Preview
1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)
shaun(^setarehlaw.com
2 Thomas Segal (SBN 222791)
thomas(^setarehlaw.com
3 SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
4 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone: (310)888-7771
5 Facsunile: (310)888-0109
6 Attomeys for PlaintiflFTOMAS R. ARANA
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
=•12 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of Consol. No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
13 situated. Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable
Alan G. Perkins, Department 35
14 Plaintiff,
CLASS ACTION
15 vs.
16 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN
17 inclusive. SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION
18 Defendants.
Date: April 11,2019 at 10:00 a.m
19 Time: 10:00 a.m.
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Courtroom: Department 35
20 others similarly situated.
21 Plaintiff,
22 vs.
23 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
CaUfomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
24 inclusive.
25 Defendants.
26
27
28
Consol. No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Page 1 Spears v. Health Net of Califomia. Inc.
DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
1 DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL
2 I, Thomas Segal, declare as follows:
3 1. 1 am an attomey licensed to practice law and associated with Setareh Law Group
4 counsel of record for Plaintiff Tomas Arana. 1 have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
5 declaration, which are known by me to be tme and correct, and if called as a witness, I would testify
6 competently to them.
7 2. A tme and correct copy of an emailfromputative class member and declarant Micheal
8 Parker responding to an email sent by Setareh Law Group transmitting his declaration through
9 Docusign is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
10 3. A tme and correct copy of Health Net's December 4,2017 responses to Plaintiffs
11 Second Set of Special Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of Califomia and the United
13 States, that the foregoing is tme and correct.
14 Executed on March 15,2019, at Beverly Hills, Califomia.
15
16
^ THOMAS SEGAL
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Consol. No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Page 2 Spears v. Health Net of Califomia, Inc
DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State
of Califomia. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address
is 315 South Beveriy Drive, Suite 315 Beveriy Hills, CA 90212.
On March 15, 2019,1 served the foregoing documents described as:
6 DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION
7
in this action by transmitting a tme copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as
8 follows:
9
Stephanie Gail Lee Esq. Norma B. Blumenthal, Esq.
10 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Victoria B. Rivapalacio
777 Figueroa St Suite 3200 Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik
11 Los Angeles, CA 90017 2255 Calle Clara
12
Email: stephanie.lee@or05rick.com La Jolla, CA 92037
Email: tjlong(gorrick.com Email: victoria@bamlawca.com
13 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT HEALTH Email: noTm@bamlaca.com
NET, INC. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ANDREA
14 SPEARS.
15
Timothy J. Long Esq.
Nicholas J. Horton, Esq.
16 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
400 Capital MaU, Suite 3000
17 Sacramento, CA 95814
18
Email: tjlong@orrick.com
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT HEALTH
19 NET, INC.
20 [X] BY MAIL
21
I am readily familiar with the practice of Setareh Law Group for the collection and
22 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the
practice that correspondence is deposited with United States Postal Service the same day it is
23 submitted for mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, Califomia. 1 am
aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date
24
or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
25
[X] STATE
26
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above
27
is tme and correct.
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Executed on March 15, 2019, at Beverly Hills, Califomia.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
B • • ffi B ^
Exhibit 1
From: Mike Parker
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Calendar - Shared Account
Subject: Fw: Reminder: Please review & sign - Health Net Declaration
Hi Shaun,
My position was actually as a Desktop Services Technician.
Micheal Parker
916.216.9589
michealaparker@hotmail.com
From: DocuSign System on behalf of Shaun Setareh via DocuSign
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:05 AM
To: Micheal Parker
Subject: Reminder: Please review & sign - Health Net Declaration
Error! Filename not specified.
Shaun Setareh sent you a document to review and sign
Shaun Setareh
calendar@setarehlaw.com
Micheal,
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me last week regarding your experiences
while working at Health Net.
1 have finished writing up a declaration statement for you based on the conversation
that we had, and it is attached within the link in this email for you to view.
Please take a look at the document to make sure that everything is correct & accurate,
and once you have done so, you can place your signature/date at the bottom.
Let me know if anything is incorrect and I will make sure that it is corrected
immediately.
Thanks for your time, and hope you have a great rest of your week!
Powered by
Do Not Share This Email , ^ '
.This email contains a securetlinkitoOocuSignsRIease.'do .not share this emailr link; or a^
with others ' ^
Alternate Signing Method
Visit DocuSign com, click 'Access Documents', and enter the security code ^
4750A5D4A6DB4683B17b83EDCA0237001 '
About DocuSign '
Sign documents.electronically.iin,yust minutes;?lt's safe;~^^
„ aver, across the Siot^
SB S
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
ijlong@orrick.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Sacramemo, CA 95814-4497
4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
6 stephanie.lee@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street
Suite 3200
8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
9 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
10 Attorneys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14
15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
herself and on behalf of al! persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
16 situated,
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
17 Plaintiff, JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT 35
v. DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF
18
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO
19 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, PLAINTIFF TOMAS R. ARANA'S
inclusive, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
20 TWO
Defendants.
21 Complaint Filed: April 5,2017
FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
22
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
23 others similariy situated,
24 Plaintiff,
25
26 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
27
28 Defendant.
DLrBNDANr HEALTH NirTOI-CAIII ORNIA. INC S R|;SP0NS11S TO PLAIN HFl' S SPUCIAL INTERROOATORIES. SITP TWO
1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF TOMAS R. ARANA
2 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
3 SET NUMBER: TWO (2)
4 Pursuant to sections 2030 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant Health Net of
5 Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant") responds to the Second Set of Special Interrogatories served upon it
6 by Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana ("Plaintiff') as follows:
7 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
8 The following responses are made solely for the purpose of this litigation and are based on
9 information presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery is still ongoing and Defendant
10 reserves the right to supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or
11 to introduce such information at thetimeof the trial. .
12 Each response is subject lo all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality,
13 proprietary, subject matter, admissibility and any and all other objections or grounds that would
14 require exclusion of the responses or documents produced by Defendant, or any part thereof, if any
15 of these responses or documents were presented at court. All appropriate objections and grounds
16 are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence of a
17 response to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories.
18 No response lo these interrogatories constitutes or should be construed as an admission
19 respecting relevancy or admissibility ofthe disclosed information, or the truth or accuracy of any
20 statement, characterization or other fact contained in any response to these interrogatories.
21 Defendant expressly does not concede the relevancy or materiality of any of these interrogatories
22 or the subject matter to which they refer.
23 The fact that Defendant has responded to or objected to any interrogatory or part thereof
24 may not be taken as an admission about the existence or nonexistence of any fact, or that such
25 response constitutes relevant evidence. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these
26 responses. The fact that Defendant has responded to part or all of any interrogatory shall nol be
27 construed lo be a waiver of any objection to part or all of any other interrogatory. Nothing contained
28 herein shall be construed as an implied admission of the existence or nonexistence of any fact.
-1 -
DEFENDANT I lEAL 111 NET 01 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
I To the extent these interrogatories call for informaiion which constitutes material prepared
2 in anticipation of litigation or for trial, information or material protected by the altomey-client
3 privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and/or the common interest
4 privilege or any olher privilege. Defendant objects to each and every such interrogatory and will
5 nol supply or produce any such information. To the extent any interrogatory seeks information
6 relating to legal conclusions, opinions, theories and/or research of Defendant and Defendant's
7 counsel, Defendant objects and will not provide such informaiion. Moreover, in responding to any
8 interrogatory potentially calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant does not admit, either expressly
9 or impliedly, that any such response adopts any of the legal conclusions contained in the
10 interrogatory. These responses shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground
11 for objecting to discovery with respect.to such response, nor shall inadvertent disclosure waive the
12 right of Defendant lo object lo the use of such information during any subsequent proceeding.
