Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
tjlong@orrick.com ENDORSED
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 2mmR-S Ph3:0Q
3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: +1 916 447 8299 " Of CAL IFOR,*
4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 ACRAML7fT0
5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
9 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
situated,
15 Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
16 MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
•
V.
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Date: April 9,2018
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Time: 9:00 a.m.
18 inclusive. Dept.: 54
19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
20 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
others similarly situated,
CO 22
Plaintiff,
<
23
v.
z 24
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
o 25
26
inclusive.
Defendant.
o 27
28
4152-5906-7666.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. submits the following Separate Statement in
2 support of its Motion to Sequence Discovery.
3 1. All Putative Class Members'Payroll Records
4 SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
5 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all payroll records for
6 the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
7 RESPONSE TO SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 20:
8 In addition lo the fpregoing General Objections, Defendant objects lo this Request on the
9 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but nol limited to, the terms "payroll records,"
10 "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request
11 on the grounds it information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects
13 that this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-
14 certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks
15 confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant objects to this Request to the
16 extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by therightsof privacy of third-
17 party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I , section 1.
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
19 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs wage staiements.
20 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED:
21 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
22 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
23 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
24 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
25 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
26 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 20 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests
27 of putative class members. Further, all of the information she seeks will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs
28 never certify this case as a class action.
-1-
4152-5906-7666.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 20 seeks information about approximately five thousand
2 individuals. Declzu-ation of Diane C. Rodes ("Rodes Dec," attached as Exhibit S to the Declaration
3 of Stephanie Gail Lee), If 2. Producing this information would be incredibly biardensome. Due to
4 the enormous volume of information al issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of
5. three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of
6 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Spears demands. See Declaration of Chrissy
7 Schneider ("Schneider Dec"), 2-12,24; see also Declaration of Ian G. Stewart ("Stewart Dec"),
8 2-5. In part, this is because older payroll data is from a database that is no longer used by Health
9 Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that is not readily accessible or
10 user-friendly. Schneider Dec, ^ 3. More recent payroll records are stored across two different
11 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at 3-
12 4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to pull such data
13 from the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build
14 tables to extract the data. Id. at 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would notfitinto
15 Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or database to host
16 it.' Id. at TI 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is
17 no ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at T[ 8. In sum, this process would
18 take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be complicated and difficult for
19 employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at 7-8.
20 Moreover, Plaintiff Spears seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights.
21 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, time
22 and payroll records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted,
23 "Payroll infonnation is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their
24 payroll information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a
25 resounding, 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003).
26 Payroll records may include personal information such as an individual's selection of benefits,
27 insurance plans, investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize
28 putative class member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action.
4152-5906-7666.1 - 2 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1
2 2. All Putative Class Members'Time Records
3 SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
4 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all time records
5 reflecting hours worked for the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
6 RESPONSE TO SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21;
7 In addition to the foregoing General Objeclions, Defendant objects to this Request on the
8 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "time records,"
9 "reflecting," "hours worked," "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD."
10 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter
11 of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
12 also objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at
13 this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent
14 Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product
'N
15 doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Requesl on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
16 proprietary business information. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent lhat it seeks
17 information that is protectedfi-omdisclosure by therightsof privacy of third-party non-litigants
18 under the California Constitution, article I, section 1.
19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
20 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs timesheets.
21 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED:
22 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
23 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
24 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
25 deman'ds. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
26 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
27 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 21 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information she seeks
28 will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action.
4152-5906-7666.1 ' '
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 21 seeks information about approximately five thousand
2 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^ 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to
3 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of
4 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of
5 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Spears demands. Schneider Dec, 2-24;
6 Stewart, 2-5. In part, this is because older timekeeping data is from a database that is no longer
7 used by Health Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that is not
8 readily accessible or user-friendly. Id. at ^3. More recent timekeeping records are stored across
9 two different databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records.
10 Id. at 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the infonnation necessary to
11 pull such data fiom the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries
12 and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it
13 would notfitinto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or
14 database to host it. Id. at ^ 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases
15 because there is no ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at ^ 8. In sum, this
16 process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be complicated and
17 difficult for employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at ^If 7-8.
18 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
19 For each POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER, please produce all DOCUMENTS, that
20 describe the hours worked for YOU during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (including, but not
21 limited to, time cards, lime clock or punch clock records, records of hours worked, overtime and
22 double-time records, meal and rest break records, vacation accrual, leave accrual,floatingholiday
23 accrual, paid time off accrual, and/or records of additions to or deductions from wages).
24 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
25 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the
26 grounds that il is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "describe,"
27 "hours worked," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD."
28 Defendant further objects to this request to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before
4152-5906-7666.1 '
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects that
2 this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-
3 certification stage of litigation. Defendani further objects to this Request to the extent Plaintiff
4 seeks information prolected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine.
5 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds thai it seeks confidential and/or proprietary
6 business information. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that
7 is protectedfromdisclosure by therightsof privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia
8 Constitution, article I , section 1. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it
9 lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither been admitted nor established, namely that
10 Defendant employed all "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS," which it did not.
11 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
12 Defendant will an excel spreadsheet containing the "timesheet" data that Plaintiff completed while
13 he was a non-exempt employee.
14 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED:
15 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
16 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
17 an oppressive burden on Health Net were il to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classvvide
18 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
19 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
20 Plainliff Arana's Request No. 8 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests
21 of putative class members. Further, all of the information he seeks will be inelevant if Plaintiffs
22 never certify this case as a class action.
