Preview
FILED
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BARNO. 137591) ENDORSED
tjlong@orrick.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2018 JAM 30 PH 2'Sh
400 Capilol Mall, Suite 3000
3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 «U?ERlf>f? COUfiT Or CAUrORillA
Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 CO'JtnYCFSACRAKtHrO
4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
stephanie.lee@orrick.com
6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 Soulh Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
9 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
14 situated,
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN
15 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
16 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR
17 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, SANCTIONS
inclusive,
18 Date: February 13, 2018
Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Krueger
Dept.: 54
20
Complaint Filed: April 5,2017
21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
others similarly situated, Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
22
Plaintiff,
o 23
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017
24
CALIFORNIA corporalion; and DOES 1-50,
o 25 inclusive.
26 Defendant.
>
27
28
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION 1
4 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2
5 A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Heallh Net 2
B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings 3
6
C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discovery Related To Class Certification 5
7 III. ARGUMENT 6
8 A. The Court Should Defer Any Decision On This Motion Until Judge
Perkins Decides Health Net's Motion To Sequence Discovery 6
9
B. Classwide, Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based, Unduly Burdensome
10 And Premature (Interrogalory Nos. 6, 7 and 19) 7
11 C. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information 8
j2 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture
(Interrogatory Nos. 11-12) 9
13 E. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague, Ambiguous And Overbroad 9
14 F. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates
Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16 10
15
G. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And
16 Unduly Burdensome. 10
H. Plaintiff Spears's Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of
Monetary Sanctions 11
18 IV. CONCLUSION 13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3
Cases
4
5 Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care,
241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) 8
6 ..
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court,
7 111 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2003) 9
8 Greyhound Corp., v. Superior Court,
^ 56 Cal. 2d 355 (1961) 6
Leko V. Cornerstone Building Inspection Serv.,
10
86 Cal. App. 4th 1109 (2001) 11
11
Pettus V. Cole,
12 49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (1996) , 9
13 Tierno v. Rite A id Corp.,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) , ...11
14 West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court,
15 56 Cal. 2d 407(1961) , 6
Williams V. Superior Court,
17 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017) 6,11
18 Statutes
19 Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.020 6
20
Civ. Proc. Code §2023.010 11
21
Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(d) 12
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 Once again, Plaintiff Andrea Spears has filed two unnecessary discovery motions. To
3 begin with, she is attempting an end-around Judge Perkins in Department 35 who is scheduled to
4 hear a Motion to Sequence Discovery in this case on February 15"' - two days after the hearing date
5 she selected for this motion and her companion motion to compel further responses to requests for
6 production (collectively, "Discovery Motions"). That Motion to Sequence Discovery will be
7 dealing with the issues Plaintiff Spears is raising in these Discovery Motions. Judge Perkins set
8 the hearing on that Motion to Sequence Discovery in December 2017, and Health Net submitted its
9 opening brief last week. For this reason alone the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Discovery
10 Motions.
11 Should the Court entertain Plaintiff Spears's Discovery Motions, however, there are two
12 basic reasons to deny them.
13 First, Health Net granted Plaintiff Spears an extension to file her Discovery Motions until
14 two weeks after Judge Perkins is expected to rule on the motion to sequence discovery. Heallh Net
15 did so to ensure that Plaintiff Spears would not be prejudiced in the outside chance Judge Perkins
16 did not address the issues implicated by these Discovery Motions. In filing these Discovery
17 Motions, Plaintiff Spears disregarded the Court's admonition in its December 15, 2017, Order to
18 "all counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears's counsel] that... there are simply not enough judicial
19 resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have
20 been resolved informally." There was no reason for Plaintiff Spears lo file these Discovery Motions
21 now.
22 Second, Plaintiff Spears's arguments are meritless. Health Net either properly objected to
23 the discovery in question or, and contrary to Plaintiff Spears's representations. Health Net has
24 already produced the information she is seeking, or is in the process of doing so, as well she well
25 knows.
26 For all these reasons the Court should deny these Discovery Motions. The Court should
27 also do more. Health Net asked Plaintiff Spears's counsel to withdraw these needless motions,
28 reminding counsel of the Court's prior admonition. Health Net also pointed out that if Plaintiff
-1-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
. INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
}
1 Spears refused to withdraw these Discovery Motions, Health Net would seek sanctions. Plainliff
2 Spears's counsel refiised to withdraw these Discovery Motions. As a result. Health Net requests
3 that the Court issue sanctions against Plaintiff Spears's counsel for having forced Health Net (and
4 the Court) to expend needless effort, and incur substantial costs for having to oppose these needless
5 Discovery Motions in the amount of $6,292.
6 H. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
7 A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Health Net
8 Plaintiff Spears is a former non-exempt customer service representative who worked for
9 Heallh Net for approximately two years at a call center located in Rancho Cordova. On April 5,
10 2017, she filed a putative wage-and-hour class action against Health Net, purporting to represent
11 all current and former non-exempt Health Net employees in Califomia from April 5, 2013 to the
12 present. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a first amended complaint adding PAGA
13 allegations. Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee ("Lee Dec"), ^ 2.
14 Plaintiff Tomas Arana currently works for Health Net and has held various non-exempt and
15 exempt positions at the same Rancho Cordova call center at which Plaintiff Spears worked.
16 Plaintiff Arana filed his putative wage-and-hour class complaint against Health Net on August 1,
17 2017, purporting to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Health Net, among
18 others, and a subclass of exempt employees, /rf. at f 3.
19 Upon stipulation ofthe parties, the Court consolidated the two cases on October 11, 2017.
20 Id. at ^4. On December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint alleging: (a) failure
21 to provide meal periods, (b) failure to provide rest periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime
22 wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based on Health Net's alleged failure to properly
23 calculate the regular rate, (e) unlawful rounding practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage
24 statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages, (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA
25 claims. Id. at ^ 4, Exh. A. Plaintiffs attempt to certify four classes, including a non-exempt class,
26 an exempt class, a rounding class, and a UCL class, as well as eight subclasses that, in total, would
27 sweep in nearly 5,000 current and former Health Net employees. Id. at ^ 4, Exh. A; Declaration of
28 Diane C. Rodes ("Rodes Dec"), ^ 2. Health Net filed its Answer to the Consolidated Complainl
-_2^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 on January 22, 2018, and anticipates filing a dispositive motion as to Plaintiffs' regular rate and
2 rounding claims by the end of the month. Lee Dec, ^ 5.
3 B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings
4 Prior to consolidation, both Plaintiffs propounded extensive written discovery on Health
5 Net. Plaintiff Spears served herfirstsets of document requests, special interrogatories, employment
6 law form interrogatories, and admission requests on July 25, 2017. Id. at \ 6, Exhs. B, C. And,
7 Plaintiff Arana served his first and second sets of special interrogatories and first sets of document
8 requests, employment law form interrogatories, and admission requests on September 19,2017. Id.
9 at 17.
10 Health Net served responses to Plaintiff Spears's discovery on September 12, 2017 and
11 produced additional responsive documents two days later. Id. at ^ 8, Exhs. C, E. After the Court's
12 consolidation of the two cases, counsel for Health Net initiated meet-and-confer discussions with
13 both Plaintiffs' counsel to discuss written discovery and a Belaire-West notice. Id. at ^ 9, Exh. F.
14 During their October 24-25, 2017 meet and confer over the telephone and e-mail, all parties'
15 counsel agreed lo raise the issue of phasing discovery at the December 8, 2017 initial CMC, and
16 Health Net agreed that it would provide class certification-related discovery in the interim. Id. The
17 parties did not discuss the specifics of any particular discovery request, and Health Net granted
18 Plaintiff Spears an extension to file any motion to compel until after the CMC so that Plaintiff
19 Spears would not be prejudiced. Id.
20 On November 24, 2017, counsel for Health Net e-mailed a stipulation and proposed
21 protective order to Plaintiffs' counsel in anticipation that it would govem the parlies' exchange of
22 confidential documents and information. Id. at |12, Exh. I . Instead of signing or providing
23 suggested revisions to the draft protective order, on December 1, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a
24 motion to compel fiirther production of documents and on December 6, filed a motion to compel
25 further interrogalory responses regarding her first set of special interrogatories. Id.aX ^13, Exhs. J,
26 K.
27 As it had committed, on December 6 and 7, 2017, Health Nel served its supplemental
28 documents and discovery responses, including supplemental responses to special interrogatories,
• ' • -3 -
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 and agreed to produce additional documents once an appropriate protective order was in place. Id.
2 at H 14, Exh. L. With respect to putative class members' contact information. Health Net agreed
3 that it would provide such information with an appropriate Belaire- West notice procedure to govem
4 the exchange. And although Health Net had previously provided Plaintiff Spears with its suggested
5 revisions to her draft Belaire-West nolice. Plaintiff Spears outright rejected them and instead filed
6 her Motion for Opt-Out Privacy Notice to Be Sent to Putative Class Members ("BW Motion")
7 prematurely before engaging with Health Net on the language. Id. at 10-11, Exhs. G, H.
8 At the December 8,2017 CMC, Judge Perkins set February 15,2018 as the hearing date for
9 Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at f 15, Exh. M. That aftemoon, Health Net's
10 counsel reached out to Plaintiffs' counsel and requested that Plaintiff Spears continue the hearing
11 dates on her then pending motions to compel until after Judge Perkins ruled on the Motion to
12 Sequence. Health Net did so because many of the issues raised by those motions overlapped wilh
13 Health Net's forthcoming Motion to Sequence. Id. at H 16, Exh. N. Plaintiff Spears's counsel did
14 not respond to Health Net's counsel's request. Id.
15 On December 15,2017, Plaintiffs finally provided their signatures on Health Net's proposed
16 protective order. Id. at ^ 17, Exh. O. Within two business days, Health Net served its supplemental
17 document production, /c/. at ^ 18, Exh. P.
18 The Court mled on Plaintiff Spears's BW Motion on December 15, 2017, continuing the
19 hearing to January 4, 2018, ordering the parties to further meet and confer and "remind[ing] all
20 counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears's] that given the number of motions such as this which must
21 be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve
22 each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally." Id.
23 at II 19, Exh. Q. After the Court's admonitions, Plaintiff Spears withdrew her discovery motions at
24 counsel for Health Net's request because the issues raised significantly overlapped with Health
25 Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at ^ 20, Exhs. R, S. Further, Health Net continued both
26 Plaintiffs' respective deadlines to bring motions to compel further responses to their written
27 discovery until March 1, 2018 - two weeks after Health Net anticipates receiving a mling on its
28
-4
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. al K 20, Exhs. R, S. On January 23, 2018, Health Net filed its
2 Motion to Sequence Discovery, /rf. at f 21, Exh. T.
3 Despite the Motion to Sequence and Health Net's extending her deadline to file these
4 Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Spears filed these Discovery Motions which are set to be heard on
5 Febmary 13, 2018 - before Judge Perkins will hear Heallh Net's Motion to Sequence. Id. at \ 22.
6 After Plaintiff Spears's filing, Health Net requested that she withdraw her motions, and
7 likewise informed her that if she did not do so, Health Net would have no choice but to seek
8 sanctions, /c/. at ^23, Ex. U. Plaintiff Spears refused Health Net's request./c?.
9 C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discovery Related To Class Certification.
10 As detailed above, both Plaintiffs have propounded extensive written discovery on Health
11 Net. In response. Health Net provided detailed, expansive responses and documents, including:
12 • Plaintiffs' persoruiel files;
13 • Plaintiffs' payroll data;
14 • Plaintiffs'timesheet dala;
15 • Plaintiffs'wage statements;
16 • Meal period policies for all putative class members;
17 • Employee policies, manuals and guides for all putative class members;
18 • Hourly compensation policies for all putative class members;
19 • Bonus compensation policies for all putative class members;
20 • Policies relating to health and welfare benefits for all putative class members;
21 • Meal premium policies for all putalive class members; and
22 • Overtime compensation policies for all putalive class members.
23 In total. Health Net has produced more than 2,600 pages of discovery and 21,880 lines of
24 data in Microsoft Excel sheets related to Plaintiffs' personal claims, class certification and the
25 merits of Plaintiffs'regular rate and rounding claims. Id. at 1(24.
26 However, as described in Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery, not all of the
27 discovery Plaintiffs seek is relevant and proper at this juncture. For example, Plaintiff Spears seeks
28 discovery for claims she does not personally have, like claims based on improper commission pay.
-5-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 In addition, much ofthe discovery Plaintiff Spears seeks goes to the merits of her claims, is unduly
2 burdensome, and infringes on privacy rights of non-party employees. For this reason. Health Net
3 objected to providing certain information and documents, and filed its pending Motion to Sequence.