13 To the extent any interrogatory seeks infonnation relating to confidential personnel or other
14 information of persons other than Plaintiff, Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory on
15 the grounds that such interrogatory is overbroad, seeks information lhat is not relevant to the subject
16 matter of this action, is nol reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
17 and invades the privacy rights of such other persons. To the extent any interrogatory violates
18 Defendant's righi to privacy or calls for ihe disclosure of confidential and/or proprietary
19 information or information otherwise protected as a trade secret. Defendant objects lo each and
20 every such interrogatory and will not supply or produce any such information except pursuant to a
21 Protective Order goveming the production of such information entered in this matter.
22 Defendant further objects to these interrogatories to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide
23 discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time.
24 Defendant objects to the purported definitions and instructions set forth in the
25 interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and
26 oppressive and Defendant undertakes no obligation except as those lhat may be provided by the
27 Code of Civil Procedure.
28
DEFENDANT IIEALIIINETOI' CALIIORNIA. INC.S RESPONSES TO PLAIN FIFF'S SPECIAL INiERROGATORIES, SET TWO
1 Defendant incorporates by this reference each and all of the foregoing General Objections
2 into the following enumerated Responses.
3 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5;
5 Please describe with as much specificity as possible the method(s) and types of records used
6 at any lime DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD to record hours worked by
7 POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS.
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
9 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections.
10 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous,
II including, but nol limiled lo, the terms and phrases "describe," "specificity," "melhod(s)," "types
12 of records used . . . to record," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "POTENTIAL CLASS
13 MEMBERS." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to
14 the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
15 evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
16 and/or proprietary business informaiion. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the
17 extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is
18 inappropriate at this time. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad,
19 harassing, burdensome and oppressive given that compiling the information would require a highly-
20 individualized inquiry.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
22 With respect to Defendant's non-exempt employees, such employees are responsible for accurately
23 recording their lime worked pursuant to Company policy. These non-exempt employees are
24 instmcted by Defendant to record the exacttimesthey work on a daily basis, including the time
25 they commence work, the time they take for meal periods, and the time they end their workday.
26 The time records as recorded by Defendant's non-exempt employees are the basis upon which they
27 are paid, i.e., they are paid for the time stated on their limesheets as time worked.
28
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
1 Prior to January 1,2017, Defendanl required ils non-exempt employees to report their exact
2 in, out and meal break times for each day into Defendant's electronictimekeeping system located
3 in "HR Link." The electronic timekeeping system required entries for the time the employees began
4 work, commenced a meal period, retumed fi-om a meal period, and stopped working for the day.
5 When non-exempt employees "submitted" their time, they certified that the hours they had entered
6 accurately reflect the time they actually worked.
7 Starting in January 1, 2017 and continuing to the present. Defendant's non-employees use
8 the EmpCenter Time Reporting system lo record hours worked. Non-exempt employees report
9 time worked using a web clock. Each non-exempt employee must record thetimehe or she begins
10 working for the day, lakes a meal break, starts working after the meal break, and slops working for
11 the day. When non-exempt employees "submit" their lime, Ihey are certifying that the information
12 entered is true and correct.
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
14 Please explain why this case should not be certified as a class action and IDENTIFY by
15 bates number all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR assertion that this case should not be certified
16 as a class action.
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
18 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary siatement and ils general objections.
19 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous,
20 including, but not limited lo, the terms "explain why," "certified." and "IDENTIFY,"
21 "DOCUMENTS" "support" and "assertion." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
22 grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive given that compiling the information
23 would require a highly-individualized inquiry. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on
24 the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on
25 the grounds lhat it is a compound.
26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
27 Class certification in this action is inappropriate for many reasons. This case involves a
28 complicated patchwork of alleged subclasses and certification theories attempting to sweep in
-4-
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INCS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SEP TWO
1 thousands of putative class members in hundreds of different job titles over the course of over four
2 years during which Defendant has undergone a shift in ownership and, as a result, change in certain
3 relevant policies and procedures. Adjudication of Plaintiffs claims on a class-wide basis is simply
4 untenable.
5 For example, with respect to the putative subclasses of non-exempt employees, at all
6 relevant times, Defendant maintained legally compliant policies regarding houriy compensation,
7 recording of time worked and breaks taken, provision of meal and rest breaks, calculation of
8 employees' regular rale of pay for purposes of overtime compensation, payment of wages at
9 termination and provision of wage statemenls. Individualized inquiries are necessary to determine
10 whether any employee was not provided compliant meal or rest breaks or premiums or properly
11 waived them, was due unpaid wages including overtime, received correct wage statements and/or
12 was injured by these wage statements, and/or did nol receive all wages due at termination. This is
13 especially true given that putative class members worked al different locations, for different
14 employers, under different timekeeping systems, in a plelhora of different positions with varying
15 job requirements, under different supervisors and under different working conditions - e.g., even
16 Defendant's two call centers vary in services provided and employee responsibilities depending on
17 such things as supervisor preferences and customers serviced. Thus, the circumstances of
18 Plaintiffs employment he was a non-exempt employees of Defendant differfi'omthose of other
19 putative class members. Further, the circumstances regarding Plaintiffs timesheet and timekeeping
20 records dating back to when he was non-exempt employee evidence individual differences,
21 including whelher he properly recorded his hours and whether and how he followed Defendant's
22 reasonable policies and procedures. To the extent Plaintiff failed to follow Defendant's
23 timekeeping policies and procedures, he cannot represent employees who did.
24 Moreover, as to the putative subclass of employees that Plaintiff claims was misclassified
25 as exempt, class certification is likewise inappropriate. For example, the work actually performed
26 by Plaintiff as an exempt Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given week varies greatly - nol only
27 from the work actually performed by other Call Center Systems Analysts and other members ofthe
28 "Exempt Class" he purports to represent, but it also varies week by week even for himself For
-5-
DEFENDANT HEALTH NETOF CALIIORNIA. INCS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
example, the work Plaintiff aclually performs as a Call Center Systems Analyst 1 in any given week
2 depends heavily on such factors as the project on which he is working, how many employees he is
3 supervising on the project, who he reports to for the project, whether he has multiple projects going
4 on at once, and so on.
5 In terms ofthe type and substance of work actually performed in any given week, members
6 of the "Exempt Class" vary significantly. For example, since Plaintiff works in a call center, his
7 overarching duties include making recommendations for and executing improvements to call center
8 policies and procedures. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the call center by researching
9 and helping to address root causes of escalated issues and ensuring timely resolution. Moreover,
10 he lakes the lead on various call center projects, identifies requirements for new processes and
11 procedures, and makes recommendations for system enhancements. By contrast, for example.
12 Business Analysts who work in the current G&A Claims Administration department are generally
13 responsible for analyzing claims thai have been escalated lo the Legal Departmeni for purposes of
14 evaluating the significance, level of exposure and correct outcome of claim adjudication. This
15 process entails reviewing individual claims and making recommendations on the outcomes of the
16 disputes, which are supported by the individual Business Analysts'findings,analysis and data.