23 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 8 seeks information about approximately five thousand
24 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^ 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to
25 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of
26 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of
27 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Arana demands. Schneider Dec, 2-24;
28 Stewart, 2-5. In part, this is because older payroll and timekeeping data is from a database that
4152-5906-7666.1 ' ^ '
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 is no longer used by Health Nel, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that
2 is not readily accessible or user-friendly. Id. at \ 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records
3 are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than the database used for the
4 archived records. Id. at Yi 3-4.' Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information
5 necessary to pull such data from the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to
6 devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at W 6-7. The result would likely be so
7 large that it would not fit into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build
8 another tool or database to host it. Id. at H 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from
9 curreni databases because there is no ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at
10 ^ 8. In sum, this process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be
11 complicated and difficult for employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at ^ 1-
12 8. '
13 Moreover, Plaintiff Arana seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights.
14 Although Plaintiff Arana may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, payroll
15 records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll
16 information is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll
17 information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding,
18 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). Payroll records
19 may include personal information such as an individual's selection of benefits, insurance plans,
20 investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize putafive class
21 member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action.
22 3. All Putative Class Members' Wage Statements
23 SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
24 All copies of the wage statements that were provided to the CLASS MEMBERS during the
25 time period of April 5, 2014 until the present.
26 RESPONSE TO SPEARS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22;
27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the
28 grounds lhat il is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
4152-5906-7666.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 MEMBERS," "wage statements" and "provided." Defendant also objects to this Request pn the
2 grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead
3 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that this Request is overbroad,
4 harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
5 Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent Plainliff seeks information protected by the
6 attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this
7 Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
8 Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from
9 disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution,
10 article I, section 1.
11 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED;
12 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
13 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
14 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
15 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
16 this case as a class action or establish lhat they themselves are aggrieved.
17 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 22 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests
18 of putative class members. Further, all of the information she seeks will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs
19 never certify this case as a class action.
20 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 22 seeks information about approximately five thousand
21 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to
22 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of
23 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of
24 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Spears demands. Id. at ^ 24; Schneider Dec, ^^f
25 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll data is from a database that is no longer used by Health
26 Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a maimer that is not readily accessible or
27 user-friendly. Id. at ^ 3. More recent payroll records are stored across two different databases,
28 both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at Y\ 3-4. Gathering
4152-5906-7666.1 "^ "
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 wage statements is unduly burdensome because there is no ready-to-use application to gather them.
2 Id. at\ 10. An IT team would have to create queries and/or build tables to extract the wage
3 statements from the archives and from the current system. Id. at | 11, 12. Like the payroll
4 information, the time involved would be significant. Id.
5 Moreover, Plaintiff Spears seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights.
6 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, payroll
7 records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll
8 information is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll
9 information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding,
10 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). Payroll records
11 may include personal information such as an individual's selection of benefits, insurance plans,
12 investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class
13 member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action.
14 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9;
15 For each POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER, please produce all wage statements or
16 paycheck stubs during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.,
17 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the
19 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "POTENTIAL CLASS
20 MEMBER" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant further objects to this request to the
21 extent Plainliff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is
22 inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing,
23 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant
24 further objects to this Request to the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attorney-
25 client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Request on
26 the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant objects
27 lb this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the rights
28 of privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section 1.
4152-5906-7666.1 -8-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
2 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs wage statements.
3 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED;
4 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
5 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
6 an oppressive burden on Health Net were il lo comply wilh Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
7 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
8 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
9 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 9 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests
10 of putative class members. Further, all of the information he seeks will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs
11 never certify this case as a class action.
12 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 9 seeks information about approximately five thousand \
13 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^ 2, Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to
14 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of
15 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of
16 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Arana demands. Id, at ^ 24; Schneider Dec,
17 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll data is from a database that is no longer used by Health
18 Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that is not readily accessible or
19 user-friendly. Id. at ^ 3. More recent payroll records are stored across two different databases,
20 both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at 3-4. Gathering
21 wage statements is unduly burdensome because there is no ready-to-use application to gather them.
22 Id. at ^ 10. An IT team would have to create queries and/or build tables to extract the wage
23 statements from the archives and from the current system. Id. at ^1 11, 12. Like the payroll
24 information, the time involved would be significant. Id.
25 Moreover, Plainliff Arana seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights.
26 Although Plaintiff Arana may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, payroll
27 records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll
28 information is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll
- 9-
4152-5906-7666.1 ^
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding,
2 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). Payroll records
3 may include personal information such,as an individual's selection of benefits, irisurance plans,
4 investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class
5 member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action.
6 4. .All Putative Class Members' Time Adjustment Records
7 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13;
8 All DOCUMENTS of, constituting, or RELATING TO YOUR time adjustment records
9 RELATING TO POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER DURING THE RELEVANT TIME
10 PERIOD.
11 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13;
12 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the
13 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "constituting,"
14 "RELATING TO,""time adjustment records," "RELATING TO," "POTENTIAL CLASS
15 MEMBERS," and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant further objects to this request to the
16 extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is
17 inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad,
18 and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks
19 confidential and/or proprietary business information.
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
21 Defendant will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents in its possession, custody or
22 control - to wit, an excel spreadsheet containing Plaintiffs "timesheet" data that shows any
23 adjustments to the time Plaintiff recorded as hours worked while a non-exempt employee.