4 The sequencing Health Net proposes avoids costly and unnecessary discovery, appropriately defers.
5 difficult discovery issues, and does not unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs.
6 IIL ARGUMENT
7 While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not \yithout limits. See Williams v. Superior
8 Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). As Williams acknowledges, trial courts may limit discovery
9 where it is unduly burdensome and expense outweighs the utility ofthe information sought. Id.;
10 Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.020(A),' see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal 2d 407,
11 417 (1961) (trial coml may sustain objections to interrogatories due to undue burden). The trial
12 court has broad discretion to manage, stmcture, and limit discovery. Greyhound Corp., v. Superior
13 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 382 (1961).
14 A. The Court Should Defer Any Decision On This Motion Until Judge Perkins
Decides Health Net's Motion To Sequence Discovery.
15
Judge Perkins informed the parlies lhat he will make a determination on Health Net's
16
pending Motion to Sequence Discovery on Febmary 15,2018. That motion is based on the Court's
17
authority to "establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parlies and
18
witnesses and in the interests of justice" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020(b).
19
See Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 551 (trial court may sequence discovery upon motion under section
20
2019.020(b)). Health Net asks the Court to sequence discovery on seven categories of claims
21
asserted by Plaintiffs: (1) meal and rest break, (2) off-the-clock and (3) misclassification claims,
22
and derivative (4) wage statement, (5) waiting time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims.
23
Good cause exists for the Court to exercise its statutory and inherent power to sequence discovery
24
so that the parties first address whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs have
25
standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees. Stmcturing discovery in this manner
26
promotes judicial economy, the convenience of the parlies and the interests of justice contemplated
27
in Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020.
28
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . •
1 Because the Motion to Sequence Discovery is pending before Judge Perkins and will be
2 decided shortly, this Court should decline to decide the issues presented in Plainliff Spears's
3 Discovery Motions.
4 B. Classwide. Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based, Unduly Burdensome
And Premature (Interrogatory Nos. 6. 7 and 19).
5
Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, the
6
pay periods when they were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the
7
same period (No. 6), the number of putative class members who were paid overtime and cash
8
payments in lieu ofhealth benefits during the same period (No. 7) and the total number of meal
9
premiums paid to putative class members (No. 19), irrespective of the burden on Health Net and
10
the fact that she has nol certified a class.' She is mistaken.
11
The Interrogatories seek detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, ^1 2.
12
Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. These merits-based, classwide
13
interrogatories not only require compilation and review of an enormous amouni of dala, they
14
require detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Lee Dec.,^ 25,
15
Exh. V, Declaration of Chrissy Schneider (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), 2-24. In part, this is
16
because older payroll and timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health
17
Net, and archived information from that database is not readily accessible. Schneider Dec, ^ 3.
18
More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of
19
which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at f^f 3-4. Health Net has
20
no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to these Interrogatories
21
from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build
22
tables to extract the data. Id. at 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would notfitinto
23
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need lo build another tool or database to host
24
it. Id at ^ 7. "
25
26
27 ' Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears because she is an actual plaintiff in
this matter, not a speculative putative plaintiff for an alleged class that may not, and likely will nol,
28 ever be certified.
-7-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS • .
1 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no
2 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at | 8. In sum, this process would take
3 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in
4 addition to their regular duties. Id. at 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information
5 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the
6 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the
7 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands. Id. at ^ 24.
8 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health
9 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and
10 health and welfare benefits. Providing detailed, individualized meal premium information and
11 listing pay periods in which putative class members' received both overtime and "cash payments
12 in lieu of health benefits" makes little sense considering the information will be irrelevant if she
13 never certifies this case as a class action.'^ Such discovery should be deferred until and unless
14 Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against
15 the significant resources, time, emd expense necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for
16 thousands ofHealth Net's current and former employees over several years, the Court is well within
17 ils discretion to deny this merits-based discovery at this early juncture.
18 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to these Interrogatories.
19 C. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information. ^
20 Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did nol receive certain health
21 benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy rights.
22 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contacl information after they
23 are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve additional privacy
24 protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is personal. Ask any
25
26 ^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos.
