Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 04/17/2018 TIME: 10:48:00 AM DEPT: 54
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger
CLERK: M. Greco
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: M. Oreschak
CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter - (Motion to Sequence Discovery) - Taken
Under Submission 4/16/18
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Health Net of California, Inc.'s ("Health Net") motion to sequence discovery pursuant to CCP
§2019.020(b) is ruled upon as follows.
This is a putative class action relating to Health Net's alleged violation wage-and-hour laws. It was
recently consolidated with another similar action brought by plaintiff Tomas Arana and a consolidated
complaint for both actions was filed on 12/21/2017. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (a)
failure to provide meal periods, (b) failure to provide rest periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime
wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based on Health Net's alleged failure to properly calculate
the regular rate, (e) unlawful rounding practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (g)
failure to timely pay all final wages, (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA claims.
Health Net moves for an order sequencing discovery for "the convenience of parties and witnesses and
in the interest of justice." Specifically, Health Net requests that the Court "pause the merits-based and
classwide discovery on Plaintiffs' meal and rest break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims unless
and until they establish that certification is appropriate and that they have standing to represent other
allegedly aggrieved
employees." (HealthNet MPA, 5:8-11.) Health Net claims that sequencing the discovery promotes
judicial economy, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice because it avoids
burdensome, costly and problematic discovery, which may become immaterial if the class certification
motion is denied or if the Plaintiffs do not have standing.
Health Net has identified 19 discovery requests propounded by either Spears or Arana to which Health
Net requests that the Court "pause" until after Plaintiffs successfully certify a class and establish that
they have standing. In footnote 5, Health Net also seeks a stay on its duty to provide further response to
pending discovery identified in footnote 2 of its brief. (HealthNet MPA, 6:25-27.) Health Net requests
that the Court either defer Health Net having to respond to this discovery until and unless Plaintiffs can
establish that the discovery they seek is in any way relevant to the claims asserted in this lawsuit or that
the responses (and documents) Health Net has already provided are somehow deficient.
Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Spears") opposes the motion, Arana filed no opposition.
DATE: 04/17/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
This motion is nearly identical to Health Net's motion to sequence discovery which was heard before
Judge Perkins. In his March 9, 2018 Order on Health Net's motion to sequence discovery, Judge
Perkins explained:
The court does not discount or reject the merits of all Health Net's position and concerns. Likewise, the
court does not find Plaintiff's position entirely unreasonable either. The motion as presented, and
postured after argument in the briefs, is all or nothing. The court is left to page through the 15 or 19
broad categories of impacted discovery without substantial detail to determine whether it is entirely
irrelevant and unnecessary for Plaintiff to present the best position on class certification. Moreover, the
court is faced with the reality that the Plaintiffs allege a PAGA claim that is not subject to the same stay
threshold of certification proposed by Health Net.
The court is also aware of both: 1) the pending motion for summary adjudication, which may have
significant implications for the scope and subject matter of future discovery, and 2) the fact that there
have already been a significant number of discovery motions in this case that have been, or will be,
heard by the law and motion department.
Given this status, the court is persuaded that the issues of burden, privacy, relevance/necessity, and
timing are all much better addressed and analyzed in detailed discovery motions (motions to compel,
motions for protective order) than by a broad stay on virtually all discovery without the detailed
substance necessary to assess such issues.
Thus, Health Net's motion as framed is denied without prejudice to seek similar specific relief by
appropriate discovery motion directed to the law and motion department, including motions for protective
orders.
(ROA 132 [emphasis added].) Just a few hours after Judge Perkins published the order, Heath Net filed
and served the instant motion. The only main difference between this motion and the prior motion is that
Health Net has now included a separate statement.
Having reviewed both parties' papers, the Court agrees with Judge Perkins. This is "all or nothing
motion," which seeks a broad stay on virtually all discovery, and asks the Court to "rule in a vacuum."
The Court cannot rule on the issues of burden, privacy, relevance/necessity, and timing without detailed
analysis of the individual discovery at issue. These arguments are better raised in specific, tailored
motions, such as motions for protective order or in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion(s) to compel. The
instant motion is too broad for the relief sought.
The motion is DENIED.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted.
The matter was taken under submission.
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
Having taken the matter under submission, the Court now rules as follows:
DATE: 04/17/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
The court affirms the tentative. The current proposal for sequencing discovery, proposed by Health Net
and opposed by plaintiffs, is not workable. (Counsel for plaintiff Tomas Arana confirmed at the hearing
that Arana also opposes Health Net's proposal. The court also observes that sequencing discovery in
Arana's case but not Spears' case - as suggested by Health Net at the hearing - would defeat the
purpose of consolidation.)
The parties may wish to meet-and-confer on other proposals for sequencing discovery.
