Preview
I BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK • • /• f KOORSED
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) IdilDEC-S Aim = 25
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) •\mm\-COURT OF CALlrMSiA
COUHTY OFSALRnncrirO
Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115)
4 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
5 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
6
Attomeys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ll
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13
14 ANDREA SPEARS an individual, on CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
behalf of herself ana on behalf of all
15 persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION
16
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION
17 AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
vs. RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
18 INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF
19 INC., a Califomia Corporation; and VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO IN
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, SUPPORT
20
Defendants. Telephone Appearance
21
Hearing Date: January 4, 2018
22 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Raymond M. Cadei
23 Dept.: 54
24 Action Filed: April 5, 2017
25
26 by fax
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Please be advised that on January 4,2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the above entitled
3 Court, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff) will move to compel Defendant HEALTH NET OF
4 CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories,
5 Set One. This motion will be heard before the Honorable Raymond M. Cadei, Judge of the Superior
6 Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento.
7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300 on the grounds
8 that the said interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter of this action and that Defendant's
9 objections are improper and without merit. The motion will be based upon this notice of motion and
10 motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the separate statement, the declaration of Victoria B.
11 Rivapalacio, the lodged exhibits, filed and served herewith, the complete files and records in this case
12 and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion.
13 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits ofthis
14 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings
15 for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online
16 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local
17 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the
18 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. Ifyou do not call the court and opposing party on the
19 court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
20
21 Dated: December 5, 2017 BLUMENTHAL-NORDREHAUG-&-BHOWMIK, LLP
22
By:
23 Victoria B. lliy&palacio, Esq.
Attorneys for Piaihtiff
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
I CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff and "Plaintiff Spears") asserts causes of actions based on
3 Defendant's failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt, hourly employees for all time
4 worked, in violation of the Califomia Labor Code. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a class of former
5 and current non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant. Plaintiff asserts causes of action imder the
6 Califomia Labor Code and the Unfair Business and Professions Code (the "UCL") based on Defendant's
7 failvire to provide compliant meal and rest periods/premiiuns to this class as promised by Defendant's
8 policies that agreed to pay premiums for breaks docimiented as missed in the time records.
9 Plaintiff also asserts causes of action on behalf of this class based on Defendant's failure to properly
10 calculate the Class Members' regular rate of pay. Defendant's payroll policy as to how the regular rate of
11 pay was calculated for Defendant's non-exempt employees is, in Class Counsel's experience, a classwide
12 payroll mechanism that does not differentiate based on job title or job location. If a non-exempt employee
13 was issued an incentive commission or other non-discretionary bonus, that amount was not included in the
14 calculation of the regular rate as a payroll practice.
15 The discovery requests at issue here seek (I) foundational information regarding the Class (Rog
16 Nos. 5-7); (2) Defendant's compensation policies (Rog Nos. 8-10 & 13); (3) Defendant's pay codes (Rog
17 Nos. 11-12); (4) forms of compensation (Rog No. 14); (5) meal period policies (Rog Nos. 15-16); (6)
18 numbers applicable to the Class (Rog Nos. 17 & 19-24); and (7) Class Members' job duties (Rog No.
19 18). Defendant has refiised to cooperate with providing sufficient responses despite their clear relevance.
20 For example, Defendant's policy docvunents regarding the allegations in the complaint are foundational
21 discovery and regularly produced in wage and hoiu* class actions. Yet, Defendant has objected to providing
22 this indisputably relevant and discoverable information.
23 In summary, as Defendant has failed to fiUfil its discovery obligations in this matter. Plaintiff
24 respectfiilly requests that the Court grant this motion to compel.
25 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
26 PiaintifF Spears filed this action on April 5, 2017, filing a First Amended Complaint that added a
27 cause of action pursuant to PAGA on June 29,2017. The Parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Spears
28 action with ^rawa V. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-00216685, which the Court ordered
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
I CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 consolidated on October 11, 2017.
2 Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of special
3 interrogatories. (Rivapalacio Decl. f 3.) Defendant served its initial responses on September 12, 2017.
4 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. I.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant detailing
5 the deficiencies in Defendant's responses. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff followed up the following
6 month (see Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 3.). but the Parties finally met and conferred on October 24,2017.
7 During the telephonic meet and confer. Defendant stated it would provide supplemental responses.
8 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 4.) No supplemental responses have been provided by Defendant. (Rivapalacio
9 Decl. 15.)
10 in. ARGUMENT
11 Under California's Di scovery Act, information should be regarded as "relevant to the subj ect matter"
12 if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating the settlement
13 thereof. Gonzalezv. Superior Court,!,?, Cal. App. 4th 1539,1546(l995);Zfp/o«v. Superior Court, 4S Cal
14 App. 4th 1599, 1611 (1996). These cases state that the scope must be liberally construed in favor of
15 permitting discovery in accordance with the imderlying policy of the Discovery Act. Emerson Electric
16 V. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 4th 1101, 1107 (1997).
17 Plaintiff s discovery requests at issue seek foundational information which will either be admissible
18 evidence in itself or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the relevancy of these
19 requests is manifest. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that a plaintifF is entitled to
20 fiill discovery imless limited by an order of the Court as follows:
21 Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may
obtam discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
22 involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, i f
the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to
23 the discovery of admissible evidence.
24 A. Foundational Information Regarding the Class: Rog Nos. 5-7
25 These interrogatories seek the job titles of those Class Members who were eligible to be paid cash
26 payments in lieu of health benefits (No. 5), the pay periods in which those Class Members worked overtime
27 and also received those payments (No. 6), and the number of Class Members in that category (No. 7).
28 Defendant responds to each with solely objections.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
2 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 PlaintifT alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health
2 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. These interrogatories
3 seek basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint: which job positions
4 were eligible for the cash payments, the dates of specific pay periods, and the number of Class Members
5 who received cash payments in a pay period where they also worked overtime. This information will both
6 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs
7 upcoming motion for class certification.