24 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED;
25 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
26 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as resull,
27 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
28
4152-5906-7666.1 - 10 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 demands. Importantly, all of the informafion sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
2 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
3 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 13 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information he seeks
4 will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action.
5 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 13 seeks information about approximately five thousand
6 individuals. Rodes Dec. Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Duelo
7 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of
8 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of
9 dedicated time to compile the documents Plainfiff Arana demands. Schneider Dec, Tf^f 2-24;
10 Stewart, TfH 2-5. In part, this is because older timekeeping data is from a database that is no longer
11 used by Health Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a marmer that is not
12 readily accessible or user-friendly. Id. at ^3. More recentfimekeepingrecords are stored across
13 two different databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records.
14 Id. at Tflf 3-4. Health Nel has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to
15 pull such data from the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries
16 and/or build tables lo extract the data. Id. at Tf^f 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it
17 would notfitinto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or
18 database to host it. Id. at Tf 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from cunent databases
19 because there is no ready-to-use application in the cunent databases either. Id. at If 8. In sum, this
20 process would take an enormous amount of tiriie to complete and would be complicated and
21 difficult for employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at Tf| 7-8.
22 5. All Putative Class Members' Log In And Log Out Data
23 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27;
24 All DOCUMENTS lhat reflect or RELATE TO the time POTENTIAL CLASS
25 MEMBERS are logged into their computer DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
26 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27;
27 In addidon to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the
28 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "RELATE
4152-5906-7666,1 " 1 1 "
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
. 1 TO," "time," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "logged into." Defendant also objects that
2 this Request seeks merits discovery before a class is even certified. Defendant also objects to this
3 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Defendani also objects to this
4 Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
5 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEQUENCED;
6 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
7 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
8 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it lo comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
9 demands. Importantly, all ofthe information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
10 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
11 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 27 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information he seeks
12 will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action.
13 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 27 seeks information about approximately five thousand
14 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due
15 to the enormous volume of informafion at issue, it would likely approximately one month of
16 dedicated time to complete. Stewart Dec, Tf 5. But because full dedication is infeasible, in actuality,
17 compliance would take much longer. Id. This is because employees' computer log-on and log-off
18 data between November 2016 and November 2017 is archived in raw textfilesstored by day, not
19 be person. Id. at Tf 3. Therefore, in order tofilterthe data for a select 5,000 or so employees, Health
20 Net's team would need to devise a query to conduct a computer search for them by their unique
21 identificafion numbers, then extract out just their data, and then putjusl their data into a new file.
22 Id. And, data post-November 2017 data is stored in a different computer application. Id. at \ 4.
23 Thus, to gather that data, Health Net's team would similarly need to devise an appropriate query.
24 Id. In sum, this process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be
25 complicated and difficult for employees to complete in addifion to their regular duties. Id. at Tf 5.
26 ARANA'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28;
27 AH DOCUMENTS that reflect or RELATE TO the fime POTENTIAL CLASS
28 MEMBERS are logged out of their computer DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
4152-5906-7666.1 - 12 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28;
2 In addifion to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects lo this request on the
3 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "RELATE
4 TO," "time," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "logged out." Defendant also objects that
5 this Request seeks merits discovery before a class is even certified. Defendant also objects to this
6 Request on the grounds il is overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this
7 Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
8 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEQUENCED;
9 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
10 class members and potenfially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
11 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
12 demands. ImportanUy, all ofthe information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
13 this case as a class acfion or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
14 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 28 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information he seeks
15 will be inelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action.
16 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 28 seeks information about approximately five thousand
17 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tl 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due
18 to the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely approximately one month of
19 dedicated time to complete. Stewart Dec, Tf 5. But because full dedication is infeasible, in actuality,
20 compliance would take much longer. Id. This is because employees' computer log-on and log-off
21 data between November 2016 and November 2017 is archived in raw text files stored by day, not
22 be person. Id. at Tf 3. Therefore, in order to filter the data for a select 5,000 or so employees. Health
23 Net's team would need to devise a query to conduct a computer search for them by their unique
24 idenfification numbers, then extract out just their data, and then put just their data into a new file.
25 Id. And, data post-November 2017 data is stored in a different computer application. Id. at Tf 4.
26 Thus, to gather that data, Health Net's team would similarly need to devise an appropriate query.
27 Id. In sum, this process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be
28 complicated and difficult for employees to complete in additiori to their regular duties. Id. at Tf 5.
-13-
4152-5906-7666.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 6. Identity And Contact Information OfAll Putative Class Members' Supervisors
2 ARANA'S SPECIAL INTERRQGATORY NO. 2;
3 Please IDENTIFY each EMPLOYEE who supervised the POTENTIAL CLASS
4 MEMBERS including Plainfiff at the facility that they worked at DURING THE RELEVANT
5 TIME PERIOD.
6 The term "EMPLOYEE" shall mean a person who provides services in an employment
7 relationship, whether paid for any or all such services, including but not limited to any class of
8 individuals as pled in the operative complaint.
9 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
10 In addition to the foregoing General Objecfions, Defendant also objects to this intenogatory
11 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms and phrases "IDENTIFY,"
12 "EMPLOYEE," "supervised," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME
13 PERIOD," "provides services," "employment relationship," "services" and "class of individuals as
14 pled in the operative complaint." Defendant objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome,
15 oppressive and harassing, given that compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult
16 and expensive and would require a highly-individualized inquiry. Defendant further objects to this
17 intenogatory to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified.