DATE: 04/17/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 04/17/2018 TIME: 10:48:00 AM DEPT: 54 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger CLERK: M. Greco REPORTER/ERM: None BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: M. Oreschak CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 04/05/2017 CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited ASSOCIATED CASES: 34-2017-00216685-CU-OE-GDS APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter - (Motion to Sequence Discovery) - Taken Under Submission 4/16/18 TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Health Net of California, Inc.'s ("Health Net") motion to sequence discovery pursuant to CCP §2019.020(b) is ruled upon as follows. This is a putative class action relating to Health Net's alleged violation wage-and-hour laws. It was recently consolidated with another similar action brought by plaintiff Tomas Arana and a consolidated complaint for both actions was filed on 12/21/2017. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (a) failure to provide meal periods, (b) failure to provide rest periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based on Health Net's alleged failure to properly calculate the regular rate, (e) unlawful rounding practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages, (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA claims. Health Net moves for an order sequencing discovery for "the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice." Specifically, Health Net requests that the Court "pause the merits-based and classwide discovery on Plaintiffs' meal and rest break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims unless and until they establish that certification is appropriate and that they have standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees." (HealthNet MPA, 5:8-11.) Health Net claims that sequencing the discovery promotes judicial economy, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice because it avoids burdensome, costly and problematic discovery, which may become immaterial if the class certification motion is denied or if the Plaintiffs do not have standing. Health Net has identified 19 discovery requests propounded by either Spears or Arana to which Health Net requests that the Court "pause" until after Plaintiffs successfully certify a class and establish that they have standing. In footnote 5, Health Net also seeks a stay on its duty to provide further response to pending discovery identified in footnote 2 of its brief. (HealthNet MPA, 6:25-27.) Health Net requests that the Court either defer Health Net having to respond to this discovery until and unless Plaintiffs can establish that the discovery they seek is in any way relevant to the claims asserted in this lawsuit or that the responses (and documents) Health Net has already provided are somehow deficient. Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Spears") opposes the motion, Arana filed no opposition. DATE: 04/17/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS This motion is nearly identical to Health Net's motion to sequence discovery which was heard before Judge Perkins. In his March 9, 2018 Order on Health Net's motion to sequence discovery, Judge Perkins explained: The court does not discount or reject the merits of all Health Net's position and concerns. Likewise, the court does not find Plaintiff's position entirely unreasonable either. The motion as presented, and postured after argument in the briefs, is all or nothing. The court is left to page through the 15 or 19 broad categories of impacted discovery without substantial detail to determine whether it is entirely irrelevant and unnecessary for Plaintiff to present the best position on class certification. Moreover, the court is faced with the reality that the Plaintiffs allege a PAGA claim that is not subject to the same stay threshold of certification proposed by Health Net. The court is also aware of both: 1) the pending motion for summary adjudication, which may have significant implications for the scope and subject matter of future discovery, and 2) the fact that there have already been a significant number of discovery motions in this case that have been, or will be, heard by the law and motion department. Given this status, the court is persuaded that the issues of burden, privacy, relevance/necessity, and timing are all much better addressed and analyzed in detailed discovery motions (motions to compel, motions for protective order) than by a broad stay on virtually all discovery without the detailed substance necessary to assess such issues. Thus, Health Net's motion as framed is denied without prejudice to seek similar specific relief by appropriate discovery motion directed to the law and motion department, including motions for protective orders. (ROA 132 [emphasis added].) Just a few hours after Judge Perkins published the order, Heath Net filed and served the instant motion. The only main difference between this motion and the prior motion is that Health Net has now included a separate statement. Having reviewed both parties' papers, the Court agrees with Judge Perkins. This is "all or nothing motion," which seeks a broad stay on virtually all discovery, and asks the Court to "rule in a vacuum." The Court cannot rule on the issues of burden, privacy, relevance/necessity, and timing without detailed analysis of the individual discovery at issue. These arguments are better raised in specific, tailored motions, such as motions for protective order or in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion(s) to compel. The instant motion is too broad for the relief sought. The motion is DENIED. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. COURT RULING The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission. SUBMITTED MATTER RULING Having taken the matter under submission, the Court now rules as follows: DATE: 04/17/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc CASE NO: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS The court affirms the tentative. The current proposal for sequencing discovery, proposed by Health Net and opposed by plaintiffs, is not workable. (Counsel for plaintiff Tomas Arana confirmed at the hearing that Arana also opposes Health Net's proposal. The court also observes that sequencing discovery in Arana's case but not Spears' case - as suggested by Health Net at the hearing - would defeat the purpose of consolidation.) The parties may wish to meet-and-confer on other proposals for sequencing discovery. DATE: 04/17/2018 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 54 Calendar No.