8 B. Defendant's Compensation Policies: Rog Nos. 8-10 & 13
9 These interrogatories ask Defendant to states policies related to specific aspects of Defendant's
10 compensation system: the payment of cash in lieu of health benefits, and the payments associated with
11 various pay codes. Defendant responds to each with solely meritless objections.
12 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational
13 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for
14 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this
15 information will evidence the suitability of certification.
16 Defendant's obj ections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information
17 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are
18 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions
19 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an objection based on burden
20 cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffi-omreceiving discovery that
21 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification.
22 C. Defendant's Pay Codes: Rog Nos. 11-12
23 These interrogatories asked Defendant to identify its pay codes, which is fxmdamental to
24 understanding Defendant's wage statements, as well as the various ways Defendant may record its non-
25 discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members or its mechanisms for paying overtime compensation.
26 Defendant refers PiaintifF to her wage statements in lieu of identifying the pay codes and Defendant
27 responds with solely objections instead oF explaining the meaning oF its pay codes.
28 As a putative class action, PlaintiFF is entitled to inFormation that relates to all class members and
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 DeFendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to PlaintiFFis unFounded and inappropriate.
2 DeFendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations oF the complaint making this case a
3 statewide representative acfion." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
4 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary inFormation, such information can be produced
5 pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
6 D. Forms of Compensation: Rog No. 14
7 This interrogatory asks DeFendant to identify all oFthe Forms oF compensation that Class Members
8 are eligible to receive. This inFormation is Foundational to understanding DeFendant's compensation
9 systems, as well as the various ways DeFendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class
10 Members. DeFendant reFers PiaintifF to her wage statements in lieu oF identifying these Forms oF
11 compensation.
12 As a putative class action, PiaintifF is entitled to inFormation that relates to all class members and
13 DeFendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unFounded and inappropriate.
14 DeFendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations oF the complaint making this case a
15 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
16 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary inFormation, such inFormation can be produced
17 pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
18 E. Meal Period Policies: Rog Nos. 15-16
19 The policies to which PiaintifF and class members were uniFormly subject are Foundational and are
20 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th
21 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniForm policy consistently applied to a group oF employees is
22 in violation oF the wage and hour laws are oF the sort routinely, and properly. Found suitable For class
23 treatment.") Indeed, DeFendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents, albeit m a limited capacity,
24 concede their relevance.
25 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will absolutely need
26 to know iF the policy was equally applicable to other employees.
27 DeFendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to PlaintiFf. However,
28 the Class as pled in the complaint and who suFFered violations oF the Labor Code in regard to their
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 non-compliant meal periods and DeFendant's Failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all
2 non-exempt employees oFDeFendant in CaliFomia during the relevant time period. All such employees were
3 and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality For class
4 certification. Once again, DeFendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations oFthe complaint
5 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531,549 (2017).
6 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary inFormation, such inFormation can be produced
7 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, DeFendant's responses state it will seek to enter into a
8 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
9 F. Numbers Applicable to the Class: Rog Nos. 17 & 19-24
10 These interrogatories request the number oFClass Members (Nos. 17 & 24), the number oFpremiums
11 paid (No. 19), the number oF workweeks worked by Class Members For the various relevant time periods
12 (No. 20-22), and the number oF wage statements issued to Class Members (No. 23). DeFendant responds to
13 each by either reFerring PiaintifF to documents specific to PlaintiFf or with solely objections. These responses
14 are evasive and non-responsive.
15 To determine the suitability oF certification, the Court will consider the manageability oF the class
16 and, through examination oF the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is
17 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage
18 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the inFormation sought through these interrogatories
19 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability oFthe class and the mechanism by
20 which the Court will calculate damages.
21 As these requests seek only numbers that are stored in DeFendant's electronic databases, any
22 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by deFendants For their
23 own purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a Formal discovery
24 context, this inFormation is unduly burdensome to produce.
25 G. Class Members' Job Duties: Rog No. 18
26 The job duties oF the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations
27 oFDeFendant, the tasks perFormed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This inFormation
28 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits oFthe case. This
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
5 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 inFormation will be directly applicable to PlaintiFf s motion For class certification and DeFendant can provide
2 no valid objection For withholding this inFormation.
3 Such inFormation is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid
4 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, * 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (deFendant is compelled to identify
5 all tasks perFormed by the putative class members). DeFendant's response that reFers PlaintiFF to her job
6 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. DeFendant does not have discretion to
7 "disregard the allegations oF the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams
8 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
9
10 IV. CONCLUSION
11 In Fuss V. Superior Court, 273 Cal. App. 2d 807, 815-6(1969), the Court reiterated the purposes oF
12 the Discovery Act as Follows:
13 The civil discovery statutes are "intended to accomplish the Following results: (1) to give
greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the trath and in checking and preventing
14 perjury; (2) to provide an effective means oF detecting and exposing False, Fraudulent and
sham claims and deFenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive
15 way. Facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate
the parties in advance oF trial as to the real value oF their claims and deFenses, thereby
16 encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to saFeguard against surprise; (7) to
prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrovv the issues; and, (9) to expedite and Facilitate both
17 preparation and trial." (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376 [15 Cal.
Rpti-. 90, 364 P.2d 266.)
18
All oF these enumerated purposes support the discovery at issue here and the issuance oF an order
19
compelling further responses to PlaintiFf s fu-st set oF requests For production oF documents.
20
Respectfiilly submitted.
21
22 DATED: December 5, 2017 BLUMENTHAL,.N.ORDREHAUG.& BHOWMIK LLP
23
By:
24 Victoria B.-Rivapalacio,-Esq.
Attomeys for PiaintifF
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO
2 I , Victoria B. Rivapalacio, declare as Follows:
3 I. I am one oF attomeys oF record For the Plaintiff in the above entitled action, and have
4 personal knowledge oF each oF the Facts set Forth herein, and iF called upon as a witness could testify
5 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on inFormation and belieF, and as to such matters I
6 believe them to be true.