18 Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent
19 that il seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party
20 non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section 1.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
22 Will Monies is Plainfiffs current immediate supervisor. Mr. Monies may be contacted through
23 Defendant's counsel of record.
24 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ARANA'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows: Prior to Mr.
26 Monies, Plaintiffs supervisors during the relevant time period were Lee Brailhwaite, Vanessa
27 Jackson, Cathleen Holgale, and Lori Wiley. Mr. Brailhwaite, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Wiley may be
28
4152-5906-7666.1 - 14
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 contacted through Defendant's counsel of record. Ms. Holgate's last known contact information
2 is: 7576 Pocket Rd., Sacramento, CA 95831; (916) 715-2765.
3 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED;
4 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
5 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
6 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
7 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be inelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
8 this case as a class acfion or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
9 Plaintiff Arana's Intenogatory No. 2 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy
10 interests of putative class members. Further, all of the iriformation he seeks will be irrelevant if
11 Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action.
12 Plaintiff Arana's Inlerrogatory No. 2 seeks data pertaining lo for nearly 5,000 individuals.
13 Rodes Dec, Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to the
14 enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, approximately 25-30 dedicated
15 hours to answer Plaintiffs' interrogatories. Id. at Tfl 2-4. Such efforts are unnecessary and
16 premature prior to class certification. Health Net has already provided every relevant class-wide
17 policy related to meal premiums. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little
18 sense considering the information will be inelevant if he never certifies this case as a class action.
19 Such discovery should be deferred until and unless Plaintiffs are able to certify this case.
20 Further, Plainfiff Arana's request for the contact information of each and every supervisor
21 of each and every putative class members infringes on these supervisors' privacy rights. Setting
22 aside the fact that these individuals belong to Health Net's "control group" and would not be part
23 of ariy class Plaintiffs seek to certify (and similarly would not qualify as aggrieved employees based
24 on Plaintiffs allegations), they have not had any opportunity lo object to such disclosure. See
25 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc., 149 Cal. App. 4th at 561-62. Putafive class members have that right
26 {see id.), so why shouldn't supervisors whose interests are in conflict with the individuals Plainfiffs
27 seek to represent? In any event, Plaintiffs are well within their rights to notice depositions of
28
4152-5906-7666.1 - 15
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
supervisors through Health Net, as is normally done. To permit contact otherwise would be to
2 allow impermissible ex parte communications with represented company managers.
3 7. All Putative Class Members Who Received Overtime Compensation And "Cash
Payments In Lieu Of Health Benefits"
4
SPEARS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
5
Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS
6
were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during
7
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
8
interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
9
RESPQNSE TO SPEARS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
10
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
11
the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
12
MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of
13
health benefits during the same pay period." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
14
groimds it seeks informafion lhat is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
15
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendantfiartherobjects
16
that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly
17
at this pre-certificafion stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
18
grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant fiirther
19
objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that have
20
neither been admitted nor established.
21
REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED:
22
Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative
23
class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result,
24
an oppressive burden on Health Nel were it to comply wilh Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide
25
demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify
26
this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved.
27
28
4152-5906-7666.1 - \6 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY
1 Plaintiff Spears' Intenogatory No. 6 is imduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy
2 interests of putative class members. Further, all of the information she seeks will be irrelevant if
3 Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class acfion.
4 Plaintiff Spears' Interrogatory No. 6 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly
5 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome.
6 This merits-based, classwide intenogatory nol only requires compilation and review of an
7 enormous amount of data, it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time
8 consuming. Schneider Dec, TfTf 2-24. Indeed, this intenogatory is even more burdensome than
9 Plainfiffs' document demands insofar as they require pulling, as an initial matter, the documents
10 requested, and then analyzing them and performing calculations thereafter. Id. In sum, this process
11 would take an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees lo
12 complete in addifion to their regular duties. Id. at TfTf 7-8, 13-18. Due lo the enormous volume of
13 information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in
14 the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicatedfimeto complete the
15 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Intenogatories. Id. at Tf 24. Such efforts are unnecessary
16 and premature prior to class certification. Health Net has already provided every relevant class-
17 wide policy related to overtime and health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed,
18 individualized information makes little sense considering the information will be inelevant if she
19 never certifies this case as a class action. Such discovery should be deferred until and unless
