on the basis of privacy and on the basis that the parties had not yet agreed 11 upon a Belaire-West notice. 12 3. Plaintiff provided a draft Belaire-West opt-out notice on September 22, 2017. 13 4. The Spears action was consolidated with a related action, Arana v. Health Net of 14 California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-00216685 (the ''Arana Action"), on October 11, 2017. Plaintiff 15 provided a revised and updated Belaire-West opt-out notice incorporating the consolidated Arana 16 Action on October 25, 2017. A tme and correct copy of this updated version is attached as Exhibit 1. 17 5. Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel have met and conferred telephonically 18 regarding the opt-out notice both on October 24, 2017 and on October 30, 2017. Counsel for plaintiff 19 Arana approved the Belaire-West opt-out notice in its current form on October 26, 2017. A tme and 20 correct copy of the email exchange is attached as Exhibit 2. 21 6. Defendant provided revisions on November 9, 2017, removing language disclosing 22 Defendant's counsel's conflict of interest with the Class Members and removing references to the 23 production ofthe Class Members' time and payroll information. The Parties subsequently met and 24 conferred via electronic mail regarding the revisions and have reached an impasse. A tme and 25 correct copy ofthe email exchange is attached as Exhibit 3. 26 27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the foregoing 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 is true and correct. 2 3 EXECUTED this 15th day of November, 2017, at La Jolla, California. 4 / 5 Victoria B. Rivapalacio 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT 1 28 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER E M P L O Y E E S O F H E A L T H NET O F C A L I F O R N L \ , INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION To: CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT E M P L O Y E E S EMPLOYED BY H E A L T H NET O F CALIFORNIA, INC. BETWEEN APRIL 5, 2013 AND T H E PRESENT Two lawsuits (Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Sind Arana v. Health Net of California, consolidated case no. 34-2017-00210560) have been filed and are pending in the Superior Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees ("Class Members") employed by Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant"). This is not a lawsuit against you, and you are not being sued. The former employees ("Plaintiffs") make claims against Defendant for, among other things, failing to calculate the regular rate of pay and compensate Class Members for all overtime worked, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to issue accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, penalties and interest. This correspondence is being sent to you pursuant to an agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendant. The Court does not endorse any of the statements contained herein. The Court has not rendered any opinion as to the merits ofthis case. The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class action on behalf of themselves and the current and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant. The Court has not yet determined whether the lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. If you receive this notice, you may be a member of the proposed class. Plaintiffs' attorneys would like to have your address, telephone number and email address so they may contact ybu to obtain your input as to whether the Plaintiffs' allegations are accurate. The Parties have agreed that a letter be sent to you to determine ifyou would object to Plaintiffs' attorneys receiving your contact, time and payroll information. You may elect not to provide your contact, time and/or payroll information to Plaintiffs' attorneys on the grounds of privacy. THEREFORE, ifyou object to the disclosure ofyour contact, time and/or payroll information to the PlaintifTs attorneys, you must sign and return the enclosed (postage pre-paid) postcard to Health Net of California Class Action, c/o K C C Class Action Services, P.O. Box , Petaluma, California on or before [One (1) Month from Mailing]. You have the right to contact the Plaintiffs' attomeys directly: BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK SETAREH LAW GROUP Nicholas De Blouw Shaun Setareh deblouvv^(S),bamlawlj.com shaun@,setarehlaw.com 2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858)952-0354 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Attomeys for Plaintiff Spears Attomeys for Plaintiff Arana Please note that Defendant's attomeys, as representatives ofDefendant employer in this matter, have a conflict of interest with you as an employee and potential Class Member. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT 2 28 PLAIN-nFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR OPT-OUT PRIVACY NOTICE CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 Victoria Rivapalacio From: Victoria Rivapalacio Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:51 AM To: 'Shaun Setareh '; 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.'; Norm Blumenthal; Kyle Nordrehaug; AJ B; Piya Mukherjee; 'thomas@setarehlaw.com'; 'scott@setarehlaw.com'; 'farrah@setarehlaw.com'; 'stacey@setarehlaw.com' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Attachments: belaire notice Ol.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Monday, October 30, 2017 11:00 AM Flag Status: Completed Great. Stephanie, any revisions? Thanks, Victoria From: Shaun Setareh [mailto:shaun@setarehlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:37 AM To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio' ; 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; 'Norm Blumenthal' ; 'Kyle Nordrehaug' ; 'AJ B' ; 'Piya Mukherjee' ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. This looksfineto me. .S E T .\ R E H l,.'\VV (.;K(,Hil' Shaun Setareh, Esq. 9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone: 310-888-7771 Facsimile: 310-888-0109 e-mail: shaun(a),setarehla\v.com Intemet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttomev.net: From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:33 PM To: Shaun Setareh : Lee, Stephanie Gail Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Counsel: I have revised the previously proposed opt out notice to reflect both cases. Please make any revisions in redline. Thank you, Victoria From: Shaun Setareh rmailto:shaun@setarehlaw.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:37 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' ; 'Victoria Rivapalacio' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : 'Norm Blumenthal' : 'Kyle Nordrehaug' ; 'AJ B' : 'Piya Mukherjee' ; thomas@setarehiaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie: Thank you for the e-mail. We have recently served our own discovery; which seeks the class list. I think it makes sense to send one omnibus notice to the class. As to whether discovery should be phased; I am fine to deferring that particular issue until after the status conference. I presume that we will file one stipulated protective order. Please advise. Thank you, SLG S E T A R E l-l L.AVV C;R()U1> Shaun Setareh, Esq. 9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone: 310-888-7771 Facsimile: 310-888-0109 e-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com Internet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttorney.net; From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:08 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com; 2 scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, Thank you for your message. Yes, Defendant will serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery it deems appropriate at this juncture of the litigation. As to the issue of the discovery relevant to class certification versus merits, we agreed to raise the issue with the Court at the initial case management conference on December 8, 2017. Confirmed that Defendant agrees to continue Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15, 2017. Because, Shaun, you were not on this telephone call, still outstanding is the issue of coordinating discovery. This is important, particularly with respect to the Belaire-West notice procedure. On that note, I will circulate a draft protective order and edits to Plaintiff Spears' draft Belaire-West notice. However, we should discuss how we're going to coordinate. Regards, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles © T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:45 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw,com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, i write to confirm that we met and conferred this afternoon regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Defendant offered to continue Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline from December 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017, a week afterthe Case Management Conference. Defendant is in the process of drafting supplemental responses, but will not provide a timeline as to when those will be provided. Defendant will circulate a draft of a protective order and will return the opt-out notice reflecting any revisions it might have. Plaintiff agrees to pay for the costs of the mailing. Thank you. Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:57 AM To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. We can use this conference line: 1-877-211-3621; passcode 295938. Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles 0 T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@omck.com From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.coml Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:32 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. What is the dial in information for tomorrow's call? Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 11:56 AM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' ; 'Shaun Setareh ' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' : Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'thomas@setarehlaw.com' : '$cott@setarehlaw.com' : 'farrah@setarehlaw.com' : 'stacev@setarehlaw.com' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. That's fine for me. From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:02 PM To: Shaun Setareh ; 'Victoria Rivapalacio' Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; 'Norm Blumenthal' ; 'Kyle Nordrehaug' ; 'AJ B' ; 'Piya Mukherjee' ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria and Shaun, Does 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday work? Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee IVlanaging Associate Orrick Los Angeles 0 T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com From: Shaun Setareh [mailto:shaun@setarehlaw.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:43 PM To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio' ; Lee, Stephanie Gail Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; 'Norm Blumenthal' ; 'Kyle Nordrehaug' ; 'AJ B' ; 'Piya Mukherjee' ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehiaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. All, Monday and Tuesday afternoon are ideal for me. Please advise. Thank you, SLG S ET A R E H LAW GROLiP Shaun Setareh, Esq. 9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone: 310-888-7771 Facsimile: 310-888-0109 e-mail: shaunrg).setareii 1 aw.com Internet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com, vmw.TerminationAttornev.net; From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:vlctoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:58 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@5etarehlaw.com; thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie: Next week, I am available Monday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday morning, Thursday anytime, and Friday afternoon. Thank you, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:36 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Counsel, Now that the Court has consolidated both matters for all purposes and under one case number, I propose that we all participate in a telephone call next week to discuss outstanding issues. Please let me know your availability. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles 0 T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com orrick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:24 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com; thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, Please respond with a time you are available to speak. Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:11 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com' ; 'thomas@setarehlaw.com' ; 'scott@setarehlaw.com' ; 'farrah@setarehlaw.com' ; 'stacev@setarehlaw.com' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, On September 28,1 was told "next week." On October 4,1 was told "shortly." Yesterday, October 10, you stated "in the next week or so." A conference of counsel to discuss discovery should not be subject to such delays. Further, a prolonged letter-writing campaign is less efficient and less productive than a simple and straight-forward telephone conversation. Accordingly, please provide a time when you are available to meet and confer telephonically tomorrow. Thank you, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [maiito:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:01 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com: thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, I will send a responsive meet and confer letter, which I hope to do in the next week or so. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles 0 T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com ornek From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:03 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B : Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com: thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, Following up. Please respond. Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 5:51 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, I write to follow up. Please provide a time this week when you are available to meet and confer. Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 2:07 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, Please provide a time during the coming week when you are available to meet and confer regarding Defendant's discovery responses and the opt-out notice. 8 Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 2:36 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; 'shaun@setarehlaw.com' Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Thank you for the extension to December 1, 2017, Stephanie. Are you available later this week for a call regarding Defendant's discovery responses and the opt-out notice? Regards, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:07 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I understand that you are concerned about timing. So that the parties may have adequate time to meet and confer, Defendant is amenable to granting Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time - to December 1, 2017 - within which to file any necessary motion to compel Defendant's further responses to her first sets of document requests, requests for admissions, special interrogatories and employment law form interrogatories. In the meantime, I anticipate getting back to you shortly on the substance of your meet and confer correspondences. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles © T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com ornek From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 3:32 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail 9 Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; shaun@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie: Following up. Please provide a time when you are available to meet and confer. Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 2:33 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, I look forward to your providing me with a time and date to discuss this discovery letter that I sent you last week, on September 21, 2017. My compel date is October 27, 2017 and the large number of deficient responses require no further delay given the time I will need to prepare and file the motion. Thank you, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 2:10 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, I am unavailable at that time. As mentioned, we are aiming to get back to you sometime next week. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associate Oriick Los Angeles 0 T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com 10 ornek From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 1:19 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, I will call you Monday, Oct. 2, 2017 at 2 p.m. unless I hear from you that another time works better. Thank you, Victoria From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:10 PM To: 'Lee, Stephanie Gail' Cc: 'Long, Timothy J.' ; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, Thanks for getting back to me. I am available Monday of next week at 2 pm. Does that work for you? I can call you then. Regards, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'Victoria Rivapalacio' Cc: Long, Timothy J. Subject: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, I understand you reached out to Tim. He is out of pocket, but we'll look to getting back to you sometime next week. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles © 11 T+1-213-612-2374 stephanie.lee@orrick.com NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/A'Avw.orricl<.coin. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http./A'/ww.orrick.com. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit htlp://www.orrick.com. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/Af/ww.orrick.com. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.ornck.com. 12 NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only