17 Business Analysis in this group are tasked with understanding and interpreting the specific terms
18 of the contract at issue in order to make a determination of whether a claim has been processed
19 correctly, and identifying any discrepancies that explain or help resolve the escalation of the matter
20 to Legal. Suffice to say, work actually performed by members ofthe "Exempt Class" in any given
21 workweek varies greatly.
22 In addition to these variances, if any member of Plaintiffs "Exempt Class" did nol spend
23 at least half his or her workweek performing exempt duties, whether that employee's performance
24 was consistent with Defendant's realistic expectations also necessitates an individualized inquiry.
25 These are just some of the reasons why Plaintiff cannot meet class certification
26 requirements. Moreover, this response is based on based on information presently known and
27 available to Defendant. Discovery in this action is still ongoing and Defendant reserves therightto
28
DEFENDANT HEALTH NETOF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
1 supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or lo introduce such
2 information at the time of the trial.
3 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers
4 to documents produced concurrently herewith and in connection with this litigation.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
6 For each DOCUMENT produced by YOU in response to PlaintifPs Request for Production
7 of Documents, please IDENTIFY by bales number which DOCUMENTS are responsive to each
8 request.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
10 Defendant incorporates in full herein ils preliminary statement and its general objections.
II Defendanl also objects to Ihis Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous,
12 including, but not limiled lo, the terms "DOCUMENT," "identify" and "responsive to each
13 request." Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, compound,
14 unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant lo the subject matter of this action
15 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further
16 objects lo this Interrogatory on the ground lhal it seeks to require Defendanl to create a summary
17 or compilation of information contained in documents and records, which is not required pursuant
18 lo Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.
19 Subject to and without waiving ihe foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
20 Defendant will comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a).
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
22 Please IDENTIFY by bates stamp number all DOCUMENTS lhat support any of your
23 affirmative defenses and explain why each DOCUMENT supports YOUR affirmative defenses.
24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
25 Defendant incorporates in full herein ils preliminary slalemeni and its general objections.
26 Defendanl also objects lo this Interrogatory on ihe grounds lhat it is vague and ambiguous,
27 including, but not limiled lo, the terms "IDENTIFY," "DOCUMENTS," "support/s," "affirmative
28 defenses" and "explain why." Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is
.7.
DErENDANT HEALUI NCF QF CALIIORNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAIN flFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
1 overbroad, compound, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to
2 the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the atlomey-client privilege and/or attomey
3 work-product doclrine. Defendant further objects lo this Interrogatory on the ground lhat it seeks
4 lo require Defendant to create a summary or compilation of information contained in documents
5 and records, which is nol required pursuant lo Code of Civil Procedure seclion 2030.230.
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
7 Defendant will comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a).
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
9 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relied upon in answering these interrogatories.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9;
11 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections.
12 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous,
13 including, but not limited to, the terms "IDENTIFY," "DOCUMENTS" "relied upon" and
14 "answering." Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad,
15 compound, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects lo this Interrogatory to the extent
16 Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or atlomey work-product
17 doclrine. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks to require
18 Defendant to create a summary or compilation of information contained in documents and records,
19 which is not required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
21 Defendant will comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a).
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
23 Please IDENTIFY each person answering these interrogatories or any person who
24 contributed any informaiion used in answering these interrogatories. If more than one person
25 provided Uic answers or information, please stale the specific interrogatories answered by each
26 person.
27
28
8
DEFENDANT IIEALFH NEF OF CALIFORNIA, INC'S RESPONSES 10 PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
2 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections.
3 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous,
4 including, but not limited to, the terms "IDENTIFY," "person" "answering," "information," "used
5 in" and "provided." Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent Plaintiff seeks
6 information protected by the altomey-clienl privilege and/or attomey work-product doclrine.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
8 For each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in the
9 pleadings, please state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
11 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and ils general objections.
12 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that il is vague and ambiguous,
13 including, but not limited lo, the terms "denial of a material allegation," "special" "affirmative,"
14 "pleadings" and "all facts." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it inquires
15 into all facts upon which il bases its denial of the material allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint and
16 its affirmative defenses on the grounds lhat it is overiy broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and
17 expensive as it Hterally requires the response to set forth each and every fact involved in Plaintiffs
18 action relating to numerous allegations. There are less burdensome and less expensive means
19 available to discover Uiis informaiion. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory insofar as il
20 seeks merits discovery conceming Plaintiffs meal, rest, off-the-clock and exemptions claims.
21 Merits discovery should, as a general matter, take place after certification discovery. As Plaintiff
22 knows. Defendant has asked the Court to bifurcate discovery as to these claims. Defendant further
23 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and lacks sufficient
24 specificity and clarity for an appropriate response lo be made. Defendant also objects to this
25 interrogalory lo the extent the information sought is equally available to Plaintiff.
26 Additionally, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff s complaint.
27 The denial of material allegations and the pleading of affirmative defenses is done so by this
28 responding party as a matter of right, and is based upon the applicable provisions of the Code of
-9-
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGA TORIES. SET TWO
1 Civil Procedure, which permits such pleadings in order to put Plaintiff lo his burden of proof,
2 including, but not limited to, thefilingof a general denial as a matter ofrightunder Code of Civil
3 Procedure section 431.30(d). Thus, the portion of this interrogatory requesting the identification
4 of each denial of the material allegations is inapplicable, and Defendant further objects to the
5 interrogatory on this basis. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent lhat
6 disclosure of the information sought would violale the privacy rights of Defendant under the
7 Constitution of the United Slates and the State of Califomia and under common law privacy
8 principles. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory lo the extent il seeks infonnation privileged
9 and confidential pursuant to the altomey-client communication privilege and the attomey work-
10 product doctrine or concems information obtained in anticipation of litigation.
11 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing. Defendant responds as follows: With respect
12 to Defendant's "affirmative defense" that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements for a class action,
13 class certification in this action is inappropriate for many reasons. This case involves a complicated
14 patchwork of alleged subclasses and certification theories attempting to sweep in thousands of
15 putative class members in hundreds of different jobtitlesover the course of over four years during
16 which Defendant has undergone a shift in ownership and, as a result, change in certain relevant
17 policies and procedures. Adjudication of Plaintiffs claims on a class-wide basis is simply
18 untenable.
19 For example, with respect to the putative subclasses of non-exempt employees, at all
20 relevant limes, Defendant maintained legally compliant policies regarding houriy compensation,
21 recording of time worked and breaks taken, provision of meal and rest breaks, calculation of
22 employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation, payment of wages at
23 termination and provision of wage statements. Individualized inquiries are necessary to determine
24 whether any employee was not provided compliant meal or rest breaks or premiums or properiy
25 waived them, was due unpaid wages including overtime, received correct wage statements and/or
26 was injured by these wage statements, and/or did not receive all wages due at termination. This is
27 especially true given that putative class members worked at different locations, for different
28 employers, under different timekeeping systems, in a plethora of different positions with varying
-10-
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
1 job requirements, under different supervisors and under different working conditions - e.g., even
2 Defendant's two call centers vary in services provided and employee responsibilities depending on
3 such things as supervisor preferences and customers serviced. Thus, the circumstances of
4 Plaintiffs employment he was a non-exempt employees of Defendanl differ from those of other
5 putative class members. Further, the circumstances regarding Plaintiffs timesheet and timekeeping
6 records dating back to when he was non-exempt employee evidence individual differences,
7 including whether he properiy recorded his hours and whether and how he followed Defendant's
8 reasonable policies and procedures. To the extent Plaintiff failed to follow Defendant's
9 timekeeping policies and procedures, he cannot represent employees who did.