20 Plaintiffs are able to certify this case.
21 Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive
22 certain health benefits. Providing such information would violate putafive class members' privacy
23 rights. Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putafive class members' contact information
24 after they are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve
25 addifional privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is
26 personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll information
27 routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City
28 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is
4152-5906-7666.1 - 17 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) tjlong@orrick.com ENDORSED 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 2mmR-S Ph3:0Q 3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: +1 916 447 8299 " Of CAL IFOR,* 4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 ACRAML7fT0 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) stephanie.lee@orrick.com 6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS situated, 15 Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S 16 MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY • V. 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Date: April 9,2018 California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Time: 9:00 a.m. 18 inclusive. Dept.: 54 19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 20 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017 21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 others similarly situated, CO 22 Plaintiff, < 23 v. z 24 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, o 25 26 inclusive. Defendant. o 27 28 4152-5906-7666.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. submits the following Separate Statement in 2 support of its Motion to Sequence Discovery. 3 1. All Putative Class Members'Payroll Records 4 SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 5 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all payroll records for 6 the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 7 RESPONSE TO SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 20: 8 In addition lo the fpregoing General Objections, Defendant objects lo this Request on the 9 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but nol limited to, the terms "payroll records," 10 "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant also objects to this Request 11 on the grounds it information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects 13 that this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre- 14 certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 15 confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant objects to this Request to the 16 extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by therightsof privacy of third- 17 party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I , section 1. 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 19 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs wage staiements. 20 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED: 21 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 22 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 23 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 24 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 25 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 26 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 20 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests 27 of putative class members. Further, all of the information she seeks will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs 28 never certify this case as a class action. -1- 4152-5906-7666.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 20 seeks information about approximately five thousand 2 individuals. Declzu-ation of Diane C. Rodes ("Rodes Dec," attached as Exhibit S to the Declaration 3 of Stephanie Gail Lee), If 2. Producing this information would be incredibly biardensome. Due to 4 the enormous volume of information al issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of 5. three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of 6 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Spears demands. See Declaration of Chrissy 7 Schneider ("Schneider Dec"), 2-12,24; see also Declaration of Ian G. Stewart ("Stewart Dec"), 8 2-5. In part, this is because older payroll data is from a database that is no longer used by Health 9 Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that is not readily accessible or 10 user-friendly. Schneider Dec, ^ 3. More recent payroll records are stored across two different 11 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at 3- 12 4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to pull such data 13 from the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build 14 tables to extract the data. Id. at 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would notfitinto 15 Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or database to host 16 it.' Id. at TI 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is 17 no ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at T[ 8. In sum, this process would 18 take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be complicated and difficult for 19 employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at 7-8. 20 Moreover, Plaintiff Spears seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights. 21 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, time 22 and payroll records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, 23 "Payroll infonnation is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their 24 payroll information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a 25 resounding, 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). 26 Payroll records may include personal information such as an individual's selection of benefits, 27 insurance plans, investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize 28 putative class member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action. 4152-5906-7666.1 - 2 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 2 2. All Putative Class Members'Time Records 3 SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 4 Please produce, in electronic, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format, all time records 5 reflecting hours worked for the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 6 RESPONSE TO SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21; 7 In addition to the foregoing General Objeclions, Defendant objects to this Request on the 8 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "time records," 9 "reflecting," "hours worked," "CLASS MEMBERS" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." 10 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter 11 of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 12 also objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at 13 this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent 14 Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product 'N 15 doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Requesl on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 16 proprietary business information. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent lhat it seeks 17 information that is protectedfi-omdisclosure by therightsof privacy of third-party non-litigants 18 under the California Constitution, article I, section 1. 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 20 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs timesheets. 21 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED: 22 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 23 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 24 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 25 deman'ds. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 26 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 27 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 21 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information she seeks 28 will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action. 4152-5906-7666.1 ' ' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 21 seeks information about approximately five thousand 2 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^ 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to 3 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of 4 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of 5 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Spears demands. Schneider Dec, 2-24; 6 Stewart, 2-5. In part, this is because older timekeeping data is from a database that is no longer 7 used by Health Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that is not 8 readily accessible or user-friendly. Id. at ^3. More recent timekeeping records are stored across 9 two different databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. 10 Id. at 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the infonnation necessary to 11 pull such data fiom the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries 12 and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it 13 would notfitinto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or 14 database to host it. Id. at ^ 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases 15 because there is no ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at ^ 8. In sum, this 16 process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be complicated and 17 difficult for employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at ^If 7-8. 18 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 19 For each POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER, please produce all DOCUMENTS, that 20 describe the hours worked for YOU during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (including, but not 21 limited to, time cards, lime clock or punch clock records, records of hours worked, overtime and 22 double-time records, meal and rest break records, vacation accrual, leave accrual,floatingholiday 23 accrual, paid time off accrual, and/or records of additions to or deductions from wages). 