7 2. This declaration is being submitted in support oF Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further
8 Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories.
9 3. PlaintiFF served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of
10 requests for production of documents. Defendant served its initial responses on September 12,2017. A tme
11 and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One is attached as
12 Exhibit 1.
13 4. On September 21, 2017, PiaintifF sent correspondence to DeFendant detailing deficiencies
14 m DeFendant's responses. A tme and correct copy oFPlaintiff s correspondence oFSeptember 21, 2017 is
15 attached as Exhibit 2.
16 5. PiaintifF Followed up regularly over the Following month. A tme and correct copy oF the
17 string oF correspondence sent by PiaintifF is attached as Exhibit 3. PiaintifF and DeFendant met and conferred
18 telephonically on October 24, 2017. During that meet and confer session. Defendant agreed to provide
19 supplemental responses. A tme and correct copy of the confirmatory email exchange is attached as Exhibit
20 4. As of the date of this filing, no supplemental responses have been provided.
21 6. The instant action and the action Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-
22 00216685, were consolidated on October 25, 2017.
23 7. Through the meet and confer exchanges, the Parties set Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline
24 on these specific issues to December 15,2017. As Defendant will not agree to specify which responses it
25 vsdll supplement, provide a date certain by which it will provide supplemental responses, efforts regarding
26 these discovery requests have been exhausted.
27
28 I declare under penalty oFpeij ury under the laws oFthe State oF CaliFomia that the Foregoing
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
I CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
I is tme and correct. Executed this 5th day oF December, 2017, at La Jolla, CaliFomia.
2
3
4
VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT #1
28
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
tj long@orrick.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
'4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BARNO. 285379)
6 stephanie.lee@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CaliFomia 90017
8 Telephone: (213)629-2020
Facsunile: (213)612-2499
9
Attomeys For DeFendant
10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalF oF CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560
15 herselF and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated,. DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF
16 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL
17 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
V.
18 Date Action Filed: April 5,2017
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Trial Date: None Set
19 CaliFomia Corporation, and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive,,
20
Defendants.
21
22
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANDREA SPEARS
23
RESPONDING PARTY: DeFendant, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
24
SET NO.: ONE(l)
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:767194169.5
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Pursuant to sections 2030 et seq. of the Code oF Civil Procedure, Defendant Health Net oF
2 CaliFomia, Inc. ("DeFendant") responds to the First Set oF Special Interrogatories served upon it by
3 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff) as Follows:
4 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
5 The Following responses are made solely For the purpose oF this litigation and are based on
6 inFormation presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery is still ongomg and DeFendant
7 reserves therightto supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or
8 to introduce such inFormation at the time oFthe trial.
9 Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, noateriality,
10 proprietary, subject matter, admissibility and any and all other objections or groimds that would
11 require exclusion of the responses or documents produced by DeFendant, or any part thereof, if any
12 oF these responses or documents were presented at court. All appropriate objections and grounds
13 are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence oF a
14 response to PlaintifPs Special Interrogatories.
15 No response to these interrogatories constitutes or should be constmed as an admission
16 respecting relevancy or admissibility oF the disclosed information, or the tmth or accuracy oF any
17 statement, characterization or other Fact contained in any response to these interrogatories.
18 Defendant expressly does not concede the relevancy or materiality oF any oF these interrogatories
19 or the subject matter to which they reFer.
20 The Fact that DeFendant has responded to or objected to any interrogatory or part thereoF
21 may not be taken as an admission about the existence or nonexistence oF any Fact, or that such
22 response constitutes relevant evidence. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these
23 responses. The fact that Defendant has responded to part or all of any interrogatory shall not be
24 construed to be a waiver of any objection to part or all of any other interrogatory. Nothing contained
25 herein shall be construed as an implied admission of the existence or nonexistence of any Fact.
26 To the extent these interrogatories call For inFormation which constitutes material prepared
27 in anticipation of litigation or Fortirial,information or material protected by the attorney-client
28 privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and/or the common interest
0HSUSA767194169.5
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 privilege or any other privilege. Defendant objects to each and every such interrogatory and will
2 not supply or produce any such inFormation. To the extent any interrogatory seeks information
3 relating to legal conclusions, opinions, theories and/or research oF DeFendant and Defendant's
4 counsel. Defendant objects and will not provide such uiformation. Moreover, in responding to any
5 interrogatory potentially calling for a legal conclusion, Defendant does not admit, either expressly
6 or impliedly, that any such response adopts any of the legal conclusions contained in the
7 interrogatory. These responses shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground
8 for objecting to discovery with respect to such response, nor shall inadvertent disclosure waive the
9 right oF DeFendant to object to the use oF such information during any subsequent proceeding.
10 To the extent any interrogatory seeks mFormation relating to confidential personnel or other
11 information oF persons other than Plaintiff, DeFendant objects to each and every interrogatory on
12 the grounds that such interrogatory is overbroad, seeks mformation that is not relevant to the subject
13 matter oF this action, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
14 and invades the privacyrightsof such other persons. To the extent any interrogatory violates
15 Defendant's right to privacy or calls for the disclosure of confidential and/or proprietary
16 information or infonnation otherwise protected as a trade secret, Defendant objects to each and
17 every such interrogatory and will not supply or produce any such information except pursuant to a
18 Protective Order goveming the production of such infonnation entered m this matter.
19 Defendant objects to the purported definitions and, instmctions set forth in the
20 interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and
21 oppressive and Defendant undertakes no obligation except as those that may be provided by the
22 Code of Civil Procedure.
23 DeFendant incorporates by this reference each and all ofthe foregoing General Objections
24 into the following enumerated Responses.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1;
27 Please state PLAINTIFF'S dates of employment, rates oF pay, and job tities during the
28 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
OHSUSA:767194169.5 ~^ ~
DEFBl^ANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO SPEaAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1;
2 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on
3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
4 groimds it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks inFormation that is neither
5 relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery oF
6 admissible evidence. Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves therightto amend its response.
7 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
8 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
9 PlaintifPs persormel file, wage statements and other documents produced concurrently herewith
10 and in connection with this litigation.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
12 Please state the date oFPLAINTIFF'S final paycheck.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
14 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on
15 the groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
16 grounds it is compoimd, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither
17 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
18 admissible evidence; Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves therightto amend its response.
19 Subject to and without waiving the Foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
20 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), DeFendant refers to
21 PlaintifPs final wage statement.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
23 Please IDENTIFY all supervisor(s) who supervised PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT
24 TIME PERIOD.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3;
26 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to tiiis interrogatory on
27 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "supervisor(s)" and
28 "supervised." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad and seeks
OHSUSA:767194169.5 \ "^"
DEPENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to
2 lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence.
3 Subject to and without waiving the Foregoing objections, DeFendant responds as Follows:
4 Alma Moreno was Plaintiff's latest immediate supervisor. Ms. Moreno may be contacted through
5 DeFendant's counsel of record.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
7 Please state YOUR policies for providing compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during
8 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you reFer to documents iii response to this special
9 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers For the responsive documents).
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4;
11 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
12 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
13 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "poUcies," and "providing compensation."
14 DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and
15 seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this
17 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information,
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
19 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its
20 policies and procedures applicable to PiaintifF that it will produce upon the parties entering into a
21 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5;
23 Please state the jobtitiesof the CLASS MEMBERS who were eligible to be paid cash
24 payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to
25 documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for
26 the responsive documents).
27
28
OHSUSA:767194l69.S ^ ' ^ ~
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
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," "job tities" and "eligible to be paid cash payments
5 in lieu of health benefits," Defendant also objects to this hiterrogatory on the grounds it is neither
6 relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
8 confidential and/or proprietary business information. DeFendant ftirther objects that this
9 interrogatory is compound, overbroad, harassing, btu-densome and oppressive, particularly at this
10 pre-certification stage oF litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
11 it lacks Foundation as it assumes Facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6;
13 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when tiie CLASS MEMBERS
14 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu oF health benefits during the same pay period during
15 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (iF you reFer to documents in response to this special
16 hiterrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers For the responsive documents).
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
18 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on
19 the groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
20 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of
21 health benefits during the same pay period." DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
22 groimds it seeks inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects
24 that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly
25 at this pre-ceitification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
26 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business infonnation. Defendant further
27 objects to this mterrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have
28 neither been admitted rior established,
0HSUSA:767I94169.S "^ "
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECL\L INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
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 duringtiiesame
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 fiirther objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8;
19 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits to
20 tiie CLASS MEMBERS durmg tiie RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in
21 response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive
22 documents).
23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8;
24 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
25 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
26 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "policy for paying cash payments in lieu of
27 health benefits." Defendant also objects to this mterrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly
28 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
OHSUSA:767194169.5 ~^ '
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET QF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to
2 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary busmess information.
3 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
4 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9;
6 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS
7 MEMBERS duringtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (iF you reFer to documents in response to tiiis
8 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
9 RESPONSE TO SPEOAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
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 "'MedFlxWave' compensation." DeFendant
13 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
14 inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
15 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
16 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information,
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
18 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "DenFbcElct" compensation to tiie CLASS
19 MEMBERS duringtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to tiiis
20 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPEOAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this mterrogatory on
23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not lunited to, the terms "GLASS
24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "'DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also
25 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
26 infomiation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the
28 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
0HSUSA:767194169.5 ' ^ "
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 SPECLVL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
2 During ttie RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by
3 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to tiie CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents
4 in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the
5 responsive documents).
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
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 PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage
10 statements." DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly
11 burdensome and seeks inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to
13 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business infonnation.
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
15 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
16 Plaintiffs wage statranents.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
18 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. I I , please provide an
19 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents m response to this
20 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its
23 Response to Special Intenogatory No. 11. Defendant fiirther objects to this interrogatory on the
24 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation
25 regarding what each pay code means." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds
26 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject
27 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
28
OHSUSA;767194169.5 8-
DEFENPANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNLA. INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE
1 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
2 proprietary business information.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13;
4 Please state DEFENDANT'S policies regarding including cash payments in lieu of health
5 benefits in the "regular rate of pay" for purposes of calculating overtime rates of pay for the CLASS
6 MEMBERS durmgtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (iF you reFer to documents in response to ttiis
7 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers For the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
9 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on
10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "regular rate oF pay," "purposes oF calculating
12 overtime rates oF pay" and "cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to
13 this intenogatory on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is
14 neither relevant to the subj ect matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
15 oF admissible evidence. DeFendant further objects to this mtenogatory to the extent it seeks
16 inFormation privileged and confidential pursuant to the attomey-client communication privilege
17 and the attomey work-product doctrine or concems mformation obtained in anticipation of
18 litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential
19 and/or proprietary busmess information. Defendant fiirther objects to this interrogatory on the
20 grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
22 FortiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS
23 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special
24 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
26 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
27 the grounds that it is vagiie and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
28 MEM
Preview
I BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK • • /• f KOORSED Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) IdilDEC-S Aim = 25 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Piya Mukherjee (State Bar #274217) •\mm\-COURT OF CALlrMSiA COUHTY OFSALRnncrirO Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) 4 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 5 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ll IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 14 ANDREA SPEARS an individual, on CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS behalf of herself ana on behalf of all 15 persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION 16 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION 17 AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER vs. RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 18 INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF 19 INC., a Califomia Corporation; and VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO IN Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, SUPPORT 20 Defendants. Telephone Appearance 21 Hearing Date: January 4, 2018 22 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Raymond M. Cadei 23 Dept.: 54 24 Action Filed: April 5, 2017 25 26 by fax 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Please be advised that on January 4,2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of the above entitled 3 Court, Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Plaintiff) will move to compel Defendant HEALTH NET OF 4 CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, 5 Set One. This motion will be heard before the Honorable Raymond M. Cadei, Judge of the Superior 6 Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento. 7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300 on the grounds 8 that the said interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter of this action and that Defendant's 9 objections are improper and without merit. The motion will be based upon this notice of motion and 10 motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the separate statement, the declaration of Victoria B. 11 Rivapalacio, the lodged exhibits, filed and served herewith, the complete files and records in this case 12 and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion. 13 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits ofthis 14 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings 15 for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online 16 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local 17 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the 18 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. Ifyou do not call the court and opposing party on the 19 court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held. 20 21 Dated: December 5, 2017 BLUMENTHAL-NORDREHAUG-&-BHOWMIK, LLP 22 By: 23 Victoria B. lliy&palacio, Esq. Attorneys for Piaihtiff 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY I CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff and "Plaintiff Spears") asserts causes of actions based on 3 Defendant's failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt, hourly employees for all time 4 worked, in violation of the Califomia Labor Code. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a class of former 5 and current non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant. Plaintiff asserts causes of action imder the 6 Califomia Labor Code and the Unfair Business and Professions Code (the "UCL") based on Defendant's 7 failvire to provide compliant meal and rest periods/premiiuns to this class as promised by Defendant's 8 policies that agreed to pay premiums for breaks docimiented as missed in the time records. 9 Plaintiff also asserts causes of action on behalf of this class based on Defendant's failure to properly 10 calculate the Class Members' regular rate of pay. Defendant's payroll policy as to how the regular rate of 11 pay was calculated for Defendant's non-exempt employees is, in Class Counsel's experience, a classwide 12 payroll mechanism that does not differentiate based on job title or job location. If a non-exempt employee 13 was issued an incentive commission or other non-discretionary bonus, that amount was not included in the 14 calculation of the regular rate as a payroll practice. 15 The discovery requests at issue here seek (I) foundational information regarding the Class (Rog 16 Nos. 5-7); (2) Defendant's compensation policies (Rog Nos. 8-10 & 13); (3) Defendant's pay codes (Rog 17 Nos. 11-12); (4) forms of compensation (Rog No. 14); (5) meal period policies (Rog Nos. 15-16); (6) 18 numbers applicable to the Class (Rog Nos. 17 & 19-24); and (7) Class Members' job duties (Rog No. 19 18). Defendant has refiised to cooperate with providing sufficient responses despite their clear relevance. 20 For example, Defendant's policy docvunents regarding the allegations in the complaint are foundational 21 discovery and regularly produced in wage and hoiu* class actions. Yet, Defendant has objected to providing 22 this indisputably relevant and discoverable information. 23 In summary, as Defendant has failed to fiUfil its discovery obligations in this matter. Plaintiff 24 respectfiilly requests that the Court grant this motion to compel. 25 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 26 PiaintifF Spears filed this action on April 5, 2017, filing a First Amended Complaint that added a 27 cause of action pursuant to PAGA on June 29,2017. The Parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Spears 28 action with ^rawa V. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017-00216685, which the Court ordered MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY I CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 consolidated on October 11, 2017. 2 Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of special 3 interrogatories. (Rivapalacio Decl. f 3.) Defendant served its initial responses on September 12, 2017. 4 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. I.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant detailing 5 the deficiencies in Defendant's responses. (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff followed up the following 6 month (see Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 3.). but the Parties finally met and conferred on October 24,2017. 7 During the telephonic meet and confer. Defendant stated it would provide supplemental responses. 8 (Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 4.) No supplemental responses have been provided by Defendant. (Rivapalacio 9 Decl. 15.) 10 in. ARGUMENT 11 Under California's Di scovery Act, information should be regarded as "relevant to the subj ect matter" 12 if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating the settlement 13 thereof. Gonzalezv. Superior Court,!,?, Cal. App. 4th 1539,1546(l995);Zfp/o«v. Superior Court, 4S Cal 14 App. 4th 1599, 1611 (1996). These cases state that the scope must be liberally construed in favor of 15 permitting discovery in accordance with the imderlying policy of the Discovery Act. Emerson Electric 16 V. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 4th 1101, 1107 (1997). 17 Plaintiff s discovery requests at issue seek foundational information which will either be admissible 18 evidence in itself or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the relevancy of these 19 requests is manifest. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 provides that a plaintifF is entitled to 20 fiill discovery imless limited by an order of the Court as follows: 21 Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may obtam discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter 22 involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, i f the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to 23 the discovery of admissible evidence. 24 A. Foundational Information Regarding the Class: Rog Nos. 5-7 25 These interrogatories seek the job titles of those Class Members who were eligible to be paid cash 26 payments in lieu of health benefits (No. 5), the pay periods in which those Class Members worked overtime 27 and also received those payments (No. 6), and the number of Class Members in that category (No. 7). 28 Defendant responds to each with solely objections. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 2 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 PlaintifT alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of health 2 benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. These interrogatories 3 seek basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint: which job positions 4 were eligible for the cash payments, the dates of specific pay periods, and the number of Class Members 5 who received cash payments in a pay period where they also worked overtime. This information will both 6 lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs 7 upcoming motion for class certification. 8 B. Defendant's Compensation Policies: Rog Nos. 8-10 & 13 9 These interrogatories ask Defendant to states policies related to specific aspects of Defendant's 10 compensation system: the payment of cash in lieu of health benefits, and the payments associated with 11 various pay codes. Defendant responds to each with solely meritless objections. 12 Policies and procedures regarding compensation relevant to the Class Members is foundational 13 discovery as to the allegations in the Complaint and will demonstrate commonality and typicality for 14 certification. To the extent the Class Members were all subject to the same or similar policies, this 15 information will evidence the suitability of certification. 16 Defendant's obj ections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business information 17 can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as to burden are 18 unsubstantiated and without merit. Defendant's policies are routine discovery in wage and hour class actions 19 and is information that is routinely provided to incoming employees. As such, an objection based on burden 20 cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to stonewall Plaintifffi-omreceiving discovery that 21 will assist the Court in its decisions regarding class certification. 22 C. Defendant's Pay Codes: Rog Nos. 11-12 23 These interrogatories asked Defendant to identify its pay codes, which is fxmdamental to 24 understanding Defendant's wage statements, as well as the various ways Defendant may record its non- 25 discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members or its mechanisms for paying overtime compensation. 26 Defendant refers PiaintifF to her wage statements in lieu of identifying the pay codes and Defendant 27 responds with solely objections instead oF explaining the meaning oF its pay codes. 28 As a putative class action, PlaintiFF is entitled to inFormation that relates to all class members and MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 DeFendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to PlaintiFFis unFounded and inappropriate. 2 DeFendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations oF the complaint making this case a 3 statewide representative acfion." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 4 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary inFormation, such information can be produced 5 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 6 D. Forms of Compensation: Rog No. 14 7 This interrogatory asks DeFendant to identify all oFthe Forms oF compensation that Class Members 8 are eligible to receive. This inFormation is Foundational to understanding DeFendant's compensation 9 systems, as well as the various ways DeFendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class 10 Members. DeFendant reFers PiaintifF to her wage statements in lieu oF identifying these Forms oF 11 compensation. 12 As a putative class action, PiaintifF is entitled to inFormation that relates to all class members and 13 DeFendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiffis unFounded and inappropriate. 14 DeFendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations oF the complaint making this case a 15 statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 16 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary inFormation, such inFormation can be produced 17 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 18 E. Meal Period Policies: Rog Nos. 15-16 19 The policies to which PiaintifF and class members were uniFormly subject are Foundational and are 20 routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 21 1004,1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniForm policy consistently applied to a group oF employees is 22 in violation oF the wage and hour laws are oF the sort routinely, and properly. Found suitable For class 23 treatment.") Indeed, DeFendant's responses agreeing to produce these documents, albeit m a limited capacity, 24 concede their relevance. 25 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will absolutely need 26 to know iF the policy was equally applicable to other employees. 27 DeFendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to PlaintiFf. However, 28 the Class as pled in the complaint and who suFFered violations oF the Labor Code in regard to their MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 non-compliant meal periods and DeFendant's Failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all 2 non-exempt employees oFDeFendant in CaliFomia during the relevant time period. All such employees were 3 and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality For class 4 certification. Once again, DeFendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations oFthe complaint 5 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531,549 (2017). 6 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary inFormation, such inFormation can be produced 7 pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, DeFendant's responses state it will seek to enter into a 8 stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 9 F. Numbers Applicable to the Class: Rog Nos. 17 & 19-24 10 These interrogatories request the number oFClass Members (Nos. 17 & 24), the number oFpremiums 11 paid (No. 19), the number oF workweeks worked by Class Members For the various relevant time periods 12 (No. 20-22), and the number oF wage statements issued to Class Members (No. 23). DeFendant responds to 13 each by either reFerring PiaintifF to documents specific to PlaintiFf or with solely objections. These responses 14 are evasive and non-responsive. 15 To determine the suitability oF certification, the Court will consider the manageability oF the class 16 and, through examination oF the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the Class is entitled is 17 calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, regarding meal periods and wage 18 statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the inFormation sought through these interrogatories 19 serve this specific and vital purpose: to demonstrate the manageability oFthe class and the mechanism by 20 which the Court will calculate damages. 21 As these requests seek only numbers that are stored in DeFendant's electronic databases, any 22 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by deFendants For their 23 own purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in a Formal discovery 24 context, this inFormation is unduly burdensome to produce. 25 G. Class Members' Job Duties: Rog No. 18 26 The job duties oF the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the expectations 27 oFDeFendant, the tasks perFormed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal breaks. This inFormation 28 is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as well as the merits oFthe case. This MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 5 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 inFormation will be directly applicable to PlaintiFf s motion For class certification and DeFendant can provide 2 no valid objection For withholding this inFormation. 3 Such inFormation is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite Aid 4 Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, * 12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2006) (deFendant is compelled to identify 5 all tasks perFormed by the putative class members). DeFendant's response that reFers PlaintiFF to her job 6 description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. DeFendant does not have discretion to 7 "disregard the allegations oF the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams 8 V. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 9 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 In Fuss V. Superior Court, 273 Cal. App. 2d 807, 815-6(1969), the Court reiterated the purposes oF 12 the Discovery Act as Follows: 13 The civil discovery statutes are "intended to accomplish the Following results: (1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the trath and in checking and preventing 14 perjury; (2) to provide an effective means oF detecting and exposing False, Fraudulent and sham claims and deFenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive 15 way. Facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance oF trial as to the real value oF their claims and deFenses, thereby 16 encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to saFeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrovv the issues; and, (9) to expedite and Facilitate both 17 preparation and trial." (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376 [15 Cal. Rpti-. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) 18 All oF these enumerated purposes support the discovery at issue here and the issuance oF an order 19 compelling further responses to PlaintiFf s fu-st set oF requests For production oF documents. 20 Respectfiilly submitted. 21 22 DATED: December 5, 2017 BLUMENTHAL,.N.ORDREHAUG.& BHOWMIK LLP 23 By: 24 Victoria B.-Rivapalacio,-Esq. Attomeys for PiaintifF 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 DECLARATION OF VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO 2 I , Victoria B. Rivapalacio, declare as Follows: 3 I. I am one oF attomeys oF record For the Plaintiff in the above entitled action, and have 4 personal knowledge oF each oF the Facts set Forth herein, and iF called upon as a witness could testify 5 competently thereto, except as to the matters stated on inFormation and belieF, and as to such matters I 6 believe them to be true. 7 2. This declaration is being submitted in support oF Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further 8 Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories. 9 3. PlaintiFF served her first set of discovery requests on July 25,2017, including the first set of 10 requests for production of documents. Defendant served its initial responses on September 12,2017. A tme 11 and correct copy of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One is attached as 12 Exhibit 1. 13 4. On September 21, 2017, PiaintifF sent correspondence to DeFendant detailing deficiencies 14 m DeFendant's responses. A tme and correct copy oFPlaintiff s correspondence oFSeptember 21, 2017 is 15 attached as Exhibit 2. 16 5. PiaintifF Followed up regularly over the Following month. A tme and correct copy oF the 17 string oF correspondence sent by PiaintifF is attached as Exhibit 3. PiaintifF and DeFendant met and conferred 18 telephonically on October 24, 2017. During that meet and confer session. Defendant agreed to provide 19 supplemental responses. A tme and correct copy of the confirmatory email exchange is attached as Exhibit 20 4. As of the date of this filing, no supplemental responses have been provided. 21 6. The instant action and the action Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc., case no. 34-2017- 22 00216685, were consolidated on October 25, 2017. 23 7. Through the meet and confer exchanges, the Parties set Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline 24 on these specific issues to December 15,2017. As Defendant will not agree to specify which responses it 25 vsdll supplement, provide a date certain by which it will provide supplemental responses, efforts regarding 26 these discovery requests have been exhausted. 27 28 I declare under penalty oFpeij ury under the laws oFthe State oF CaliFomia that the Foregoing MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY I CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 I is tme and correct. Executed this 5th day oF December, 2017, at La Jolla, CaliFomia. 2 3 4 VICTORIA B. RIVAPALACIO 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT #1 28 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 3 CASE No. 34-2017-00210560 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) tj long@orrick.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 '4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BARNO. 285379) 6 stephanie.lee@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CaliFomia 90017 8 Telephone: (213)629-2020 Facsunile: (213)612-2499 9 Attomeys For DeFendant 10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalF oF CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 15 herselF and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,. DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF 16 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S RESPONSES TO Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL 17 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE V. 18 Date Action Filed: April 5,2017 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Trial Date: None Set 19 CaliFomia Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,, 20 Defendants. 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANDREA SPEARS 23 RESPONDING PARTY: DeFendant, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 24 SET NO.: ONE(l) 25 26 27 28 OHSUSA:767194169.5 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Pursuant to sections 2030 et seq. of the Code oF Civil Procedure, Defendant Health Net oF 2 CaliFomia, Inc. ("DeFendant") responds to the First Set oF Special Interrogatories served upon it by 3 Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Plaintiff) as Follows: 4 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 5 The Following responses are made solely For the purpose oF this litigation and are based on 6 inFormation presently known and available to Defendant. Discovery is still ongomg and DeFendant 7 reserves therightto supplement these responses with subsequently discovered information and/or 8 to introduce such inFormation at the time oFthe trial. 9 Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, noateriality, 10 proprietary, subject matter, admissibility and any and all other objections or groimds that would 11 require exclusion of the responses or documents produced by DeFendant, or any part thereof, if any 12 oF these responses or documents were presented at court. All appropriate objections and grounds 13 are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence oF a 14 response to PlaintifPs Special Interrogatories. 15 No response to these interrogatories constitutes or should be constmed as an admission 16 respecting relevancy or admissibility oF the disclosed information, or the tmth or accuracy oF any 17 statement, characterization or other Fact contained in any response to these interrogatories. 18 Defendant expressly does not concede the relevancy or materiality oF any oF these interrogatories 19 or the subject matter to which they reFer. 20 The Fact that DeFendant has responded to or objected to any interrogatory or part thereoF 21 may not be taken as an admission about the existence or nonexistence oF any Fact, or that such 22 response constitutes relevant evidence. No implied admissions whatsoever are intended by these 23 responses. The fact that Defendant has responded to part or all of any interrogatory shall not be 24 construed to be a waiver of any objection to part or all of any other interrogatory. Nothing contained 25 herein shall be construed as an implied admission of the existence or nonexistence of any Fact. 26 To the extent these interrogatories call For inFormation which constitutes material prepared 27 in anticipation of litigation or Fortirial,information or material protected by the attorney-client 28 privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and/or the common interest 0HSUSA767194169.5 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 privilege or any other privilege. Defendant objects to each and every such interrogatory and will 2 not supply or produce any such inFormation. To the extent any interrogatory seeks information 3 relating to legal conclusions, opinions, theories and/or research oF DeFendant and Defendant's 4 counsel. Defendant objects and will not provide such uiformation. Moreover, in responding to any 5 interrogatory potentially calling for a legal conclusion, Defendant does not admit, either expressly 6 or impliedly, that any such response adopts any of the legal conclusions contained in the 7 interrogatory. These responses shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground 8 for objecting to discovery with respect to such response, nor shall inadvertent disclosure waive the 9 right oF DeFendant to object to the use oF such information during any subsequent proceeding. 10 To the extent any interrogatory seeks mFormation relating to confidential personnel or other 11 information oF persons other than Plaintiff, DeFendant objects to each and every interrogatory on 12 the grounds that such interrogatory is overbroad, seeks mformation that is not relevant to the subject 13 matter oF this action, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 14 and invades the privacyrightsof such other persons. To the extent any interrogatory violates 15 Defendant's right to privacy or calls for the disclosure of confidential and/or proprietary 16 information or infonnation otherwise protected as a trade secret, Defendant objects to each and 17 every such interrogatory and will not supply or produce any such information except pursuant to a 18 Protective Order goveming the production of such infonnation entered m this matter. 19 Defendant objects to the purported definitions and, instmctions set forth in the 20 interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and 21 oppressive and Defendant undertakes no obligation except as those that may be provided by the 22 Code of Civil Procedure. 23 DeFendant incorporates by this reference each and all ofthe foregoing General Objections 24 into the following enumerated Responses. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1; 27 Please state PLAINTIFF'S dates of employment, rates oF pay, and job tities during the 28 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. OHSUSA:767194169.5 ~^ ~ DEFBl^ANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 RESPONSE TO SPEaAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1; 2 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on 3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 4 groimds it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks inFormation that is neither 5 relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery oF 6 admissible evidence. Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves therightto amend its response. 7 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 8 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 9 PlaintifPs persormel file, wage statements and other documents produced concurrently herewith 10 and in connection with this litigation. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 12 Please state the date oFPLAINTIFF'S final paycheck. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 14 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on 15 the groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 16 grounds it is compoimd, overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither 17 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 18 admissible evidence; Discovery is on-going and Defendant reserves therightto amend its response. 19 Subject to and without waiving the Foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 20 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), DeFendant refers to 21 PlaintifPs final wage statement. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 23 Please IDENTIFY all supervisor(s) who supervised PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT 24 TIME PERIOD. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3; 26 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to tiiis interrogatory on 27 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms "supervisor(s)" and 28 "supervised." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad and seeks OHSUSA:767194169.5 \ "^" DEPENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to 2 lead to the discovery oF admissible evidence. 3 Subject to and without waiving the Foregoing objections, DeFendant responds as Follows: 4 Alma Moreno was Plaintiff's latest immediate supervisor. Ms. Moreno may be contacted through 5 DeFendant's counsel of record. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 7 Please state YOUR policies for providing compensation to the CLASS MEMBERS during 8 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you reFer to documents iii response to this special 9 interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers For the responsive documents). 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4; 11 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 12 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 13 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "poUcies," and "providing compensation." 14 DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and 15 seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably 16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this 17 interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information, 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 19 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its 20 policies and procedures applicable to PiaintifF that it will produce upon the parties entering into a 21 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5; 23 Please state the jobtitiesof the CLASS MEMBERS who were eligible to be paid cash 24 payments in lieu of health benefits during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to 25 documents in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for 26 the responsive documents). 27 28 OHSUSA:767194l69.S ^ ' ^ ~ DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 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," "job tities" and "eligible to be paid cash payments 5 in lieu of health benefits," Defendant also objects to this hiterrogatory on the grounds it is neither 6 relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 8 confidential and/or proprietary business information. DeFendant ftirther objects that this 9 interrogatory is compound, overbroad, harassing, btu-densome and oppressive, particularly at this 10 pre-certification stage oF litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that 11 it lacks Foundation as it assumes Facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6; 13 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when tiie CLASS MEMBERS 14 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu oF health benefits during the same pay period during 15 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (iF you reFer to documents in response to this special 16 hiterrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers For the responsive documents). 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 18 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this interrogatory on 19 the groimds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 20 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of 21 health benefits during the same pay period." DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 22 groimds it seeks inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter oF this action nor 23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects 24 that this interrogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly 25 at this pre-ceitification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 26 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business infonnation. Defendant further 27 objects to this mterrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have 28 neither been admitted rior established, 0HSUSA:767I94169.S "^ " DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECL\L INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 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 duringtiiesame 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 fiirther objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8; 19 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for paying cash payments in lieu of health benefits to 20 tiie CLASS MEMBERS durmg tiie RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in 21 response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive 22 documents). 23 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8; 24 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this interrogatory on 25 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 26 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "policy for paying cash payments in lieu of 27 health benefits." Defendant also objects to this mterrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly 28 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor OHSUSA:767194169.5 ~^ ' DEFENDANT HEALTH NET QF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to 2 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary busmess information. 3 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 4 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9; 6 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "MedFlxWave" compensation to the CLASS 7 MEMBERS duringtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (iF you reFer to documents in response to tiiis 8 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 9 RESPONSE TO SPEOAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 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 "'MedFlxWave' compensation." DeFendant 13 also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 14 inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 15 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 16 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information, 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 18 Please state DEFENDANT'S policy for "DenFbcElct" compensation to tiie CLASS 19 MEMBERS duringtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to tiiis 20 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPEOAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this mterrogatory on 23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not lunited to, the terms "GLASS 24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "'DenFlxElct' compensation." Defendant also 25 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 26 infomiation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this interrogatory on the 28 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 0HSUSA:767194169.5 ' ^ " DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 SPECLVL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 2 During ttie RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by 3 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to tiie CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents 4 in response to this special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the 5 responsive documents). 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 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 PERIODS" (and undefined term), "pay codes" and "wage 10 statements." DeFendant also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly 11 burdensome and seeks inFormation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to 13 this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business infonnation. 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 15 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 16 Plaintiffs wage statranents. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 18 For each pay code listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. I I , please provide an 19 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents m response to this 20 special interrogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 22 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant hereby incorporates its 23 Response to Special Intenogatory No. 11. Defendant fiirther objects to this interrogatory on the 24 grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation 25 regarding what each pay code means." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds 26 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject 27 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28 OHSUSA;767194169.5 8- DEFENPANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNLA. INC. 'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE 1 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 2 proprietary business information. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13; 4 Please state DEFENDANT'S policies regarding including cash payments in lieu of health 5 benefits in the "regular rate of pay" for purposes of calculating overtime rates of pay for the CLASS 6 MEMBERS durmgtiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD (iF you reFer to documents in response to ttiis 7 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers For the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 9 In addition to the Foregoing General Objections, DeFendant objects to this intenogatory on 10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "regular rate oF pay," "purposes oF calculating 12 overtime rates oF pay" and "cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to 13 this intenogatory on the groimds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is 14 neither relevant to the subj ect matter oF this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 15 oF admissible evidence. DeFendant further objects to this mtenogatory to the extent it seeks 16 inFormation privileged and confidential pursuant to the attomey-client communication privilege 17 and the attomey work-product doctrine or concems mformation obtained in anticipation of 18 litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential 19 and/or proprietary busmess information. Defendant fiirther objects to this interrogatory on the 20 grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 22 FortiieRELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all forms of compensation the CLASS 23 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special 24 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 26 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 27 the grounds that it is vagiie and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 28 MEM