10 Moreover, as to the putative subclass of employees that Plaintiff claims was misclassified
11 as exempt, class certification is likewise inappropriate. For example, the work actually performed
12 by Plaintiff as an exempt Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given week varies greatly - not only
13 from the work actually performed by other Call Center Systems Analysts and other members of the
14 "Exempt Class" he purports to represent, but il also varies week by week even for himself For
15 example, the work Plaintiff actually performs as a Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given week
16 depends heavily on such factors as the project on which he is working, how many employees he is
17 supervising on the project, who he reports to for the project, whether he has multiple projects going
18 on at once, and so on.
19 In terms of the type and substance of work actually performed in any given week, members
20 of the "Exempt Class" vary significantly. For example, since Plaintiff works in a call center, his
21 overarching duties include making recommendations for and executing improvements to call center
22 policies and procedures. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the call center by researching
23 and helping to address root causes of escalated issues and ensuringtimelyresolution. Moreover,
24 he lakes ihe lead on various call cenlcr projects, identifies requirements for new processes and
25 procedures, and makes recommendations for system enhancements. By contrast, for example.
26 Business Analysts who work in the current G&A Claims Administration departmeni are generally
27 responsible for analyzing claims that have been escalated to the Legal Department for purposes of
28 evaluating the significance, level of exposure and correct outcome of claim adjudication. This
-11-
DEI ENDANTI lEALTI I NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
1 process entails reviewing individual claims and making recommendations on the outcomes ofthe
2 disputes, which are supported by the individual Business Analysts'findings,analysis and data.
3 Business Analysts in this group are tasked with underslanding and interpreting the specific terms
4 of the contract at issue in order lo make a determination of whelher a claim has been processed
5 cortectly, and identifying any discrepancies that explain or help resolve the escalation of the matter
6 lo Legal. Suffice to say, work actually performed by members of the "Exempt Class" in any given
7 workweek varies greatly.
8 In addition to these variances, if any member of Plaintiff s "Exempt Class" did nol spend
9 at least half his or her workweek performing exempt duties, whether that employee's performance
10 was consistent with Defendant's realistic expectations also necessitates an individualized inquiry.
11 These are just some of the reasons why Plaintiff cannot meet class certification
12 requirements. Moreover, this response is based on based on information presently known and
13 available to Defendanl. Discovery in this action is still ongoing and Defendant reserves therightto
14 supplement these responses with subsequently discovered informaiion and/or to introduce such
15 information at the lime ofthe Irial.
16 As for Plaintiffs regular rate claim. Defendant paid one non-discretionary bonus to certain
17 putative class members during the relevant time period - ACA Customer Service Center & Claims
18 Representative Pay for Performance Incentives - which was included in recipients' regular rale of
19 pay. Defendant also paid certain putative class members discretionary bonuses - P.R.I.D.E.
20 Awards, SPOT Cash Awards and Key Contributor Program Awards - which were not included in
21 the regular rale. Moreover, Defendant included shift differentials the regular rate.
22 As for Plaintiffs rounding claim, during the relevant time period. Defendant did not round
23 ils employees' recorded time for purposes of generating paychecks.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
25 Please explain, with as much specificity as possible, how PLAINTIFF and other
26 POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS are paid for all hours worked.
27
28
12
DEFENDANl IIEALIII NETOF CALIFORNIA, INC. S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
2 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and ils general objections.
3 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous,
4 including, but not limited to, the terms and phrases "explain," "with as much specificity as
5 possible," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "paid for all hours worked." Defendant also
6 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive
7 given lhal compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult and would require an
8 individualized inquiry. Defendant further objects lo this interrogatory lo the extent Plaintiff seeks
9 class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time.
10 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds lhat it seeks confidential and/or
11 proprietary business information.
12 Subjecl lo and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendanl responds as follows:
13 With respect to Defendant's non-exempt employees, such employees are responsible for accurately
14 recording their time worked pursuant lo Company policy. These non-exempt employees are
15 instmcted by Defendant to record the exact times they work on a daily basis, including the time
16 they report to work, the lime they take for meal periods, and the lime they end their workday. The
17 lime records as recorded by Defendant's non-exempt employees are the basis upon which they are
18 paid, i.e., they are paid for the time lhat they stale on their timesheets as time worked.
19 Prior to January 1,2017, Defendanl required its non-exempt employees to report their exact
20 in, out and meal breaktimesfor each day into Defendant's electronic time keeping system located
21 in "HR Link." The electronic timekeeping system required entries for the time the employees began
22 work, commenced a meal period, relumed from a meal period, and slopped working for the day.
23 When non-exempt employees "submitted" their lime, they certified that the hours they had entered
24 accurately reflect the time Ihey aclually worked. Defendant then paid the non-exempt employees
25 based on the time that they reported.
26 Starting in January 1,2017 and continuing lo the present, Defendant's non-employees use
27 the EmpCenler Time Reporting system to record hours worked. Non-exempt employees report
28 time worked using a web clock. Each non-exempt employee musl record thetimehe or she begins
- 13-
DEFENDANT HEALTH NETOF CALIFOKNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO
1 working for the day, lakes a meal break, starts working after the meal break, and stops working for
2 the day. When non-exempt employees "submit" theirtime,they are certifying lhat the information
3 entered is true and correct. Defendanl then pays Ihe non-exempt employees based on the time that
4 they report.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13;
6 Please explain, with as much specificity as possible, how YOU maintained accurate records
7 of start times and end times for each work shift for PLAINTIFF and other POTENTIAL CLASS
8 MEMBERS.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
10 Defendant incorporates in full herein ils preliminary siatement and its general objections.
II Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds lhat it is vague and ambiguous,
12 including, but not limited to, the terms and phrases "explain," "as much specificity as possible,"
13 "maintained," "accurate records," "start times," "end times," "work shift," and "POTENTIAL
14 CLASS MEMBERS." Defendant further objects lo this interrogatory to the extent Plaintiff seeks
15 class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time.
16 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and
17 oppressive given that compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult and expensive
18 and would require an individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
19 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
21 Defendant maintains these records in ils electronic databases as required by Califomia law.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
23 Please explain with as much specificity as possible how POTENTIAL CLASS
24 MEMBERS were provided meal breaks.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
26 Defendant incorporates in fiill herein ils preliminary siatement and its general objections.
27 Defendant also objects to this Inlerrogalory on the grounds that il is vague and ambiguous,
28 including, but not limited to, the terms and phrases, "explain," "with as much specificity as
-14-
DEFENDANT HCALni NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESI>ONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET! WO
possible," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS," "were provided" and "meal breaks." Defendanl
2 further objects to this interrogalory to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class
3 is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects to this
4 interrogalory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, given that
5 compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult and expensive and would require a
6 highly-individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds lhat it
7 seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
8 Subjecl to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
9 During the relevant time period. Defendant provided meal breaks to its non-exempt employees in
JO accordance with ils California-compliant meal break policy.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
12 For each POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER, please stale how many meal break premiums
13 have been paid DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
15 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections.