24 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 25 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the 26 grounds that il is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "describe," 27 "hours worked," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." 28 Defendant further objects to this request to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before 4152-5906-7666.1 ' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 a class is even certified. Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects that 2 this Request is overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre- 3 certification stage of litigation. Defendani further objects to this Request to the extent Plaintiff 4 seeks information prolected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. 5 Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds thai it seeks confidential and/or proprietary 6 business information. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that 7 is protectedfromdisclosure by therightsof privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia 8 Constitution, article I , section 1. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it 9 lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither been admitted nor established, namely that 10 Defendant employed all "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS," which it did not. 11 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 12 Defendant will an excel spreadsheet containing the "timesheet" data that Plaintiff completed while 13 he was a non-exempt employee. 14 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED: 15 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 16 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 17 an oppressive burden on Health Net were il to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classvvide 18 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 19 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 20 Plainliff Arana's Request No. 8 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests 21 of putative class members. Further, all of the information he seeks will be inelevant if Plaintiffs 22 never certify this case as a class action. 23 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 8 seeks information about approximately five thousand 24 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^ 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to 25 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of 26 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of 27 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Arana demands. Schneider Dec, 2-24; 28 Stewart, 2-5. In part, this is because older payroll and timekeeping data is from a database that 4152-5906-7666.1 ' ^ ' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 is no longer used by Health Nel, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that 2 is not readily accessible or user-friendly. Id. at \ 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records 3 are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than the database used for the 4 archived records. Id. at Yi 3-4.' Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information 5 necessary to pull such data from the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to 6 devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at W 6-7. The result would likely be so 7 large that it would not fit into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build 8 another tool or database to host it. Id. at H 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from 9 curreni databases because there is no ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at 10 ^ 8. In sum, this process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be 11 complicated and difficult for employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at ^ 1- 12 8. ' 13 Moreover, Plaintiff Arana seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights. 14 Although Plaintiff Arana may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, payroll 15 records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll 16 information is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll 17 information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 18 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). Payroll records 19 may include personal information such as an individual's selection of benefits, insurance plans, 20 investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize putafive class 21 member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action. 22 3. All Putative Class Members' Wage Statements 23 SPEARS' REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 24 All copies of the wage statements that were provided to the CLASS MEMBERS during the 25 time period of April 5, 2014 until the present. 26 RESPONSE TO SPEARS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22; 27 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request on the 28 grounds lhat il is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 4152-5906-7666.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 MEMBERS," "wage statements" and "provided." Defendant also objects to this Request pn the 2 grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead 3 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that this Request is overbroad, 4 harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 5 Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent Plainliff seeks information protected by the 6 attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this 7 Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 8 Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from 9 disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, 10 article I, section 1. 11 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED; 12 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 13 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 14 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 15 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 16 this case as a class action or establish lhat they themselves are aggrieved. 17 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 22 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests 18 of putative class members. Further, all of the information she seeks will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs 19 never certify this case as a class action. 20 Plaintiff Spears' Request No. 22 seeks information about approximately five thousand 21 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to 22 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of 23 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of 24 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Spears demands. Id. at ^ 24; Schneider Dec, ^^f 25 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll data is from a database that is no longer used by Health 26 Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a maimer that is not readily accessible or 27 user-friendly. Id. at ^ 3. More recent payroll records are stored across two different databases, 28 both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at Y\ 3-4. Gathering 4152-5906-7666.1 "^ " SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 wage statements is unduly burdensome because there is no ready-to-use application to gather them. 2 Id. at\ 10. An IT team would have to create queries and/or build tables to extract the wage 3 statements from the archives and from the current system. Id. at | 11, 12. Like the payroll 4 information, the time involved would be significant. Id. 5 Moreover, Plaintiff Spears seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights. 6 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, payroll 7 records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll 8 information is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll 9 information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 10 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). Payroll records 11 may include personal information such as an individual's selection of benefits, insurance plans, 12 investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class 13 member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action. 14 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9; 15 For each POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER, please produce all wage statements or 16 paycheck stubs during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD., 17 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 18 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the 19 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "POTENTIAL CLASS 20 MEMBER" and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant further objects to this request to the 21 extent Plainliff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is 22 inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects that this Request is overbroad, harassing, 23 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant 24 further objects to this Request to the extent Plaintiff seeks information protected by the attorney- 25 client privilege and/or attomey work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this Request on 26 the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant objects 27 lb this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the rights 28 of privacy of third-party non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section 1. 4152-5906-7666.1 -8- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 2 Defendant will produce Plaintiffs wage statements. 3 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED; 4 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 5 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 6 an oppressive burden on Health Net were il lo comply wilh Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 7 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 8 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 9 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 9 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy interests 10 of putative class members. Further, all of the information he seeks will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs 11 never certify this case as a class action. 