6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No. 19 is not
27 relevant lo this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral
Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively
28 modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here.
" ^8^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll information routinely disclosed to
2 parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v.
3 Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is entitled to even more
4 stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996) (medical privacy is a
5 quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class member privacy rights
6 before Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action.
7 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture
(Interrogatory Nos. 11-12).
8
Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member,
9
detailed pay informationfromwage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for
10
pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogalories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to
11
class certification.^ All of the information Plainliff Spears seeks will be irrelevant if she never
12
certifies this case as a class action.
13
The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories.
14
E. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague. Ambiguous And Overbroad.
15
Interrogalory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were
16
"eligible to receive[]." Lee Dec, ^1 6, Exh. E. Health Net objected to this Interrogatory because it
17
is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health Net does not know what "forms of compensation"
18
means. "Forms of compensation" might include hourly and overtime wages. It might require a
19
breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime versus commission versus bonuses. It might
20
entail the value of health benefits, paid time off, holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave,
21
disability policies, etc It might include payouts for benefits or unused paid time off. It might
22
include a plethora of things which comprise an employee's total compensation package and perks.
23
Health Net does not know because the Interrogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plainliff Spears
24
for clarification, she has provided none. Lee Dec, ^ 26, Exh. W."* Health Net should not be left to
25
guess at what it is being asked lo answer.
26
27 ^ Health Net has produced this information for Plainliff Spears.
^ Plaintiff Spears's counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she
28 actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Furthermore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information regarding "forms of
2 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Spears did not receive, it is overbroad
3 and seeks irrelevant informalion. There is nothing in Plaintiff Spears's complaint or moving papers
4 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation
5 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitled to information that did not apply to her
6 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring.
7 F. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates Numbers
In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16.
8
Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive
9
to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates
10
numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO1785-86, 1875-1918,
11
1933-1940, 1973-1989. Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), ^ 7, Ex. 7.
12
Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as she attached correspondence identifying these
13
documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion
14
on this issue. In any event, her motion should be denied.
15 „
G. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And
16 Unduly Burdensome.
17 Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks perfonned by the non-exempt putative
18 class members. This Interrogatory seeks conceming hundreds of job titles and duties for thousands
19 of current and former employees. Rodes Dec. Tl 6. Responding to this Interrogatory would involve
20 far more than flipping a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions, id. This
21 Interrogatory seeks information from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull
22 through many electronic and hard copyfilesto locate information responsive lo this Interrogatory.
23 Id. The job would be . more challenging because many of the documents that contain this
24 information have been archived and area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be
25 burdensome for Health Net to respond to this Interrogatory. Id.
26
27
of such pay codes (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special
28 Intenogatory; she should have stated as such.
-10-
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 The information sought is also irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
2 discovery of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class
3 members are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's allegations. The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are
4 not necessary to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non-
5 exempt putative class member was misdassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into
6 question any of the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no
7 justification for burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the information sought is
8 irrelevant.
9 Plaintiff Spears's reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still
10 subject to valid objections, including that it is irrelevant and burdensome.
11 Health Nel produced Plaintiff Spears's job description, which included her job duties. That
12 is this all lhat is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce
13 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempt putative class members when they
14 are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's claims.
15 H. Plaintiff Spears's Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of
16 Monetary Sanctions.
17 Under section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must impose monetary
18 sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. "Failing
19 to confer . . . with an opposing party or attomey in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve
20 informally any dispute conceming discovery" qualifies as a misuse of the discovery process that
21 warrants the imposition of sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010; see also Leko v. Cornerstone
22 Building Inspection Serv., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1122-24 (2001) (affirming the award of sanctions
23 against the moving party's attorney for failing to meet and confer in good faith). Moreover, the
24 Court must impose a monetary sanction against whichever party loses the motion to compel -
25
26
^ For example, in Tierno v. Rite AidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016),
27 the court ordered the defendant to provide job duties of putative class members because the plainliff
in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misdassified. Id. at *2. Plainliff
28 Spears does not assert a misclassification claim.
-JA^
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 including the party who brought the motion, unless that party did so with substantial justification.
2 Civ. Proc Code § 2030.300(d).
3 Plaintiff Spears's counsel cannot be said to have engaged in any meaningful, good faith
4 meet-and-confer before she filed these Discovery Motions. Had counsel done so and taken to heart
5 this Court's prior admonition "that... there are simply not enough judicial resources available to
6 resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved
7 informally," she never would have filed these Discovery Motions. Counsel knew that Judge
8 Perkins, at the parties' request, intended to decide all the issues she is raising in these Discovery
9 Motions. Counsel knew that if Judge Perkins somehow didn't, Health Net had granted Plaintiff
10 Spears extra time to file a motion to address any lingering issues. There was no reason tofilethese
11 Discovery Motions now - except to try and end-around Judge Perkins. Counsel knew all of this
12 and was reminded about it by Health Net when Health Net asked counsel to withdraw these
13 Discovery Motions, but still persisted. There was no legitimate justification for doing so.
14 The Discovery Motions similarly lack substantial justification. Heallh Net has already
15 produced much of the information/data Plaintiff Spears is seeking or, in the case of contacl
16 information for the Belaire-West administrator, has been in the process of doing so. As for the
17 remaining discovery in dispute, Health Net asserted legitimate objections, all of which are part of
18 the reasons why Health Net is seeking to have Judge Perkins sequence discovery.
19 Health Nel's counsel spent in excess of ten (10) hours preparing its Opposition and
20 supporting papers. Declaration of Timothy J. Long, ^3. Health Net's counsel's hourly rate is $572.
21 Id. Health Net's coimsel expects to spend an additional two (2) hours preparing for and appearing
22 in Court for the hearing on these Motions. Id. Therefore, sanctions in the amoimt of $6,292 are
23 reasonable and just.
24
25
26
27 ///
28 III
-J2J: -
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS '
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion and impose
3 sanctions against Plaintiff Spears in the amount of $6,292.
4
5 Dated: January 30, 2018 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
6
7 By:_
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE
8 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 .
3 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business address is
4 On-ick, Henington & Sutcliffe LLP, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000, Sacramento, Califomia
5 95814.
6 On January 30, 2018,1 served the following document(s):
7 DEFENDANT'S IMEIVIORANDUIVI IN OPPOSITION T O
PLAINTIFF'S IMOTION TO C O M P E L F U R T H E R
8 RESPONSES TO S P E C I A L I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ;
^ R E Q U E S T FOR SANCTIONS;
D E C L A R A T I O N OF STEPHANIE G A I L L E E IN SUPPORT
10 OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS TO C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES T O
11 DOCUMENT R E Q U E S T S AND S P E C I A L
^2 I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ; R E Q U E S T F O R SANCTIONS;
D E C L A R A T I O N OF T I M O T H Y J . LONG IN SUPPORT O F
13 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS T O PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
T O C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT
14 R E Q U E S T S AND S P E C I A L I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ;
^^ R E Q U E S T FOR SANCTIONS;
D E C L A R A T I O N OF DIANE C. RODES IN SUPPORT O F
16 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
T O C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES T O DOCUMENT
17 R E Q U E S T S AlVD S P E C I A L I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ;
R E Q U E S T F O R SANCTIONS; AND
1o
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE T O SEPARATE STATEMENT
19 IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES T O
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
21
22 • (BY MAIL) By placing a tme copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed
23 envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing
24 following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for
25 collection and processing of conespondence for mailing. Under that practice, the conespondence
26 would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 fiilly prepaid at Sacramento, Califomia, in the ordinary course of business, on the interested
2 parties in this action by placing tme and conect copies thereof in sealed envelope(s) addressed as
3 follows:
4 Norman B. Blumenthal Attomeys for Plaintiff Andrea Spears
^ Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Aparajit Bhowmik Telephone: (858) 551-1223
6 Piya Mukherjee Facsimile: (858)551-1232
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
7 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG &
BHOMIK
8 2255 Calle Clara
g La Jolla, CA 92037
10 Shaun Setareh Attomeys for Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana
H. Scott Leviant
11 SETAREH LAW GROUP Telephone: (310) 888-7771
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
12 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
13
14 • (BY EMAIL AS A MATTER OF COURTESY) By transmitting a tme pdf copy
1^ of the foregoing dociiment(s) by e-mail transmission from pheath@orrick.com to the interested
^^ parties only as indicated on the below service list at the e-mail addresses set forth on said service
17
list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on declarant's e-
mail transmission record. Each such transmission was reported as complete and without enor.
