Preview
:.:iX'iii-:i^-:j'>'',', -• • •/: •: ..,1 ,'11.,'. 4,
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) FiLEb:
tj long(a),orrick.com
2 NICHOLAS J. HORTON (STATE BAR NO. 289417) ' ENOORSEO •
nhorton(a)orrick.com
3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 20ISAPR-3 PH |:57
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
4 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 COi;;iTY GF SkC^khtmO
Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
5 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
6 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
Stephanie.lee(g),orrick.com
7 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
9 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
10 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
15 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
situated, DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE
16 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
17 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
18 INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a SANCTIONS
19 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Date: April 16,2018
inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Krueger
Defendants. Dept.: 54
21
Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
CO 22 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec.
< 23 21,2017
z 24 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
25 Plaintiff,
cc 26
V.
o 27
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
28 Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Defendant Health Net of Califomia,
2 Inc. hereby responds to the Separate Statement filed by Plaintiff Andrea Spears in support of her
3 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.
4 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 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory 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 interrogatory on the
14 grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fiirther objects
16 that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly
17 at this pre-certification 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 foundation as it assumes facts that have
20 neither been admitted nor established.
21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE
22 COMPELLED;
23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that vvere made in lieu of
24 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This
25 interrogatory seeks basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint.
26 This information will both lead to the discovery offiartherevidence and will be used, in and of
27 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification.
28
-1-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business
2 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as
3 to burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine
4 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant.
5 An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to
6 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding
7 class certification.
8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
10 Interrogatory 6 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals.
11 Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee (hereinafter (Lee Dec"), H 31, Exh. R ( (hereinafter "Rodes
12 Dec"), ^ 2). Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based,
13 classwide interrogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data,
14 it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Lee Dec, 30,
15 Exh. Q (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), TfU 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and
16 timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health Net, and archived
17 information from that database is not readily accessible. Schneider Dec, ]| 3. More recent payroll
18 and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than
19 the database used for the archived records. Id. at Y\ 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application
20 to gather the information necessary to respond to this Interrogatory from the archive, so collecting
21 the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at
22 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would not fit into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so
23 employees would need to build another tool or database to host it. Id. at H 7.
24 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no
25 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at ^ 8. In sum, this process would take
26 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in
27 addition to their regular duties. Id. at W 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information
28
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the
2 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the
3 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Interrogatories. Id. at ^ 24.
4 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health
5 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and
6 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little sense
7 considering the information will be irrelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.' Such
8 discovery should be.deferred until and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing
9 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, and expense
10 necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for thousands of Health Net's current and former
11 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based
12 discovery at this early juncture.
13 Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive
14 certain health benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy
15 rights. Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contact information
16 after they are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve
17 additional privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is
18 personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person ifhe or she would want their payroll information
19 routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City
20 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is
21 entitled to even more stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996)
22 (medical privacy is a quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class
23 member privacyrightsbefore Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action.
24 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory.
25 '•
' Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos.
26 6 and 1, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No; 19 is not
relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral
27 Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively
2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
' FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7;
2 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation
3 during the same pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
4 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory,
5 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
9 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same
10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this
11 interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
12 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
13 further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
14 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
15 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE
19 COMPELLED
20 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of
21 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This
22 interrogatory seeks basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint.
23 This information will both lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of
24 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification.
25 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business
26 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, DefendEuit's objections as
27 to burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine
28
-4-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant.
2 An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to
3 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding
4 class certification.
5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
7 Interrogatory 7 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes
8 Dec, 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based,
9 classwide interrogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data,
10 it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec,
11 TITI 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll andtimekeepingdata was stored on a system that is
12 no longer used by Health Net, and archived information from that database is not readily accessible.
13 Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different
14 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3-
15 4. Health Net has no readyrto-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to
16 this Interrogatory from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries
17 and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at TITI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it
18 would not fit into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or
19 database to host it. MatTI7.
20 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no
21 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at TI 8. In sum, this process would take
22 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in
23 addition to their regular duties. Id. at TITI 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information
24 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the
25 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the
26 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Interrogatories. Id. at TI 24.
27
28
-5-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health
2 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and
3 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized infbrmation makes little sense
4 considering the information will be irrelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.^ Such
5 discovery should be deferred until and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing
6 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, and expense
7 necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for thousands of Health Net's current and former
8 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based
9 discovery at this early juncture.
10 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
12 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by
13 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (ifyou refer to documents
14 in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the
15 responsive documents).
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
18 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
19 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage
20 statements." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly
21 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to
23 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
24 '
25 •
^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos.
26 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No. 19 is not
relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral
Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively
2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here.