12 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 9 seeks information about approximately five thousand \ 13 individuals. Rodes Dec. ^ 2, Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to 14 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of 15 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of 16 dedicated time to compile the documents Plaintiff Arana demands. Id, at ^ 24; Schneider Dec, 17 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll data is from a database that is no longer used by Health 18 Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a manner that is not readily accessible or 19 user-friendly. Id. at ^ 3. More recent payroll records are stored across two different databases, 20 both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at 3-4. Gathering 21 wage statements is unduly burdensome because there is no ready-to-use application to gather them. 22 Id. at ^ 10. An IT team would have to create queries and/or build tables to extract the wage 23 statements from the archives and from the current system. Id. at ^1 11, 12. Like the payroll 24 information, the time involved would be significant. Id. 25 Moreover, Plainliff Arana seems to ignore putative class members' privacy rights. 26 Although Plaintiff Arana may be entitled to contact information through an opt-out process, payroll 27 records have heightened privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll 28 information is personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll - 9- 4152-5906-7666.1 ^ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 information routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 2 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). Payroll records 3 may include personal information such,as an individual's selection of benefits, irisurance plans, 4 investments, and even wage garnishments. There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class 5 member privacy rights before Plaintiffs certify this case as a class action. 6 4. .All Putative Class Members' Time Adjustment Records 7 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13; 8 All DOCUMENTS of, constituting, or RELATING TO YOUR time adjustment records 9 RELATING TO POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBER DURING THE RELEVANT TIME 10 PERIOD. 11 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13; 12 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the 13 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "constituting," 14 "RELATING TO,""time adjustment records," "RELATING TO," "POTENTIAL CLASS 15 MEMBERS," and "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD." Defendant further objects to this request to the 16 extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. Such discovery is 17 inappropriate at this time. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad, 18 and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 19 confidential and/or proprietary business information. 20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 21 Defendant will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents in its possession, custody or 22 control - to wit, an excel spreadsheet containing Plaintiffs "timesheet" data that shows any 23 adjustments to the time Plaintiff recorded as hours worked while a non-exempt employee. 24 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED; 25 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 26 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as resull, 27 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 28 4152-5906-7666.1 - 10 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 demands. Importantly, all of the informafion sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 2 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 3 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 13 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information he seeks 4 will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action. 5 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 13 seeks information about approximately five thousand 6 individuals. Rodes Dec. Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Duelo 7 the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of 8 three to four individuals in the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of 9 dedicated time to compile the documents Plainfiff Arana demands. Schneider Dec, Tf^f 2-24; 10 Stewart, TfH 2-5. In part, this is because older timekeeping data is from a database that is no longer 11 used by Health Net, and data from that database is archived and stored in a marmer that is not 12 readily accessible or user-friendly. Id. at ^3. More recentfimekeepingrecords are stored across 13 two different databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. 14 Id. at Tflf 3-4. Health Nel has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to 15 pull such data from the archives, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries 16 and/or build tables lo extract the data. Id. at Tf^f 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it 17 would notfitinto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or 18 database to host it. Id. at Tf 7. A similar process would be used to pull data from cunent databases 19 because there is no ready-to-use application in the cunent databases either. Id. at If 8. In sum, this 20 process would take an enormous amount of tiriie to complete and would be complicated and 21 difficult for employees to complete in addition to their regular duties. Id. at Tf| 7-8. 22 5. All Putative Class Members' Log In And Log Out Data 23 ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27; 24 All DOCUMENTS lhat reflect or RELATE TO the time POTENTIAL CLASS 25 MEMBERS are logged into their computer DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 26 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27; 27 In addidon to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this request on the 28 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "RELATE 4152-5906-7666,1 " 1 1 " SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY . 1 TO," "time," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "logged into." Defendant also objects that 2 this Request seeks merits discovery before a class is even certified. Defendant also objects to this 3 Request on the grounds it is overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Defendani also objects to this 4 Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 5 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEQUENCED; 6 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 7 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 8 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it lo comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 9 demands. Importantly, all ofthe information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 10 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 11 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 27 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information he seeks 12 will be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action. 13 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 27 seeks information about approximately five thousand 14 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due 15 to the enormous volume of informafion at issue, it would likely approximately one month of 16 dedicated time to complete. Stewart Dec, Tf 5. But because full dedication is infeasible, in actuality, 17 compliance would take much longer. Id. This is because employees' computer log-on and log-off 18 data between November 2016 and November 2017 is archived in raw textfilesstored by day, not 19 be person. Id. at Tf 3. Therefore, in order tofilterthe data for a select 5,000 or so employees, Health 20 Net's team would need to devise a query to conduct a computer search for them by their unique 21 identificafion numbers, then extract out just their data, and then putjusl their data into a new file. 22 Id. And, data post-November 2017 data is stored in a different computer application. Id. at \ 4. 23 Thus, to gather that data, Health Net's team would similarly need to devise an appropriate query. 24 Id. In sum, this process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be 25 complicated and difficult for employees to complete in addifion to their regular duties. Id. at Tf 5. 26 ARANA'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28; 27 AH DOCUMENTS that reflect or RELATE TO the fime POTENTIAL CLASS 28 MEMBERS are logged out of their computer DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 4152-5906-7666.1 - 12 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28; 2 In addifion to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects lo this request on the 3 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "DOCUMENTS," "RELATE 4 TO," "time," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "logged out." Defendant also objects that 5 this Request seeks merits discovery before a class is even certified. Defendant also objects to this 6 Request on the grounds il is overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this 7 Request on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 8 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEQUENCED; 9 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 10 class members and potenfially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 11 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 12 demands. ImportanUy, all ofthe information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 13 this case as a class acfion or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 14 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 28 is unduly burdensome, and all of the information he seeks 15 will be inelevant if Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action. 