16 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and„_ainbiguous,
17 including, bul not limited to, the terms "state," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER," "paid" and
18 "meal break premiums." Defendant further objects lo this interrogatory lo the extent Plaintiff seeks
19 class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discov
Preview
1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) shaun(^setarehlaw.com 2 Thomas Segal (SBN 222791) thomas(^setarehlaw.com 3 SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 4 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone: (310)888-7771 5 Facsunile: (310)888-0109 6 Attomeys for PlaintiflFTOMAS R. ARANA 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 =•12 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of Consol. No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS herself and on behalf of all persons similarly 13 situated. Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Alan G. Perkins, Department 35 14 Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION 15 vs. 16 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN 17 inclusive. SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION 18 Defendants. Date: April 11,2019 at 10:00 a.m 19 Time: 10:00 a.m. TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Courtroom: Department 35 20 others similarly situated. 21 Plaintiff, 22 vs. 23 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CaUfomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 24 inclusive. 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 Consol. No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Page 1 Spears v. Health Net of Califomia. Inc. DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 1 DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL 2 I, Thomas Segal, declare as follows: 3 1. 1 am an attomey licensed to practice law and associated with Setareh Law Group 4 counsel of record for Plaintiff Tomas Arana. 1 have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this 5 declaration, which are known by me to be tme and correct, and if called as a witness, I would testify 6 competently to them. 7 2. A tme and correct copy of an emailfromputative class member and declarant Micheal 8 Parker responding to an email sent by Setareh Law Group transmitting his declaration through 9 Docusign is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 10 3. A tme and correct copy of Health Net's December 4,2017 responses to Plaintiffs 11 Second Set of Special Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of Califomia and the United 13 States, that the foregoing is tme and correct. 14 Executed on March 15,2019, at Beverly Hills, Califomia. 15 16 ^ THOMAS SEGAL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Consol. No. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS Page 2 Spears v. Health Net of Califomia, Inc DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PROOF OF SERVICE 1 am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 315 South Beveriy Drive, Suite 315 Beveriy Hills, CA 90212. On March 15, 2019,1 served the foregoing documents described as: 6 DECLARATION OF THOMAS SEGAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION 7 in this action by transmitting a tme copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as 8 follows: 9 Stephanie Gail Lee Esq. Norma B. Blumenthal, Esq. 10 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Victoria B. Rivapalacio 777 Figueroa St Suite 3200 Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik 11 Los Angeles, CA 90017 2255 Calle Clara 12 Email: stephanie.lee@or05rick.com La Jolla, CA 92037 Email: tjlong(gorrick.com Email: victoria@bamlawca.com 13 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT HEALTH Email: noTm@bamlaca.com NET, INC. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ANDREA 14 SPEARS. 15 Timothy J. Long Esq. Nicholas J. Horton, Esq. 16 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 400 Capital MaU, Suite 3000 17 Sacramento, CA 95814 18 Email: tjlong@orrick.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT HEALTH 19 NET, INC. 20 [X] BY MAIL 21 I am readily familiar with the practice of Setareh Law Group for the collection and 22 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the practice that correspondence is deposited with United States Postal Service the same day it is 23 submitted for mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, Califomia. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 24 or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 25 [X] STATE 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above 27 is tme and correct. 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Executed on March 15, 2019, at Beverly Hills, Califomia. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE B • • ffi B ^ Exhibit 1 From: Mike Parker Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:20 AM To: Calendar - Shared Account Subject: Fw: Reminder: Please review & sign - Health Net Declaration Hi Shaun, My position was actually as a Desktop Services Technician. Micheal Parker 916.216.9589 michealaparker@hotmail.com From: DocuSign System on behalf of Shaun Setareh via DocuSign Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:05 AM To: Micheal Parker Subject: Reminder: Please review & sign - Health Net Declaration Error! Filename not specified. Shaun Setareh sent you a document to review and sign Shaun Setareh calendar@setarehlaw.com Micheal, Thanks for taking the time to speak with me last week regarding your experiences while working at Health Net. 1 have finished writing up a declaration statement for you based on the conversation that we had, and it is attached within the link in this email for you to view. Please take a look at the document to make sure that everything is correct & accurate, and once you have done so, you can place your signature/date at the bottom. Let me know if anything is incorrect and I will make sure that it is corrected immediately. Thanks for your time, and hope you have a great rest of your week! Powered by Do Not Share This Email , ^ ' .This email contains a securetlinkitoOocuSignsRIease.'do .not share this emailr link; or a^ with others ' ^ Alternate Signing Method Visit DocuSign com, click 'Access Documents', and enter the security code ^ 4750A5D4A6DB4683B17b83EDCA0237001 ' About DocuSign ' Sign documents.electronically.iin,yust minutes;?lt's safe;~^^ „ aver, across the Siot^ SB S 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) ijlong@orrick.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Sacramemo, CA 95814-4497 4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) 6 stephanie.lee@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street Suite 3200 8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 9 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 10 Attorneys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- herself and on behalf of al! persons similarly CU-OE-GDS 16 situated, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 17 Plaintiff, JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT 35 v. DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF 18 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO 19 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, PLAINTIFF TOMAS R. ARANA'S inclusive, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 20 TWO Defendants. 21 Complaint Filed: April 5,2017 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 23 others similariy situated, 24 Plaintiff, 25 26 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 27 28 Defendant. DLrBNDANr HEALTH NirTOI-CAIII ORNIA. INC S R|;SP0NS11S TO PLAIN HFl' S SPUCIAL INTERROOATORIES. SITP TWO 1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF TOMAS R. ARANA 2 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 3 SET NUMBER: TWO (2) 4 Pursuant to sections 2030 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant Health Net of 5 Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant") responds to the Second Set of Special Interrogatories served upon it 6 by Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana ("Plaintiff') as follows: 7 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 8 The following responses are made solely for the purpose of this litigation and are based on 9 information presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery is still ongoing and Defendant 10 reserves the right to supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or 11 to introduce such information at thetimeof the trial. . 12 Each response is subject lo all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, 13 proprietary, subject matter, admissibility and any and all other objections or grounds that would 14 require exclusion of the responses or documents produced by Defendant, or any part thereof, if any 15 of these responses or documents were presented at court. All appropriate objections and grounds 16 are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence of a 17 response to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories. 18 No response lo these interrogatories constitutes or should be construed as an admission 19 respecting relevancy or admissibility ofthe disclosed information, or the truth or accuracy of any 20 statement, characterization or other fact contained in any response to these interrogatories. 21 Defendant expressly does not concede the relevancy or materiality of any of these interrogatories 22 or the subject matter to which they refer. 23 The fact that Defendant has responded to or objected to any interrogatory or part thereof 24 may not be taken as an admission about the existence or nonexistence of any fact, or that such 25 response constitutes relevant evidence. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these 26 responses. The fact that Defendant has responded to part or all of any interrogatory shall nol be 27 construed lo be a waiver of any objection to part or all of any other interrogatory. Nothing contained 28 herein shall be construed as an implied admission of the existence or nonexistence of any fact. -1 - DEFENDANT I lEAL 111 NET 01 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO I To the extent these interrogatories call for informaiion which constitutes material prepared 2 in anticipation of litigation or for trial, information or material protected by the altomey-client 3 privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and/or the common interest 4 privilege or any olher privilege. Defendant objects to each and every such interrogatory and will 5 nol supply or produce any such information. To the extent any interrogatory seeks information 6 relating to legal conclusions, opinions, theories and/or research of Defendant and Defendant's 7 counsel, Defendant objects and will not provide such informaiion. Moreover, in responding to any 8 interrogatory potentially calling for a legal conclusion. Defendant does not admit, either expressly 9 or impliedly, that any such response adopts any of the legal conclusions contained in the 10 interrogatory. These responses shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground 11 for objecting to discovery with respect.to such response, nor shall inadvertent disclosure waive the 12 right of Defendant lo object lo the use of such information during any subsequent proceeding. 