-6-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
2 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
3 Plaintiffs wage statements.
4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE
•5 COMPELLED
6 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity
7 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which
8 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to
9 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality
10 and typicality.
11 As a putative class action, Plaintiffis entitled to information that relates to all class rnembers
12 and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses tp Plaintiff is unfounded and
13 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint
14 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531,
15 549(2017). •
16 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
17 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
18 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
19 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
20 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member,
21 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for
22 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to
23 class certification.^ All of the information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be irrelevant i f she never
24 certifies this case as a class action.
25 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories.
26
27
28 ^ Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears.
-7-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an
3 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this
4 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its
7 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the
8 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation
9 regarding what each pay code means." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
10 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
11 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
13 proprietary business information.
14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE
15 COMPELLED
16 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity
17 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the \yage statements, all of which
18 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to
19 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality
20 and typicality.
21 As to any potentially-confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
22 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
23 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
24 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
25 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member,
26 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for
27 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to
28
-8-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 class certification.'' All of the information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be irrelevant i f she never
2 certifies this case as a class action.
3 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
5 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS
6 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special
7 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also
12 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action
13 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects
14 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
15 information. Defendant ftirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
16 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
18 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
19 Plaintiffs wage statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by
20 Defendant.
21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE
22 COMPELLED
23 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as
24 well as the various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members.
25 To the extent Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates
26 commonality and is, therefore, timely pre-certification discovery.
27
2g " Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members
2 and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and
3 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint
4 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531,
5 549(2017).
6 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
7 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
10 Interrogatory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were
11 "eligible to receive[]." Lee Dec, TI 6, Exh. E. Health Net objected to this Interrogatory because it
12 is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health Net does not know what "forms of compensation"
13 means. "Forms of compensation", might include hourly and overtime wages. It might require a
14 breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime versus commission versus bonuses. It might
15 entail the value of health benefits, paid time off, holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave,
16 disability policies, etc. It might include payouts for benefits or unused paid time off It might
17 include a plethora of things which comprise an employee's total compensation package and perks.
18 Health Net does not know because the Interrogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plaintiff Spears
19 for clarification, she has provided none. Lee Dec, TI 34.^ Health Net should not be left to guess at
20 what it is being asked to answer.
21 Furthermore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information regarding "forms of
22 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Speeirs did not receive, it is overbroad
23 and seeks irrelevant information. There is nothing in Plaintiff Spears's complaint or moving papers
24 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation
25
26 5 Plaintiff Spears's counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she
actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description
of such pay codes (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special
Interrogatory, she should have stated as such.
-10-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS •
1 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitled to information that did not apply to her
2 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring.
3 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
5 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during
6 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
7 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
10 the grounds that it is vague aqd ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects
12 to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
13 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
14 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
15 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
17 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its
18 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a
19 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE
21 COMPELLED
22 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational
23 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp^ v. Sup.
24 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistentiy applied to
25 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and
26 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce
27 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance.
28
-11-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will
2 absolutely need to know i f the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However,
3 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff The Class
4 as pled in the complaint and who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-
5 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-
6 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees
7 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality
8 for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations
9 ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Coiirt,
10 3 Cal. Sth 531,549 (2017).
11 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
12 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will
13 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
14 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
15 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
16 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive
17 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates
18 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO1785-86, 1875-1918,
19 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), TI 7, Ex. 7.
20 Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as she attached correspondence identifying these
21 documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion
22 on this issue. In any event, her motion should be denied.
23 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
25 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS
26 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
27 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
28
-12-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
4 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects
5 to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
7 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
8 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
10 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its
11 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a
12 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
13 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE
14 COMPELLED
15 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational
16 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup.
17 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistentiy applied to
18 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and
19 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce
20 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance.
21 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will
22 absolutely need to know i f the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However,
23 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class
24 as pled in the complaint arid who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-
25 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-
26 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees
27 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality
28
-13-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations
2 ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
3 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549(2017).
4 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
5 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will
6 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
7 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
9 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive
10 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates
11 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918,
12 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Rivapalacio Dec, TI 7, Ex. 7. Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as
13 she attached correspondence identifying these documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled
14 as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion on this issue. In any event, her motion should be
15 denied.
16 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
18 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT
19 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify
20 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18;
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also
25 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
26 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is
28
-14-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS .
1 premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification
2 stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to
3 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows;
5 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
6 Plaintiffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the
7 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential
8 documents.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE
10 COMPELLED
11 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the
12 expectations of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal
13 breaks. This information is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as
14 well as the merits of the case. This information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for
15 class certification and Defendant can provide no valid objection for withholding this information.