16 Plaintiff Arana's Request No. 28 seeks information about approximately five thousand 17 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tl 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due 18 to the enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely approximately one month of 19 dedicated time to complete. Stewart Dec, Tf 5. But because full dedication is infeasible, in actuality, 20 compliance would take much longer. Id. This is because employees' computer log-on and log-off 21 data between November 2016 and November 2017 is archived in raw text files stored by day, not 22 be person. Id. at Tf 3. Therefore, in order to filter the data for a select 5,000 or so employees. Health 23 Net's team would need to devise a query to conduct a computer search for them by their unique 24 idenfification numbers, then extract out just their data, and then put just their data into a new file. 25 Id. And, data post-November 2017 data is stored in a different computer application. Id. at Tf 4. 26 Thus, to gather that data, Health Net's team would similarly need to devise an appropriate query. 27 Id. In sum, this process would take an enormous amount of time to complete and would be 28 complicated and difficult for employees to complete in additiori to their regular duties. Id. at Tf 5. -13- 4152-5906-7666.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 6. Identity And Contact Information OfAll Putative Class Members' Supervisors 2 ARANA'S SPECIAL INTERRQGATORY NO. 2; 3 Please IDENTIFY each EMPLOYEE who supervised the POTENTIAL CLASS 4 MEMBERS including Plainfiff at the facility that they worked at DURING THE RELEVANT 5 TIME PERIOD. 6 The term "EMPLOYEE" shall mean a person who provides services in an employment 7 relationship, whether paid for any or all such services, including but not limited to any class of 8 individuals as pled in the operative complaint. 9 RESPONSE TO ARANA'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 10 In addition to the foregoing General Objecfions, Defendant also objects to this intenogatory 11 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms and phrases "IDENTIFY," 12 "EMPLOYEE," "supervised," "POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME 13 PERIOD," "provides services," "employment relationship," "services" and "class of individuals as 14 pled in the operative complaint." Defendant objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome, 15 oppressive and harassing, given that compiling the information requested is unreasonably difficult 16 and expensive and would require a highly-individualized inquiry. Defendant further objects to this 17 intenogatory to the extent Plaintiff seeks class-wide discovery, before a class is even certified. 18 Such discovery is inappropriate at this time. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent 19 that il seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party 20 non-litigants under the Califomia Constitution, article I, section 1. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 22 Will Monies is Plainfiffs current immediate supervisor. Mr. Monies may be contacted through 23 Defendant's counsel of record. 24 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ARANA'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows: Prior to Mr. 26 Monies, Plaintiffs supervisors during the relevant time period were Lee Brailhwaite, Vanessa 27 Jackson, Cathleen Holgale, and Lori Wiley. Mr. Brailhwaite, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Wiley may be 28 4152-5906-7666.1 - 14 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 contacted through Defendant's counsel of record. Ms. Holgate's last known contact information 2 is: 7576 Pocket Rd., Sacramento, CA 95831; (916) 715-2765. 3 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED; 4 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 5 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 6 an oppressive burden on Health Net were it to comply with Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 7 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be inelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 8 this case as a class acfion or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 9 Plaintiff Arana's Intenogatory No. 2 is unduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy 10 interests of putative class members. Further, all of the iriformation he seeks will be irrelevant if 11 Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class action. 12 Plaintiff Arana's Inlerrogatory No. 2 seeks data pertaining lo for nearly 5,000 individuals. 13 Rodes Dec, Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. Due to the 14 enormous volume of information at issue, it would likely take, approximately 25-30 dedicated 15 hours to answer Plaintiffs' interrogatories. Id. at Tfl 2-4. Such efforts are unnecessary and 16 premature prior to class certification. Health Net has already provided every relevant class-wide 17 policy related to meal premiums. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little 18 sense considering the information will be inelevant if he never certifies this case as a class action. 19 Such discovery should be deferred until and unless Plaintiffs are able to certify this case. 20 Further, Plainfiff Arana's request for the contact information of each and every supervisor 21 of each and every putative class members infringes on these supervisors' privacy rights. Setting 22 aside the fact that these individuals belong to Health Net's "control group" and would not be part 23 of ariy class Plaintiffs seek to certify (and similarly would not qualify as aggrieved employees based 24 on Plaintiffs allegations), they have not had any opportunity lo object to such disclosure. See 25 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc., 149 Cal. App. 4th at 561-62. Putafive class members have that right 26 {see id.), so why shouldn't supervisors whose interests are in conflict with the individuals Plainfiffs 27 seek to represent? In any event, Plaintiffs are well within their rights to notice depositions of 28 4152-5906-7666.1 - 15 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY supervisors through Health Net, as is normally done. To permit contact otherwise would be to 2 allow impermissible ex parte communications with represented company managers. 3 7. All Putative Class Members Who Received Overtime Compensation And "Cash Payments In Lieu Of Health Benefits" 4 SPEARS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 5 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS 6 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the same pay period during 7 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 8 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 9 RESPQNSE TO SPEARS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 11 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 12 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of 13 health benefits during the same pay period." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 14 groimds it seeks informafion lhat is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendantfiartherobjects 16 that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly 17 at this pre-certificafion stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 18 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant fiirther 19 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foimdation as it assumes facts that have 20 neither been admitted nor established. 21 REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE SEOUENCED: 22 Sequencing discovery in this case is especially appropriate because the number of putative 23 class members and potentially aggrieved employees is well into the thousands - imposing, as result, 24 an oppressive burden on Health Nel were it to comply wilh Plaintiffs' merits-based, classwide 25 demands. Importantly, all of the information sought would be irrelevant if Plaintiffs never certify 26 this case as a class action or establish that they themselves are aggrieved. 27 28 4152-5906-7666.1 - \6 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEQUENCE DISCOVERY 1 Plaintiff Spears' Intenogatory No. 6 is imduly burdensome and infringes on the privacy 2 interests of putative class members. Further, all of the information she seeks will be irrelevant if 3 Plaintiffs never certify this case as a class acfion. 4 Plaintiff Spears' Interrogatory No. 6 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tf 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. 6 This merits-based, classwide intenogatory nol only requires compilation and review of an 7 enormous amount of data, it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time 8 consuming. Schneider Dec, TfTf 2-24. Indeed, this intenogatory is even more burdensome than 9 Plainfiffs' document demands insofar as they require pulling, as an initial matter, the documents 10 requested, and then analyzing them and performing calculations thereafter. Id. In sum, this process 11 would take an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees lo 12 complete in addifion to their regular duties. Id. at TfTf 7-8, 13-18. Due lo the enormous volume of 13 information at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in 14 the Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicatedfimeto complete the 15 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Intenogatories. Id. at Tf 24. Such efforts are unnecessary 16 and premature prior to class certification. Health Net has already provided every relevant class- 17 wide policy related to overtime and health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, 18 individualized information makes little sense considering the information will be inelevant if she 19 never certifies this case as a class action. Such discovery should be deferred until and unless 20 Plaintiffs are able to certify this case. 21 Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive 22 certain health benefits. Providing such information would violate putafive class members' privacy 23 rights. Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putafive class members' contact information 24 after they are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve 25 addifional privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is 26 personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll information 27 routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City 28 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is 4152-5906-7666.1 - 17 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO