Preview
, FAILED
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) t'NDORSED
tjlong@omck.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 20l8j.4f^3O ?n 2:56
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 iUPERfOf? COURT CF C/.' I'-r-o^'f^x
Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BARNO. 285379)
Stephanie. lee@orrick. com
6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Tdephone: +1-213-629-2020
8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
9 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
situated,
15 Plaintiff DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
16 V. SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR
18 inclusive. SANCTIONS
19 Defendants. Date: Febmary 13, 2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Kmeger
Dept.: 54
21
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
22 others similarly situated. FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
23
(fi Plaintiff, Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017
24
v.
•z.
<
25
26
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
c 27
inclusive,
Defendant.
en 28
O DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Defendant Health Net of Califomia,
2 Inc. hereby responds to the Separate Statement filed by Plaintiff Andrea Spears in support of her
3 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Her Special Intenogatories.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
5 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS
6 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu ofhealth benefits during the same pay period during
7 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
8 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
11 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
12 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of
13 health benefits during the same pay period." Defendemt also objects to this intenogatory on the
14 grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fiirther objects
16 that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly
17 at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the
18 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further
19 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have
20 neither been admitted nor established.
21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE
22 COMPELLED:
23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of
24 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This
25 intenogatory seeks basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint.
26 This information will both lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of
27 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification.
28
•1-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business
2 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as
3 to burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine
4 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant.
5 An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts^ to
6 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding
7 class certification.
8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
10 Intenogatory 6 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals.
11 Declaration of Diane C. Rodes (hereinafter "Rodes Dec"), ^ 2. Producing this information would
12 be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, classwide intenogatory not only requires
13 compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, it requires detailed analysis and
14 calculations which are extremely time consuming. Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee ("Lee Dec"),
15 I 25, Exh. V (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and
16 timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health Net, and archived
17 information from that database is not readily accessible.. Schneider Dec, 3. More recent payroll
18 and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than
19 the database used for the archived records. Id. at 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application
20 to gather the information necessary to respond to this Intenogatory from the archive, so collecting
21 the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at ^
22 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would not fit inlo Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so
23 employees would need to build another tool or database to host it. Id. at T| 7.
24 A similar process would be used to pull data from cunent databases because there is no
25 ready-to-use application in the cunent databases either. Id. at 8. In sum, this process would take
26 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in
27 addition to their regular duties. Id. at Tfll 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information
28 -2-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the
2 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the
3 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Intenogatories. Id. at *\ 24.
4 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health
5 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and
6 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little sense
7 considering the information will be inelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.' Such
8 discovery should be defened until and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing
9 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, emd expense
10 necessary to answer these Special Intenogatories for thousands ofHealth Net's cunent and former
11 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based
12 discovery at this early juncture.
13 Furthermore, Intenogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive
14 certain health benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy
15 rights. Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contact information
16 after they are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve
17 additional privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is
18 personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll information
19 routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City
20 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is
21 entitled to even more stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996)
22 (medical privacy is a quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class
23 member privacy rights before Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action.
24 The Court should deny Plainliff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory.
25 •
' Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request lo compel responses to Intenogatory Nos.
26 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Intenogatory No. 19 is not
relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral
^7 Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively
2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
2 Please slate the number of CLASS MiEMBERS who were paid overtinie 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 intenogatory,
5 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
7 In addition lo the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory 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 compensalion during the same
10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this
11 intenogatory 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 intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
14 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
15 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
16 Defendant further objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes
17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established.
18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE
19 COMPELLED
20 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of
21 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This
22 intenogatory seeks basic and foundational information as lo the class as defined in the Complaint.
23 This information will both lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of
24 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification.
25 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business
26 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as
27 lo burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine
28 .4.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant.
2 An objection based on burden cannol be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to
3 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding
4 class certification.
5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
7 Intenogatory 7 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes
8 Dec, I 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based,
9 classwide inlenogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data,
10 it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec,
11 Tin 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and timekeeping data was stored on a system that is
12 no longer used by Heallh Nel, and archived informationfi'omthat database is not readily accessible.
13 Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different
14 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3-
15 4. Heallh Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to
16 this Intenogatory from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries
17 and/or build tables to extract the dala. Id. at TITI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it
18 would notfitinlo Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or
19 database to host it. Id. at TI 7.
20 A similar process would be used to pull data from cunent databases because there is no
21 ready-to-use application in the cunent databases either. Id. at TI 8. In sum, this process would take
22 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in
23 addition to their regular duties. Id. at TITI 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information
24 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the
25 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the
26 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Intenogatories. Id. at Tf 24.
27
28 -5-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS .
1 Such herculeem efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health
2 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and
3 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little sense
4 considering the information will be inelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.^ Such
5 discovery should be defened untij and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing
6 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, and expense
7 necessary to answer these Special Intenogatories for thousands ofHealth Net's cunent and former
8 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based
9 discovery at this early juncture.
10 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
12 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by
13 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents
14 in response to this special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the
15 responsive documents).
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11;
17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
18 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
19 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined terni), "pay codes" and "wage
20 statements." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly
21 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor
22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to
23 this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
24
25
^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Intenogatory Nos.
26 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Intenogatory No. 19 is not
relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral
27 Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively
2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here.
-6-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
2 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers lo
3 Plaintiffs wage statements.
4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE
5 COMPELLED
6 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity
7 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which
8 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to
9 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality
10 and typicality.
11 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members
12 and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit ils responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and
13 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint
14 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531,
15 549(2017).
16 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
17 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
18 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
19 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
20 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member,
21 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for
22 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Intenogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to
23 class certification.-' All of the information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be inelevant if she never
24 certifies this case as a class action.
25 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Intenogatories.
26
27
2g ^ Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Intenogatory No. 11, please provide an
3 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this
4 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
6 In addition to the foregoing General Objeclions, Defendant hereby incorporates its
7 Response to Special Intenogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this intenogatory on the
8 grounds' that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation
9 regarding what each pay code means." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds
10 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant lo the subject
11 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or
13 proprietary business information.
14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE
15 COMPELLED
16 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity
17 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which
18 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to
19 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality
20 and typicality.
21 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
22 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
23 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
24 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
25 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member,
26 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for
27 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Intenogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to
28
-8-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 class certification.'* All of the informalion Plaintiff Spears seeks will be inelevant if she never
2 certifies this case as a class action.
3 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Intenogatories.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
5 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all fonns of compensation the CLASS
6 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special
7 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
II MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "forais of compensation." Defendant also
12 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action
13 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects
14 lo this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business
15 information. Defendantfiirtherobjects that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing,
16 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation.
17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
18 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
19 Plaintiffs wage statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by
20 Defendant.
21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE
22 COMPELLED
23 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as
24 well as the various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members.
25 To the extent Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates
26 commonality and is, therefore, timely pre-certification discovery.
27
28 ' Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears.
-9-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members
2 and Defendant's continued attempts'to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and
3 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint
4 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams y. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531,
5 549(2017).
6 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such informalion can be
7 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.
8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
10 Intenogatory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were
11 "eligible to receive[]." Lee Dec, TI 6, Exh. E. Health Net objected to this Intenogatory because it
12 is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health Net does not know what "forms of compensation"
13 means. "Forms of compensation" might include hourly and overtime wages. It might require a
14 breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime versus commission versus bonuses. It might
15 entail the value of health benefits, paid lime off, holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave,
16 disability policies, etc. It might include payouts for benefits or unused paid time off. It might
17 include a plethora of things which comprise an employee's total compensation package and perks.
18 Health Net does not know because the Intenogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plaintiff Spears
19 for clarification, she has provided none. Lee Dec, TI 26, Exh. W.^ Health Net should not be left to
20 guess at what it is being asked to answer.
21 Furthermore, to the extent this Intenogatory seeks information regarding "forms of
22 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Spears did not receive, it is overbroad
23 and seeks inelevant information. There is nothing in PlaintiffSpears's complaint or moving papers
24 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation
25
26 ' Plaintiff Spears's counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she
actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description
2^ of such pay codes (Intenogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special
2g Intenogatory, she should have stated as such.
•10-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitled to information that did not apply to her
2 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring.
3 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
5 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during
6 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
7 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects
12 to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
13 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
14 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that
15 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
16 Subject lo and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
17 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its
18 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a
19 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE
21 COMPELLED
22 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational
23 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup.
24 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to
25 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and
26 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce
27 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance.
28
-11-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERR0GAT0RIES;"REQUEST"F0R SANCTIONS
1 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will
2 absolutely need to know if the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However,
3 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class
4 as pled in the complaint and who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-
5 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-
6 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees
7 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality
8 for class certification. Once again, Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations
9 of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
10 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
11 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
12 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will
13 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
14 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
15 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
16 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive
17 to intenogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the conesponding bates
18 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918,
19 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), TI 7, Ex. 7.
20 Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as she attached conespondence identifying these
21 documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion
22 on this issue. In any event, her motion should be denied.
23 The Court should deny Plainliff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
25 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS
26 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
27 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
28 -12- .
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS .
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS
4 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "polides" and "providing." Defendant also objects
5 to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that
6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead lo the
7 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that
8 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
10 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its
11 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a
12 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents.
13 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE
14 COMPELLED
15 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational
16 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup.
17 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a unifonn policy consistently applied to
18 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and
19 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce
20 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance.
21 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will
22 absolutely need to know if the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However,
23 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class
24 as pled in the complaint and who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non-
25 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non-
26 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees
27 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality
28
-13-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . "
1 for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations
2 ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court,
3 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
4 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
5 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will
6 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
7 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
9 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Nef has already produced documents responsive
10 to Inlenogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the conesponding bates
11 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918,
12 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Rivapalacio Dec, TI 7, Ex. 7. Plaintiff Spears is wdl aware of this fact, as
13 she attached conespondence identifying these documents to her Motion. Id. Heallh Net is puzzled
14 as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion on this issue. In any event, her motion should be
15 , denied.
16 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
18 Please state the job duties perfonned by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT
19 TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special intenogatory, please identify
20 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents).
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18;
22 In addition lo the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited lo, the terms "CLASS
24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also
25 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks
26 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to
27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fiirther objects that this intenogatory is
28
•14-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, pjulicularly at this pre-certification
2 stage of litigation, and°would require a highly individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to
3 this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information.
4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
5 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to
6 Plainliffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the
7 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential
8 documents.
9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE
10 COMPELLED
11 The job dudes of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the
12 expectations of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal
13 breaks. This information is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as
14 well as the merits of the case. This information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for
15 class certification and Defendant can provide no valid objection for withholding this information.
16 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite
17 Aid Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, "^12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006) (defendant is
18 compelled to identify all tasks perforrhed by the putative class members). Defendant's response
19 that refers Plaintiff to her job description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action.
20 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case
21 a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017).
22 As lo any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be
23 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's response states it will
24 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed.
25 "
26
27
28
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
3 Intenogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks performed by the non-exempt putative
4 class members. This Intenogatory seeks hundreds of job titles and duties for thousands of cunent
5 and former employees. Rodes Dec. Tl 6. Responding to this Intenogatory would involve far more
6 than flipping a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions. Id. This Intenogatory
7 seeks information from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull through many
8 electronic and hard copyfileslo locate information responsive to this Intenogatory. Id. The job
9 would be more challenging because many of the documents that contain this information have been
10 archived and area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be burdensome for Health
11 Net to respond to this Intenogatory. Id.
12 The information sought is inelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
13 of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class members are
14 inelevant to Plaintiff Spears's allegations. The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are not necessary
15 to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non-exempt putative
16 class member was misdassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into question any of
17 the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no justification for
18 burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the infonnation sought is inelevant.
19 Plaintiff Spears's reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still
20 subject to valid objections, including that it is inelevant and burdensome.
21 Health Net produced Plaintiff Spears's job description, which included her job duties. That
22 is this all that is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce
23 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempl putative class members when they
24 are inelevant to Plaintiff Spears's claims.
25
26 ' For example, in Tierno v. RiteAidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016),
the court ordered the defendant to provide job duties of putative class members because the plaintiff
2^ in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misdassified. Id. at *2. Plaintiff
98 Spears does not assert a misclassification claim.
^ -16-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory.
2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
3 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS
4 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special
5 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents),
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19;
7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on
8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but nol limited to, the terms "CLASS
9 MEMBERS,." "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums."
10 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter
11 of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
12 further objects that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and
13 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this
14 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential andlor proprietary business information.
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows:
16 During Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period
17 premiums and, as a resuh, did not receive any meal period premiums.
18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE
19 COMPELLED
20 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of
21 the class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the
22 Class is entitled is calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here,
23 regarding meal periods and wage statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the
24 information sought through these intenogatories serve this specific and vital purpose: to
25 demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by which the Court will calculate
26 damages.
27
28 -17-
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any
2 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants
3 for their own purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in
4 a formal discovery context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce.
5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES
6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE COMPELLED;
7 Intenogatory 19 seeks detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, T| 2.
8 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, classwide
9 intenogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, it requires
10 detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec, TITI 2-24.
11 In part, this is because older payroll and timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer
12 used by Health Net, and archived information from that database is not readily accessible.
13 Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different
14 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3-
15 4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to
16 this Intenogatory from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries
17 and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at TfTI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it
18 would notfitinto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so emp
Preview
, FAILED 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) t'NDORSED tjlong@omck.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 20l8j.4f^3O ?n 2:56 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 iUPERfOf? COURT CF C/.' I'-r-o^'f^x Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BARNO. 285379) Stephanie. lee@orrick. com 6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Tdephone: +1-213-629-2020 8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS situated, 15 Plaintiff DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN 16 V. SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR 18 inclusive. SANCTIONS 19 Defendants. Date: Febmary 13, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Kmeger Dept.: 54 21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 22 others similarly situated. FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017 23 (fi Plaintiff, Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017 24 v. •z. < 25 26 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, c 27 inclusive, Defendant. en 28 O DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Defendant Health Net of Califomia, 2 Inc. hereby responds to the Separate Statement filed by Plaintiff Andrea Spears in support of her 3 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Her Special Intenogatories. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 5 Please state, for each CLASS MEMBER, the pay periods when the CLASS MEMBERS 6 were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu ofhealth benefits during the same pay period during 7 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 8 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 10 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 11 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 12 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of 13 health benefits during the same pay period." Defendemt also objects to this intenogatory on the 14 grounds it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fiirther objects 16 that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, particularly 17 at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the 18 grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. Defendant further 19 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes facts that have 20 neither been admitted nor established. 21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE 22 COMPELLED: 23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of 24 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This 25 intenogatory seeks basic and foundational information as to the class as defined in the Complaint. 26 This information will both lead to the discovery of fiirther evidence and will be used, in and of 27 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification. 28 •1- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business 2 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as 3 to burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine 4 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. 5 An objection based on burden cannot be supported. Such objections are solely attempts^ to 6 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding 7 class certification. 8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 10 Intenogatory 6 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals. 11 Declaration of Diane C. Rodes (hereinafter "Rodes Dec"), ^ 2. Producing this information would 12 be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, classwide intenogatory not only requires 13 compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, it requires detailed analysis and 14 calculations which are extremely time consuming. Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee ("Lee Dec"), 15 I 25, Exh. V (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and 16 timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health Net, and archived 17 information from that database is not readily accessible.. Schneider Dec, 3. More recent payroll 18 and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of which are different than 19 the database used for the archived records. Id. at 3-4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application 20 to gather the information necessary to respond to this Intenogatory from the archive, so collecting 21 the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at ^ 22 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would not fit inlo Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so 23 employees would need to build another tool or database to host it. Id. at T| 7. 24 A similar process would be used to pull data from cunent databases because there is no 25 ready-to-use application in the cunent databases either. Id. at 8. In sum, this process would take 26 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in 27 addition to their regular duties. Id. at Tfll 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information 28 -2- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the 2 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the 3 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Intenogatories. Id. at *\ 24. 4 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health 5 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and 6 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little sense 7 considering the information will be inelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.' Such 8 discovery should be defened until and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing 9 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, emd expense 10 necessary to answer these Special Intenogatories for thousands ofHealth Net's cunent and former 11 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based 12 discovery at this early juncture. 13 Furthermore, Intenogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did not receive 14 certain health benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy 15 rights. Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contact information 16 after they are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve 17 additional privacy protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is 18 personal. Ask any ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll information 19 routinely disclosed to parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City 20 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is 21 entitled to even more stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996) 22 (medical privacy is a quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class 23 member privacy rights before Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action. 24 The Court should deny Plainliff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory. 25 • ' Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request lo compel responses to Intenogatory Nos. 26 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Intenogatory No. 19 is not relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral ^7 Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively 2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 2 Please slate the number of CLASS MiEMBERS who were paid overtinie 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 intenogatory, 5 please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 7 In addition lo the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory 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 compensalion during the same 10 pay period they received cash payments in lieu of health benefits." Defendant also objects to this 11 intenogatory 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 intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 14 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 15 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 16 Defendant further objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it lacks foundation as it assumes 17 facts that have neither been admitted nor established. 18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE 19 COMPELLED 20 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include cash payments that were made in lieu of 21 health benefits when calculating the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and Class Members. This 22 intenogatory seeks basic and foundational information as lo the class as defined in the Complaint. 23 This information will both lead to the discovery of further evidence and will be used, in and of 24 itself, as evidence in Plaintiffs upcoming motion for class certification. 25 Defendant's objections that this information may be confidential or proprietary business 26 information can be mooted by an appropriate protective order. Further, Defendant's objections as 27 lo burden are unsubstantiated and without merit. The job titles of Class Members is routine 28 .4. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 discovery in wage and hour class actions and is information that is readily accessible to Defendant. 2 An objection based on burden cannol be supported. Such objections are solely attempts to 3 stonewall Plaintiff from receiving discovery that will assist the Court in its decisions regarding 4 class certification. 5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 7 Intenogatory 7 seeks detailed pay data and calculations for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes 8 Dec, I 2. Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, 9 classwide inlenogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, 10 it requires detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec, 11 Tin 2-24. In part, this is because older payroll and timekeeping data was stored on a system that is 12 no longer used by Heallh Nel, and archived informationfi'omthat database is not readily accessible. 13 Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different 14 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3- 15 4. Heallh Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to 16 this Intenogatory from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries 17 and/or build tables to extract the dala. Id. at TITI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it 18 would notfitinlo Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need to build another tool or 19 database to host it. Id. at TI 7. 20 A similar process would be used to pull data from cunent databases because there is no 21 ready-to-use application in the cunent databases either. Id. at TI 8. In sum, this process would take 22 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in 23 addition to their regular duties. Id. at TITI 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information 24 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the 25 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the 26 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands in her Intenogatories. Id. at Tf 24. 27 28 -5- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . 1 Such herculeem efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health 2 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and 3 health and welfare benefits. Providing this detailed, individualized information makes little sense 4 considering the information will be inelevant if she never certifies this case as a class action.^ Such 5 discovery should be defened untij and unless Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing 6 the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against the significant resources, time, and expense 7 necessary to answer these Special Intenogatories for thousands ofHealth Net's cunent and former 8 employees over several years, the Court is well within its discretion to deny this merits-based 9 discovery at this early juncture. 10 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 12 During the RELEVANT TIME PERIODS, please state all pay codes used by 13 DEFENDANT on wage statements provided to the CLASS MEMBERS (if you refer to documents 14 in response to this special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the 15 responsive documents). 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11; 17 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 18 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 19 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIODS" (and undefined terni), "pay codes" and "wage 20 statements." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly 21 burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor 22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to 23 this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 24 25 ^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Intenogatory Nos. 26 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Intenogatory No. 19 is not relevant to this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral 27 Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively 2g modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here. -6- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 2 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers lo 3 Plaintiffs wage statements. 4 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE 5 COMPELLED 6 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity 7 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which 8 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to 9 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality 10 and typicality. 11 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members 12 and Defendant's continued attempts to unilaterally limit ils responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and 13 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint 14 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 15 549(2017). 16 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 17 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 18 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 19 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 20 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, 21 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for 22 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Intenogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to 23 class certification.-' All of the information Plaintiff Spears seeks will be inelevant if she never 24 certifies this case as a class action. 25 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Intenogatories. 26 27 2g ^ Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 2 For each pay code listed in response to Special Intenogatory No. 11, please provide an 3 explanation regarding what each pay code means (if you refer to documents in response to this 4 special intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 6 In addition to the foregoing General Objeclions, Defendant hereby incorporates its 7 Response to Special Intenogatory No. 11. Defendant further objects to this intenogatory on the 8 grounds' that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the term "explanation 9 regarding what each pay code means." Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds 10 it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant lo the subject 11 matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or 13 proprietary business information. 14 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE 15 COMPELLED 16 The pay codes used by Defendant are relevant discovery as they provide context and clarity 17 as to Defendant's compensation system, bonus payments, and to the wage statements, all of which 18 are at issue here. Such foundational information will be utilized at every stage of the litigation to 19 analyze the Class Members' compensation and provide evidence for the Court as to commonality 20 and typicality. 21 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 22 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 23 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 24 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 25 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, 26 detailed pay information from wage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for 27 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Intenogatories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to 28 -8- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 class certification.'* All of the informalion Plaintiff Spears seeks will be inelevant if she never 2 certifies this case as a class action. 3 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Intenogatories. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 5 For the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, please state all fonns of compensation the CLASS 6 MEMBERS were eligible to received (if you refer to documents in response to this special 7 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS II MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "forais of compensation." Defendant also 12 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action 13 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects 14 lo this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business 15 information. Defendantfiirtherobjects that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, 16 burdensome and oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. 17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 18 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 19 Plaintiffs wage statements which detail the compensation that she received while employed by 20 Defendant. 21 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE 22 COMPELLED 23 This information is foundational to understanding Defendant's compensation systems, as 24 well as the various ways Defendant may issue its non-discretionary bonuses paid to Class Members. 25 To the extent Defendant's compensation system is common to the Class Members, it demonstrates 26 commonality and is, therefore, timely pre-certification discovery. 27 28 ' Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears. -9- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 As a putative class action. Plaintiff is entitled to information that relates to all class members 2 and Defendant's continued attempts'to unilaterally limit its responses to Plaintiff is unfounded and 3 inappropriate. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint 4 making this case a statewide representative action." Williams y. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 5 549(2017). 6 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such informalion can be 7 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 8 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 9 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 10 Intenogatory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were 11 "eligible to receive[]." Lee Dec, TI 6, Exh. E. Health Net objected to this Intenogatory because it 12 is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health Net does not know what "forms of compensation" 13 means. "Forms of compensation" might include hourly and overtime wages. It might require a 14 breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime versus commission versus bonuses. It might 15 entail the value of health benefits, paid lime off, holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave, 16 disability policies, etc. It might include payouts for benefits or unused paid time off. It might 17 include a plethora of things which comprise an employee's total compensation package and perks. 18 Health Net does not know because the Intenogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plaintiff Spears 19 for clarification, she has provided none. Lee Dec, TI 26, Exh. W.^ Health Net should not be left to 20 guess at what it is being asked to answer. 21 Furthermore, to the extent this Intenogatory seeks information regarding "forms of 22 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Spears did not receive, it is overbroad 23 and seeks inelevant information. There is nothing in PlaintiffSpears's complaint or moving papers 24 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation 25 26 ' Plaintiff Spears's counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description 2^ of such pay codes (Intenogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special 2g Intenogatory, she should have stated as such. •10- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitled to information that did not apply to her 2 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring. 3 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 5 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal periods to the CLASS MEMBERS during 6 the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 7 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15; 9 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 10 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 11 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "policies" and "providing." Defendant also objects 12 to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 13 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 14 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that 15 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 16 Subject lo and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 17 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its 18 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a 19 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 20 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE 21 COMPELLED 22 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational 23 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. 24 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to 25 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and 26 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce 27 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance. 28 -11- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERR0GAT0RIES;"REQUEST"F0R SANCTIONS 1 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will 2 absolutely need to know if the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, 3 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class 4 as pled in the complaint and who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non- 5 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non- 6 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees 7 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality 8 for class certification. Once again, Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations 9 of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 10 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 11 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 12 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will 13 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 14 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 15 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 16 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive 17 to intenogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the conesponding bates 18 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918, 19 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), TI 7, Ex. 7. 20 Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as she attached conespondence identifying these 21 documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion 22 on this issue. In any event, her motion should be denied. 23 The Court should deny Plainliff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 25 Please state YOUR policies for providing meal period premiums to the CLASS MEMBERS 26 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 27 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 28 -12- . DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16; 2 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 3 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited to, the terms "CLASS 4 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "polides" and "providing." Defendant also objects 5 to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that 6 is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead lo the 7 discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds that 8 it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 10 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to its 11 policies and procedures applicable to Plaintiff that it will produce upon the parties entering into a 12 stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential documents. 13 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE 14 COMPELLED 15 The policies to which Plaintiff and class members were uniformly subject are foundational 16 and are routine evidence in a wage and hour class action case. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. 17 Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1033 (2012) ("Claims alleging that a unifonn policy consistently applied to 18 a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and 19 properly, found suitable for class treatment.") Indeed, Defendant's responses agreeing to produce 20 these documents, albeit in a limited capacity, concede their relevance. 21 Policy documents are necessary pre-certification discovery because the Court will 22 absolutely need to know if the policy was equally applicable to other employees. However, 23 Defendant's responses are inexplicably limited to the policies applicable only to Plaintiff. The Class 24 as pled in the complaint and who suffered violations of the Labor Code in regard to their non- 25 compliant meal periods and Defendant's failure to pay any meal break penalties includes all non- 26 exempt employees of Defendant in Califomia during the relevant time period. All such employees 27 were and are subject to these policies and, thus, the policies will show commonality and typicality 28 -13- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . " 1 for class certification. Once again. Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations 2 ofthe complaint making this case a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 4 As to any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 5 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's responses state it will 6 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 7 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 9 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Nef has already produced documents responsive 10 to Inlenogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the conesponding bates 11 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO 1785-86, 1875-1918, 12 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Rivapalacio Dec, TI 7, Ex. 7. Plaintiff Spears is wdl aware of this fact, as 13 she attached conespondence identifying these documents to her Motion. Id. Heallh Net is puzzled 14 as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion on this issue. In any event, her motion should be 15 , denied. 16 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 18 Please state the job duties perfonned by the CLASS MEMBERS during the RELEVANT 19 TIME PERIOD (ifyou refer to documents in response to this special intenogatory, please identify 20 the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents). 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18; 22 In addition lo the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 23 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but not limited lo, the terms "CLASS 24 MEMBERS," "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD," "job duties" and "performed." Defendant also 25 objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks 26 information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fiirther objects that this intenogatory is 28 •14- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and oppressive, pjulicularly at this pre-certification 2 stage of litigation, and°would require a highly individualized inquiry. Defendant also objects to 3 this intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary business information. 4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 5 Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2030.230 and 2030.210(a)(2), Defendant refers to 6 Plainliffs Customer Service Representative II-Ops job description, which it will produce upon the 7 parties entering into a stipulated protective order goveming the exchange of confidential 8 documents. 9 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE 10 COMPELLED 11 The job dudes of the Class Members are required to discover evidence regarding the 12 expectations of Defendant, the tasks performed by Class Members, and their ability to take meal 13 breaks. This information is highly relevant as it applies to commonality, typicality, adequacy, as 14 well as the merits of the case. This information will be directly applicable to Plaintiffs motion for 15 class certification and Defendant can provide no valid objection for withholding this information. 16 Such information is regularly produced in wage and hour class actions. E.g., Tierno v. Rite 17 Aid Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795, "^12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006) (defendant is 18 compelled to identify all tasks perforrhed by the putative class members). Defendant's response 19 that refers Plaintiff to her job description is, again, inappropriate in a putative class action. 20 Defendant does not have discretion to "disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case 21 a statewide representative action." Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). 22 As lo any potentially confidential or proprietary information, such information can be 23 produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Indeed, Defendant's response states it will 24 seek to enter into a stipulated protective order. However, no protective order has been proposed. 25 " 26 27 28 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROOATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 3 Intenogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks performed by the non-exempt putative 4 class members. This Intenogatory seeks hundreds of job titles and duties for thousands of cunent 5 and former employees. Rodes Dec. Tl 6. Responding to this Intenogatory would involve far more 6 than flipping a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions. Id. This Intenogatory 7 seeks information from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull through many 8 electronic and hard copyfileslo locate information responsive to this Intenogatory. Id. The job 9 would be more challenging because many of the documents that contain this information have been 10 archived and area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be burdensome for Health 11 Net to respond to this Intenogatory. Id. 12 The information sought is inelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 13 of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class members are 14 inelevant to Plaintiff Spears's allegations. The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are not necessary 15 to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non-exempt putative 16 class member was misdassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into question any of 17 the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no justification for 18 burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the infonnation sought is inelevant. 19 Plaintiff Spears's reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still 20 subject to valid objections, including that it is inelevant and burdensome. 21 Health Net produced Plaintiff Spears's job description, which included her job duties. That 22 is this all that is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce 23 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempl putative class members when they 24 are inelevant to Plaintiff Spears's claims. 25 26 ' For example, in Tierno v. RiteAidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016), the court ordered the defendant to provide job duties of putative class members because the plaintiff 2^ in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misdassified. Id. at *2. Plaintiff 98 Spears does not assert a misclassification claim. ^ -16- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to this Intenogatory. 2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 3 Please state the total number of meal period premiums you paid to the CLASS MEMBERS 4 during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD (if you refer to documents in response to this special 5 intenogatory, please identify the specific bates numbers for the responsive documents), 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19; 7 In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this intenogatory on 8 the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, including, but nol limited to, the terms "CLASS 9 MEMBERS,." "RELEVANT TIME PERIOD" and "total number of meal period premiums." 10 Defendant also objects to this intenogatory on the grounds it is neither relevant to the subject matter 11 of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 12 further objects that this intenogatory is premature, overbroad, harassing, burdensome and 13 oppressive, particularly at this pre-certification stage of litigation. Defendant also objects to this 14 intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential andlor proprietary business information. 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: 16 During Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not entitled to any meal period 17 premiums and, as a resuh, did not receive any meal period premiums. 18 REASONS WHY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE 19 COMPELLED 20 To determine the suitability of certification, the Court will consider the manageability of 21 the class and, through examination of the necessary trial plan, whether the damages to which the 22 Class is entitled is calculable. Because the damages related to the violations asserted here, 23 regarding meal periods and wage statements, are calculated by workweek and pay period, the 24 information sought through these intenogatories serve this specific and vital purpose: to 25 demonstrate the manageability of the class and the mechanism by which the Court will calculate 26 damages. 27 28 -17- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO HER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 As this request seeks only a number that is stored in Defendant's electronic databases, any 2 objection as to burden is without merit. Indeed, this discovery is regularly produced by defendants 3 for their own purposes such as mediation or removal. As such, it is disingenuous to assert that, in 4 a formal discovery context, this information is unduly burdensome to produce. 5 HEALTH NET'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SPEARS'S REASONS WHY RESPONSES 6 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 SHOULD BE COMPELLED; 7 Intenogatory 19 seeks detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, T| 2. 8 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. This merits-based, classwide 9 intenogatory not only requires compilation and review of an enormous amount of data, it requires 10 detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Schneider Dec, TITI 2-24. 11 In part, this is because older payroll and timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer 12 used by Health Net, and archived information from that database is not readily accessible. 13 Schneider Dec, TI 3. More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different 14 databases, both of which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at TITI 3- 15 4. Health Net has no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to 16 this Intenogatory from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries 17 and/or build tables to extract the data. Id. at TfTI 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it 18 would notfitinto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so emp