16 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rile
17 Aid Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006) (defendant is
18 compelled to identify all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response
19 that refers Plaintiff to her job description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action.
20 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case
.21 a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017).
22 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
23 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's response states it will
24 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
25 , " •
26
27 c • ,
28 -15-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS .
1 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks performed by the non-exempt putative
4 class members. This Interrogatory seeks hundreds of job tities and duties for thousands of current
5 and former employees. Rodes Dec. Tl 6. Responding to this Interrogatory would involve far more
6 than flipping a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions. Id. This Interrogatory
7 seeks information from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull through many
8 electronic and hard copy files to locate information responsive to this Interrogatory. Id. The job
9 would be more challenging because many of the documents that contain this information have been
10 archived and area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be burdensome for Health
11 Net to respond to this Interrogatory. Id.
12 The information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
13 of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class members are
14 irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's allegations; The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are not necessary
15 to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non-exempt putative
16 class member was misclassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into question any of
17 the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no justification for
18 burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the information sought is irrelevant.
19 Plaintiff Spears's reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still
20 subject to valid objections, including that it is irrelevant and burdensome.
21 Health Net produced Plaintiff Spears's job description, which included her job duties. That
22 is this all that is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce
23 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempt putative class members when they
24 are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's claims.
25
26 6 For example, in Tierno v. Rile AidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016),
the court ordered the defendcuit to provide job duties of putative class members because the plaintiff
2^ in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misclassified. Id. at *2. Plaintiff
2g Spears does not assert a misclassification claim.
-16-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory.
2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
3 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS
4 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
5 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
9 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums."
10 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory 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 ftirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
13 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
14 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
16 During Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period
17 premiums and, as a result, did not receive any meal period premiums.
18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE
19 COMPELLED
20 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of
21 the class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the
22 Class is entitled is calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here,
23 regarding meal periods and wage statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the
24 information sought through these interrogatories serve this specific and vital purpose: to
25 demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by which the Court will calculate
26 damages.
27
28
-17-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
• FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any
2 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants
3 for their own purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in
4 a formal discovery context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
7 Interrogatory 19 seeks detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tl 2.
8 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, classwide
9 interrogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, it requires
10 detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec, TITI 2-24.
11 In part, this is because older payroll and timeke
Preview
:.:iX'iii-:i^-:j'>'',', -• • •/: •: ..,1 ,'11.,'. 4, 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) FiLEb: tj long(a),orrick.com 2 NICHOLAS J. HORTON (STATE BAR NO. 289417) ' ENOORSEO • nhorton(a)orrick.com 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 20ISAPR-3 PH |:57 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 4 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 COi;;iTY GF SkC^khtmO Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 5 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 6 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) Stephanie.lee(g),orrick.com 7 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 9 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 10 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 15 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS situated, DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE 16 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO 17 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 18 INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a SANCTIONS 19 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Date: April 16,2018 inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Defendants. Dept.: 54 21 Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 CO 22 FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. < 23 21,2017 z 24 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 25 Plaintiff, cc 26 V. o 27 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 28 Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Defendant Health Net of Califomia, 2 Inc. hereby responds to the Separate Statement filed by Plaintiff Andrea Spears in support of her 3 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. 4 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 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory 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 interrogatory on the 14 grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fiirther objects 16 that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly 17 at this pre-certification 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 foundation as it assumes facts that have 20 neither been admitted nor established. 21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE 22 COMPELLED; 23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that vvere made in lieu of 24 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This 25 interrogatory seeks basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. 26 This information will both lead to the discovery offiartherevidence and will be used, in and of 27 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification. 28 -1- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business 2 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as 3 to burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine 4 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. 5 An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to 6 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding 7 class certification. 8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 10 Interrogatory 6 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals. 11 Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee (hereinafter (Lee Dec"), H 31, Exh. R ( (hereinafter "Rodes 12 Dec"), ^ 2). Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, 13 classwide interrogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, 14 it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Lee Dec, 30, 15 Exh. Q (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), TfU 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and 16 timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health Net, and archived 17 information from that database is not readily accessible. Schneider Dec, ]| 3. More recent payroll 18 and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than 19 the database used for the archived records. Id. at Y\ 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application 20 to gather the information necessary to respond to this Interrogatory from the archive, so collecting 21 the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at 22 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would not fit into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so 23 employees would need to build another tool or database to host it. Id. at H 7. 24 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no 25 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at ^ 8. In sum, this process would take 26 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in 27 addition to their regular duties. Id. at W 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information 28 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the 2 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the 3 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Interrogatories. Id. at ^ 24. 4 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health 5 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and 6 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little sense 7 considering the information will be irrelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.' Such 8 discovery should be.deferred until and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing 9 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, and expense 10 necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for thousands of Health Net's current and former 11 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based 12 discovery at this early juncture. 13 Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive 14 certain health benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy 15 rights. Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contact information 16 after they are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve 17 additional privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is 18 personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person ifhe or she would want their payroll information 19 routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City 20 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is 21 entitled to even more stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996) 22 (medical privacy is a quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class 23 member privacyrightsbefore Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action. 