13 To the extent any interrogatory seeks infonnation relating to confidential personnel or other 14 information of persons other than Plaintiff, Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory on 15 the grounds that such interrogatory is overbroad, seeks information lhat is not relevant to the subject 16 matter of this action, is nol reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 17 and invades the privacy rights of such other persons. To the extent any interrogatory violates 18 Defendant's righi to privacy or calls for ihe disclosure of confidential and/or proprietary 19 information or information otherwise protected as a trade secret. Defendant objects lo each and 20 every such interrogatory and will not supply or produce any such information except pursuant to a 21 Protective Order goveming the production of such information entered in this matter. 22 Defendant further objects to these interrogatories to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide 23 discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. 24 Defendant objects to the purported definitions and instructions set forth in the 25 interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and 26 oppressive and Defendant undertakes no obligation except as those lhat may be provided by the 27 Code of Civil Procedure. 28 DEFENDANT IIEALIIINETOI' CALIIORNIA. INC.S RESPONSES TO PLAIN FIFF'S SPECIAL INiERROGATORIES, SET TWO 1 Defendant incorporates by this reference each and all of the foregoing General Objections 2 into the following enumerated Responses. 3 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5; 5 Please describe with as much specificity as possible the method(s) and types of records used 6 at any lime DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD to record hours worked by 7 POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS. 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 9 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections. 10 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, II including, but nol limiled lo, the terms and phrases "describe," "specificity," "melhod(s)," "types 12 of records used . . . to record," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "POTENTIAL CLASS 13 MEMBERS." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to 14 the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 15 evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 16 and/or proprietary business informaiion. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the 17 extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is 18 inappropriate at this time. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, 19 harassing, burdensome and oppressive given that compiling the information would require a highly- 20 individualized inquiry. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 22 With respect to Defendant's non-exempt employees, such employees are responsible for accurately 23 recording their lime worked pursuant to Company policy. These non-exempt employees are 24 instmcted by Defendant to record the exacttimesthey work on a daily basis, including the time 25 they commence work, the time they take for meal periods, and the time they end their workday. 26 The time records as recorded by Defendant's non-exempt employees are the basis upon which they 27 are paid, i.e., they are paid for the time stated on their limesheets as time worked. 28 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO 1 Prior to January 1,2017, Defendanl required ils non-exempt employees to report their exact 2 in, out and meal break times for each day into Defendant's electronictimekeeping system located 3 in "HR Link." The electronic timekeeping system required entries for the time the employees began 4 work, commenced a meal period, retumed fi-om a meal period, and stopped working for the day. 5 When non-exempt employees "submitted" their time, they certified that the hours they had entered 6 accurately reflect the time they actually worked. 7 Starting in January 1, 2017 and continuing to the present. Defendant's non-employees use 8 the EmpCenter Time Reporting system lo record hours worked. Non-exempt employees report 9 time worked using a web clock. Each non-exempt employee must record thetimehe or she begins 10 working for the day, lakes a meal break, starts working after the meal break, and slops working for 11 the day. When non-exempt employees "submit" their lime, Ihey are certifying that the information 12 entered is true and correct. 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 14 Please explain why this case should not be certified as a class action and IDENTIFY by 15 bates number all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR assertion that this case should not be certified 16 as a class action. 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 18 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary siatement and ils general objections. 19 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, 20 including, but not limited lo, the terms "explain why," "certified." and "IDENTIFY," 21 "DOCUMENTS" "support" and "assertion." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 22 grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive given that compiling the information 23 would require a highly-individualized inquiry. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on 24 the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on 25 the grounds lhat it is a compound. 26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 27 Class certification in this action is inappropriate for many reasons. This case involves a 28 complicated patchwork of alleged subclasses and certification theories attempting to sweep in -4- DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INCS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SEP TWO 1 thousands of putative class members in hundreds of different job titles over the course of over four 2 years during which Defendant has undergone a shift in ownership and, as a result, change in certain 3 relevant policies and procedures. Adjudication of Plaintiffs claims on a class-wide basis is simply 4 untenable. 5 For example, with respect to the putative subclasses of non-exempt employees, at all 6 relevant times, Defendant maintained legally compliant policies regarding houriy compensation, 7 recording of time worked and breaks taken, provision of meal and rest breaks, calculation of 8 employees' regular rale of pay for purposes of overtime compensation, payment of wages at 9 termination and provision of wage statemenls. Individualized inquiries are necessary to determine 10 whether any employee was not provided compliant meal or rest breaks or premiums or properly 11 waived them, was due unpaid wages including overtime, received correct wage statements and/or 12 was injured by these wage statements, and/or did nol receive all wages due at termination. This is 13 especially true given that putative class members worked al different locations, for different 14 employers, under different timekeeping systems, in a plelhora of different positions with varying 15 job requirements, under different supervisors and under different working conditions - e.g., even 16 Defendant's two call centers vary in services provided and employee responsibilities depending on 17 such things as supervisor preferences and customers serviced. Thus, the circumstances of 18 Plaintiffs employment he was a non-exempt employees of Defendant differfi'omthose of other 19 putative class members. Further, the circumstances regarding Plaintiffs timesheet and timekeeping 20 records dating back to when he was non-exempt employee evidence individual differences, 21 including whelher he properly recorded his hours and whether and how he followed Defendant's 22 reasonable policies and procedures. To the extent Plaintiff failed to follow Defendant's 23 timekeeping policies and procedures, he cannot represent employees who did. 24 Moreover, as to the putative subclass of employees that Plaintiff claims was misclassified 25 as exempt, class certification is likewise inappropriate. For example, the work actually performed 26 by Plaintiff as an exempt Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given week varies greatly - nol only 27 from the work actually performed by other Call Center Systems Analysts and other members ofthe 28 "Exempt Class" he purports to represent, but it also varies week by week even for himself For -5- DEFENDANT HEALTH NETOF CALIIORNIA. INCS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO example, the work Plaintiff aclually performs as a Call Center Systems Analyst 1 in any given week 2 depends heavily on such factors as the project on which he is working, how many employees he is 3 supervising on the project, who he reports to for the project, whether he has multiple projects going 4 on at once, and so on. 5 In terms ofthe type and substance of work actually performed in any given week, members 6 of the "Exempt Class" vary significantly. For example, since Plaintiff works in a call center, his 7 overarching duties include making recommendations for and executing improvements to call center 8 policies and procedures. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the call center by researching 9 and helping to address root causes of escalated issues and ensuring timely resolution. Moreover, 10 he lakes the lead on various call center projects, identifies requirements for new processes and 11 procedures, and makes recommendations for system enhancements. By contrast, for example. 12 Business Analysts who work in the current G&A Claims Administration department are generally 13 responsible for analyzing claims thai have been escalated lo the Legal Departmeni for purposes of 14 evaluating the significance, level of exposure and correct outcome of claim adjudication. This 15 process entails reviewing individual claims and making recommendations on the outcomes of the 16 disputes, which are supported by the individual Business Analysts'findings,analysis and data. 17 Business Analysis in this group are tasked with understanding and interpreting the specific terms 18 of the contract at issue in order to make a determination of whether a claim has been processed 19 correctly, and identifying any discrepancies that explain or help resolve the escalation of the matter 20 to Legal. Suffice to say, work actually performed by members ofthe "Exempt Class" in any given 21 workweek varies greatly. 22 In addition to these variances, if any member of Plaintiffs "Exempt Class" did nol spend 23 at least half his or her workweek performing exempt duties, whether that employee's performance 24 was consistent with Defendant's realistic expectations also necessitates an individualized inquiry. 25 These are just some of the reasons why Plaintiff cannot meet class certification 26 requirements. Moreover, this response is based on based on information presently known and 27 available to Defendant. Discovery in this action is still ongoing and Defendant reserves therightto 28 DEFENDANT HEALTH NETOF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO 1 supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or lo introduce such 2 information at the time of the trial. 3 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers 4 to documents produced concurrently herewith and in connection with this litigation. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 6 For each DOCUMENT produced by YOU in response to PlaintifPs Request for Production 7 of Documents, please IDENTIFY by bales number which DOCUMENTS are responsive to each 8 request. 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 10 Defendant incorporates in full herein ils preliminary statement and its general objections. II Defendanl also objects to Ihis Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, 12 including, but not limiled lo, the terms "DOCUMENT," "identify" and "responsive to each 13 request." Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, compound, 14 unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant lo the subject matter of this action 15 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further 16 objects lo this Interrogatory on the ground lhal it seeks to require Defendanl to create a summary 17 or compilation of information contained in documents and records, which is not required pursuant 18 lo Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. 19 Subject to and without waiving ihe foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 20 Defendant will comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a). 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 22 Please IDENTIFY by bates stamp number all DOCUMENTS lhat support any of your 23 affirmative defenses and explain why each DOCUMENT supports YOUR affirmative defenses. 24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 25 Defendant incorporates in full herein ils preliminary slalemeni and its general objections. 26 Defendanl also objects lo this Interrogatory on ihe grounds lhat it is vague and ambiguous, 27 including, but not limiled lo, the terms "IDENTIFY," "DOCUMENTS," "support/s," "affirmative 28 defenses" and "explain why." Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is .7. DErENDANT HEALUI NCF QF CALIIORNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAIN flFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO 1 overbroad, compound, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to 2 the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the atlomey-client privilege and/or attomey 3 work-product doclrine. Defendant further objects lo this Interrogatory on the ground lhat it seeks 4 lo require Defendant to create a summary or compilation of information contained in documents 5 and records, which is nol required pursuant lo Code of Civil Procedure seclion 2030.230. 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 7 Defendant will comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a). 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 9 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relied upon in answering these interrogatories. 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9; 11 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections. 12 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, 13 including, but not limited to, the terms "IDENTIFY," "DOCUMENTS" "relied upon" and 14 "answering." Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, 15 compound, and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects lo this Interrogatory to the extent 16 Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or atlomey work-product 17 doclrine. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks to require 18 Defendant to create a summary or compilation of information contained in documents and records, 19 which is not required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. 20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 21 Defendant will comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a). 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 23 Please IDENTIFY each person answering these interrogatories or any person who 24 contributed any informaiion used in answering these interrogatories. If more than one person 25 provided Uic answers or information, please stale the specific interrogatories answered by each 26 person. 27 28 8 DEFENDANT IIEALFH NEF OF CALIFORNIA, INC'S RESPONSES 10 PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 2 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections. 3 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, 4 including, but not limited to, the terms "IDENTIFY," "person" "answering," "information," "used 5 in" and "provided." Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent Plaintiff seeks 6 information protected by the altomey-clienl privilege and/or attomey work-product doclrine. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 8 For each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in the 9 pleadings, please state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense. 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 11 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and ils general objections. 12 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that il is vague and ambiguous, 13 including, but not limited lo, the terms "denial of a material allegation," "special" "affirmative," 14 "pleadings" and "all facts." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it inquires 15 into all facts upon which il bases its denial of the material allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint and 16 its affirmative defenses on the grounds lhat it is overiy broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and 17 expensive as it Hterally requires the response to set forth each and every fact involved in Plaintiffs 18 action relating to numerous allegations. There are less burdensome and less expensive means 19 available to discover Uiis informaiion. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory insofar as il 20 seeks merits discovery conceming Plaintiffs meal, rest, off-the-clock and exemptions claims. 21 Merits discovery should, as a general matter, take place after certification discovery. As Plaintiff 22 knows. Defendant has asked the Court to bifurcate discovery as to these claims. Defendant further 23 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and lacks sufficient 24 specificity and clarity for an appropriate response lo be made. Defendant also objects to this 25 interrogalory lo the extent the information sought is equally available to Plaintiff. 26 Additionally, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff s complaint. 27 The denial of material allegations and the pleading of affirmative defenses is done so by this 28 responding party as a matter of right, and is based upon the applicable provisions of the Code of -9- DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGA TORIES. SET TWO 1 Civil Procedure, which permits such pleadings in order to put Plaintiff lo his burden of proof, 2 including, but not limited to, thefilingof a general denial as a matter ofrightunder Code of Civil 3 Procedure section 431.30(d). Thus, the portion of this interrogatory requesting the identification 4 of each denial of the material allegations is inapplicable, and Defendant further objects to the 5 interrogatory on this basis. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent lhat 6 disclosure of the information sought would violale the privacy rights of Defendant under the 7 Constitution of the United Slates and the State of Califomia and under common law privacy 8 principles. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory lo the extent il seeks infonnation privileged 9 and confidential pursuant to the altomey-client communication privilege and the attomey work- 10 product doctrine or concems information obtained in anticipation of litigation. 11 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing. Defendant responds as follows: With respect 12 to Defendant's "affirmative defense" that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements for a class action, 13 class certification in this action is inappropriate for many reasons. This case involves a complicated 14 patchwork of alleged subclasses and certification theories attempting to sweep in thousands of 15 putative class members in hundreds of different jobtitlesover the course of over four years during 16 which Defendant has undergone a shift in ownership and, as a result, change in certain relevant 17 policies and procedures. Adjudication of Plaintiffs claims on a class-wide basis is simply 18 untenable. 19 For example, with respect to the putative subclasses of non-exempt employees, at all 20 relevant limes, Defendant maintained legally compliant policies regarding houriy compensation, 21 recording of time worked and breaks taken, provision of meal and rest breaks, calculation of 22 employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation, payment of wages at 23 termination and provision of wage statements. Individualized inquiries are necessary to determine 24 whether any employee was not provided compliant meal or rest breaks or premiums or properiy 25 waived them, was due unpaid wages including overtime, received correct wage statements and/or 26 was injured by these wage statements, and/or did not receive all wages due at termination. This is 27 especially true given that putative class members worked at different locations, for different 28 employers, under different timekeeping systems, in a plethora of different positions with varying -10- DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO 1 job requirements, under different supervisors and under different working conditions - e.g., even 2 Defendant's two call centers vary in services provided and employee responsibilities depending on 3 such things as supervisor preferences and customers serviced. Thus, the circumstances of 4 Plaintiffs employment he was a non-exempt employees of Defendanl differ from those of other 5 putative class members. Further, the circumstances regarding Plaintiffs timesheet and timekeeping 6 records dating back to when he was non-exempt employee evidence individual differences, 7 including whether he properiy recorded his hours and whether and how he followed Defendant's 8 reasonable policies and procedures. To the extent Plaintiff failed to follow Defendant's 9 timekeeping policies and procedures, he cannot represent employees who did. 10 Moreover, as to the putative subclass of employees that Plaintiff claims was misclassified 11 as exempt, class certification is likewise inappropriate. For example, the work actually performed 12 by Plaintiff as an exempt Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given week varies greatly - not only 13 from the work actually performed by other Call Center Systems Analysts and other members of the 14 "Exempt Class" he purports to represent, but il also varies week by week even for himself For 15 example, the work Plaintiff actually performs as a Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given week 16 depends heavily on such factors as the project on which he is working, how many employees he is 17 supervising on the project, who he reports to for the project, whether he has multiple projects going 18 on at once, and so on. 19 In terms of the type and substance of work actually performed in any given week, members 20 of the "Exempt Class" vary significantly. For example, since Plaintiff works in a call center, his 21 overarching duties include making recommendations for and executing improvements to call center 22 policies and procedures. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the call center by researching 23 and helping to address root causes of escalated issues and ensuringtimelyresolution. Moreover, 24 he lakes ihe lead on various call cenlcr projects, identifies requirements for new processes and 25 procedures, and makes recommendations for system enhancements. By contrast, for example. 26 Business Analysts who work in the current G&A Claims Administration departmeni are generally 27 responsible for analyzing claims that have been escalated to the Legal Department for purposes of 28 evaluating the significance, level of exposure and correct outcome of claim adjudication. This -11- DEI ENDANTI lEALTI I NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO 1 process entails reviewing individual claims and making recommendations on the outcomes ofthe 2 disputes, which are supported by the individual Business Analysts'findings,analysis and data. 3 Business Analysts in this group are tasked with underslanding and interpreting the specific terms 4 of the contract at issue in order lo make a determination of whelher a claim has been processed 5 cortectly, and identifying any discrepancies that explain or help resolve the escalation of the matter 6 lo Legal. Suffice to say, work actually performed by members of the "Exempt Class" in any given 7 workweek varies greatly. 8 In addition to these variances, if any member of Plaintiff s "Exempt Class" did nol spend 9 at least half his or her workweek performing exempt duties, whether that employee's performance 10 was consistent with Defendant's realistic expectations also necessitates an individualized inquiry. 11 These are just some of the reasons why Plaintiff cannot meet class certification 12 requirements. Moreover, this response is based on based on information presently known and 13 available to Defendanl. Discovery in this action is still ongoing and Defendant reserves therightto 14 supplement these responses with subsequently discovered informaiion and/or to introduce such 15 information at the lime ofthe Irial. 16 As for Plaintiffs regular rate claim. Defendant paid one non-discretionary bonus to certain 17 putative class members during the relevant time period - ACA Customer Service Center & Claims 18 Representative Pay for Performance Incentives - which was included in recipients' regular rale of 19 pay. Defendant also paid certain putative class members discretionary bonuses - P.R.I.D.E. 20 Awards, SPOT Cash Awards and Key Contributor Program Awards - which were not included in 21 the regular rale. Moreover, Defendant included shift differentials the regular rate. 22 As for Plaintiffs rounding claim, during the relevant time period. Defendant did not round 23 ils employees' recorded time for purposes of generating paychecks. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 25 Please explain, with as much specificity as possible, how PLAINTIFF and other 26 POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS are paid for all hours worked. 27 28 12 DEFENDANl IIEALIII NETOF CALIFORNIA, INC. S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 2 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and ils general objections. 3 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, 4 including, but not limited to, the terms and phrases "explain," "with as much specificity as 5 possible," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "paid for all hours worked." Defendant also 6 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive 7 given lhal compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult and would require an 8 individualized inquiry. Defendant further objects lo this interrogatory lo the extent Plaintiff seeks 9 class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. 10 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds lhat it seeks confidential and/or 11 proprietary business information. 12 Subjecl lo and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendanl responds as follows: 13 With respect to Defendant's non-exempt employees, such employees are responsible for accurately 14 recording their time worked pursuant lo Company policy. These non-exempt employees are 15 instmcted by Defendant to record the exact times they work on a daily basis, including the time 16 they report to work, the lime they take for meal periods, and the lime they end their workday. The 17 lime records as recorded by Defendant's non-exempt employees are the basis upon which they are 18 paid, i.e., they are paid for the time lhat they stale on their timesheets as time worked. 19 Prior to January 1,2017, Defendanl required its non-exempt employees to report their exact 20 in, out and meal breaktimesfor each day into Defendant's electronic time keeping system located 21 in "HR Link." The electronic timekeeping system required entries for the time the employees began 22 work, commenced a meal period, relumed from a meal period, and slopped working for the day. 23 When non-exempt employees "submitted" their lime, they certified that the hours they had entered 24 accurately reflect the time Ihey aclually worked. Defendant then paid the non-exempt employees 25 based on the time that they reported. 26 Starting in January 1,2017 and continuing lo the present, Defendant's non-employees use 27 the EmpCenler Time Reporting system to record hours worked. Non-exempt employees report 28 time worked using a web clock. Each non-exempt employee musl record thetimehe or she begins - 13- DEFENDANT HEALTH NETOF CALIFOKNIA. INC S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET TWO 1 working for the day, lakes a meal break, starts working after the meal break, and stops working for 2 the day. When non-exempt employees "submit" theirtime,they are certifying lhat the information 3 entered is true and correct. Defendanl then pays Ihe non-exempt employees based on the time that 4 they report. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13; 6 Please explain, with as much specificity as possible, how YOU maintained accurate records 7 of start times and end times for each work shift for PLAINTIFF and other POTENTIAL CLASS 8 MEMBERS. 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 10 Defendant incorporates in full herein ils preliminary siatement and its general objections. II Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds lhat it is vague and ambiguous, 12 including, but not limited to, the terms and phrases "explain," "as much specificity as possible," 13 "maintained," "accurate records," "start times," "end times," "work shift," and "POTENTIAL 14 CLASS MEMBERS." Defendant further objects lo this interrogatory to the extent Plaintiff seeks 15 class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. 16 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and 17 oppressive given that compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult and expensive 18 and would require an individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 19 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 21 Defendant maintains these records in ils electronic databases as required by Califomia law. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 23 Please explain with as much specificity as possible how POTENTIAL CLASS 24 MEMBERS were provided meal breaks. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 26 Defendant incorporates in fiill herein ils preliminary siatement and its general objections. 27 Defendant also objects to this Inlerrogalory on the grounds that il is vague and ambiguous, 28 including, but not limited to, the terms and phrases, "explain," "with as much specificity as -14- DEFENDANT HCALni NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESI>ONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET! WO possible," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS," "were provided" and "meal breaks." Defendanl 2 further objects to this interrogalory to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class 3 is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects to this 4 interrogalory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, given that 5 compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult and expensive and would require a 6 highly-individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds lhat it 7 seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 8 Subjecl to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 9 During the relevant time period. Defendant provided meal breaks to its non-exempt employees in JO accordance with ils California-compliant meal break policy. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 12 For each POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER, please stale how many meal break premiums 13 have been paid DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 15 Defendant incorporates in full herein its preliminary statement and its general objections. 16 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and„_ainbiguous, 17 including, bul not limited to, the terms "state," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER," "paid" and 18 "meal break premiums." Defendant further objects lo this interrogatory lo the extent Plaintiff seeks 19 class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discov