24 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory. 25 '• ' Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 26 6 and 1, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No; 19 is not relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral 27 Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively 2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ' FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7; 2 Please state the number of CLASS MEMBERS who were paid overtime compensation 3 during the same pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 4 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, 5 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 9 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime compensation during the same 10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this 11 interrogatory on the grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of 12 this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 13 further objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 14 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 15 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 16 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE 19 COMPELLED 20 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of 21 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This 22 interrogatory seeks basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. 23 This information will both lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of 24 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification. 25 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business 26 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, DefendEuit's objections as 27 to burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine 28 -4- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. 2 An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to 3 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding 4 class certification. 5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 7 Interrogatory 7 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes 8 Dec, 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, 9 classwide interrogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, 10 it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec, 11 TITI 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll andtimekeepingdata was stored on a system that is 12 no longer used by Health Net, and archived information from that database is not readily accessible. 13 Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different 14 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3- 15 4. Health Net has no readyrto-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to 16 this Interrogatory from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries 17 and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at TITI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it 18 would not fit into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or 19 database to host it. MatTI7. 20 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no 21 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at TI 8. In sum, this process would take 22 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in 23 addition to their regular duties. Id. at TITI 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information 24 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the 25 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the 26 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Interrogatories. Id. at TI 24. 27 28 -5- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health 2 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and 3 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized infbrmation makes little sense 4 considering the information will be irrelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.^ Such 5 discovery should be deferred until and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing 6 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, and expense 7 necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for thousands of Health Net's current and former 8 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based 9 discovery at this early juncture. 10 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 12 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by 13 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (ifyou refer to documents 14 in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the 15 responsive documents). 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 18 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 19 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage 20 statements." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly 21 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to 23 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 24 ' 25 • ^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 26 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No. 19 is not relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively 2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here. -6- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 2 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 3 Plaintiffs wage statements. 4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE •5 COMPELLED 6 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity 7 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which 8 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to 9 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality 10 and typicality. 11 As a putative class action, Plaintiffis entitled to information that relates to all class rnembers 12 and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses tp Plaintiff is unfounded and 13 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint 14 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 15 549(2017). • 16 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 17 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 18 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 19 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 20 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, 21 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for 22 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to 23 class certification.^ All of the information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be irrelevant i f she never 24 certifies this case as a class action. 25 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories. 26 27 28 ^ Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears. -7- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, please provide an 3 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this 4 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 6 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its 7 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the 8 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation 9 regarding what each pay code means." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 10 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 11 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 13 proprietary business information. 14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE 15 COMPELLED 16 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity 17 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the \yage statements, all of which 18 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to 19 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality 20 and typicality. 21 As to any potentially-confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 22 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 23 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 24 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 25 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, 26 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for 27 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to 28 -8- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 class certification.'' All of the information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be irrelevant i f she never 2 certifies this case as a class action. 3 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 5 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS 6 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special 7 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "forms of compensation." Defendant also 12 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action 13 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects 14 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 15 information. Defendant ftirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 16 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 18 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 19 Plaintiffs wage statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by 20 Defendant. 21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE 22 COMPELLED 23 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as 24 well as the various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. 25 To the extent Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates 26 commonality and is, therefore, timely pre-certification discovery. 27 2g " Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members 2 and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and 3 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint 4 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 5 549(2017). 6 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 7 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 10 Interrogatory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were 11 "eligible to receive[]." Lee Dec, TI 6, Exh. E. Health Net objected to this Interrogatory because it 12 is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health Net does not know what "forms of compensation" 13 means. "Forms of compensation", might include hourly and overtime wages. It might require a 14 breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime versus commission versus bonuses. It might 15 entail the value of health benefits, paid time off, holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave, 16 disability policies, etc. It might include payouts for benefits or unused paid time off It might 17 include a plethora of things which comprise an employee's total compensation package and perks. 18 Health Net does not know because the Interrogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plaintiff Spears 19 for clarification, she has provided none. Lee Dec, TI 34.^ Health Net should not be left to guess at 20 what it is being asked to answer. 21 Furthermore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information regarding "forms of 22 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Speeirs did not receive, it is overbroad 23 and seeks irrelevant information. There is nothing in Plaintiff Spears's complaint or moving papers 24 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation 25 26 5 Plaintiff Spears's counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description of such pay codes (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special Interrogatory, she should have stated as such. -10- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS • 1 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitled to information that did not apply to her 2 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring. 3 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 5 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during 6 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 7 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 10 the grounds that it is vague aqd ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects 12 to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 13 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 14 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that 15 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 17 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its 18 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a 19 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE 21 COMPELLED 22 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational 23 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp^ v. Sup. 24 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistentiy applied to 25 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and 26 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce 27 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance. 28 -11- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will 2 absolutely need to know i f the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, 3 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff The Class 4 as pled in the complaint and who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non- 5 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non- 6 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees 7 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality 8 for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations 9 ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Coiirt, 10 3 Cal. Sth 531,549 (2017). 11 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 12 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will 13 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 14 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 15 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 16 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive 17 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates 18 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO1785-86, 1875-1918, 19 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), TI 7, Ex. 7. 20 Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as she attached correspondence identifying these 21 documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion 22 on this issue. In any event, her motion should be denied. 23 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 25 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS 26 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 27 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 28 -12- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 4 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects 5 to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 7 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that 8 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 10 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its 11 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a 12 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 13 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE 14 COMPELLED 15 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational 16 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. 17 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistentiy applied to 18 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and 19 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce 20 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance. 21 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will 22 absolutely need to know i f the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, 23 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class 24 as pled in the complaint arid who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non- 25 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non- 26 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees 27 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality 28 -13- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations 2 ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549(2017). 4 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 5 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will 6 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 7 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 9 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive 10 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates 11 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918, 12 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Rivapalacio Dec, TI 7, Ex. 7. Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as 13 she attached correspondence identifying these documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled 14 as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion on this issue. In any event, her motion should be 15 denied. 16 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 18 Please state the job duties performed by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT 19 TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify 20 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18; 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also 25 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 26 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is 28 -14- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . 1 premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification 2 stage of litigation, and would require a highly individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to 3 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows; 5 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 6 Plaintiffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the 7 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential 8 documents. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE 10 COMPELLED 11 The job duties of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the 12 expectations of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal 13 breaks. This information is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as 14 well as the merits of the case. This information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for 15 class certification and Defendant can provide no valid objection for withholding this information. 16 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rile 17 Aid Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006) (defendant is 18 compelled to identify all tasks performed by the putative class members). Defendant's response 19 that refers Plaintiff to her job description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. 20 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case .21 a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. Sth 531, 549 (2017). 22 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 23 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's response states it will 24 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 25 , " • 26 27 c • , 28 -15- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . 1 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks performed by the non-exempt putative 4 class members. This Interrogatory seeks hundreds of job tities and duties for thousands of current 5 and former employees. Rodes Dec. Tl 6. Responding to this Interrogatory would involve far more 6 than flipping a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions. Id. This Interrogatory 7 seeks information from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull through many 8 electronic and hard copy files to locate information responsive to this Interrogatory. Id. The job 9 would be more challenging because many of the documents that contain this information have been 10 archived and area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be burdensome for Health 11 Net to respond to this Interrogatory. Id. 12 The information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 13 of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class members are 14 irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's allegations; The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are not necessary 15 to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non-exempt putative 16 class member was misclassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into question any of 17 the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no justification for 18 burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the information sought is irrelevant. 19 Plaintiff Spears's reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still 20 subject to valid objections, including that it is irrelevant and burdensome. 21 Health Net produced Plaintiff Spears's job description, which included her job duties. That 22 is this all that is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce 23 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempt putative class members when they 24 are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's claims. 25 26 6 For example, in Tierno v. Rile AidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016), the court ordered the defendcuit to provide job duties of putative class members because the plaintiff 2^ in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misclassified. Id. at *2. Plaintiff 2g Spears does not assert a misclassification claim. -16- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Interrogatory. 2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 3 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS 4 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 5 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 9 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." 10 Defendant also objects to this interrogatory 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 ftirther objects that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 13 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 14 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 16 During Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period 17 premiums and, as a result, did not receive any meal period premiums. 18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE 19 COMPELLED 20 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of 21 the class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the 22 Class is entitled is calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, 23 regarding meal periods and wage statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the 24 information sought through these interrogatories serve this specific and vital purpose: to 25 demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by which the Court will calculate 26 damages. 27 28 -17- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL • FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any 2 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants 3 for their own purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in 4 a formal discovery context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 7 Interrogatory 19 seeks detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, Tl 2. 8 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, classwide 9 interrogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, it requires 10 detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec, TITI 2-24. 11 In part, this is because older payroll and timeke