19 • (BY ELECTRONIC FILING VIA CASE MANAGEMENT/ ELECTRONIC
^ CASE FILING: By transmitting via e-filing through the Case Management/Electronic Case
Filing ("CM/ECF") system, to be sent electronically and simultaneously to the registered
participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF"), including the following:
23 1^ (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I deposited in a box or other facility regularly
94
maintained by UPS, a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope or package
designated by UPS, addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list, with fees for ovemight
9<^
delivery paid or provided for:
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Norman B. Blumenthal Attomeys for Plaintiff Andrea Spears
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
2 Aparajit Bhowmik Telephone: (858)551-1223
3 Piya Mukherjee Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
4 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG &
BHOMIK
5 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
6
7 Shaun Setareh Attomeys for Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana
H. Scott Leviant
8 SETAREH LAW GROUP Telephone: (310) 888-7771
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
9 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
10
11 0 (BY FACSIMILE) By transmitting a tme copy of the foregoing document(s) via
12 facsimile transmission from this Firm's sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is
13 (916) 329-4900, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth
14 on the attached mailing list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time
15 stated on the transmission record issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine. Each such
16 transmission was reported as complete and without enor and a transmission report was properly
17 issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine for each interested party served. A tme copy of
18 each transmission report is attached to the office copy of this proof of service and will be
19 provided upon request.
20 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above
21 is tme and conect.
22
23 Executed on January 30, 2018, at Sacramento, California.
24
25
Patricia M. Heath
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
FILED 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BARNO. 137591) ENDORSED tjlong@orrick.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2018 JAM 30 PH 2'Sh 400 Capilol Mall, Suite 3000 3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 «U?ERlf>f? COUfiT Or CAUrORillA Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 CO'JtnYCFSACRAKtHrO 4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) stephanie.lee@orrick.com 6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 Soulh Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS 14 situated, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN 15 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 16 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR 17 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, SANCTIONS inclusive, 18 Date: February 13, 2018 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 Judge: Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Dept.: 54 20 Complaint Filed: April 5,2017 21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 others similarly situated, Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017 22 Plaintiff, o 23 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017 24 CALIFORNIA corporalion; and DOES 1-50, o 25 inclusive. 26 Defendant. > 27 28 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1 4 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 5 A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Heallh Net 2 B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings 3 6 C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discovery Related To Class Certification 5 7 III. ARGUMENT 6 8 A. The Court Should Defer Any Decision On This Motion Until Judge Perkins Decides Health Net's Motion To Sequence Discovery 6 9 B. Classwide, Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based, Unduly Burdensome 10 And Premature (Interrogalory Nos. 6, 7 and 19) 7 11 C. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information 8 j2 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12) 9 13 E. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague, Ambiguous And Overbroad 9 14 F. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16 10 15 G. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And 16 Unduly Burdensome. 10 H. Plaintiff Spears's Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of Monetary Sanctions 11 18 IV. CONCLUSION 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 5 Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) 8 6 .. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 7 111 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2003) 9 8 Greyhound Corp., v. Superior Court, ^ 56 Cal. 2d 355 (1961) 6 Leko V. Cornerstone Building Inspection Serv., 10 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109 (2001) 11 11 Pettus V. Cole, 12 49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (1996) , 9 13 Tierno v. Rite A id Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) , ...11 14 West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 15 56 Cal. 2d 407(1961) , 6 Williams V. Superior Court, 17 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017) 6,11 18 Statutes 19 Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.020 6 20 Civ. Proc. Code §2023.010 11 21 Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(d) 12 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Once again, Plaintiff Andrea Spears has filed two unnecessary discovery motions. To 3 begin with, she is attempting an end-around Judge Perkins in Department 35 who is scheduled to 4 hear a Motion to Sequence Discovery in this case on February 15"' - two days after the hearing date 5 she selected for this motion and her companion motion to compel further responses to requests for 6 production (collectively, "Discovery Motions"). That Motion to Sequence Discovery will be 7 dealing with the issues Plaintiff Spears is raising in these Discovery Motions. Judge Perkins set 8 the hearing on that Motion to Sequence Discovery in December 2017, and Health Net submitted its 9 opening brief last week. For this reason alone the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Discovery 10 Motions. 11 Should the Court entertain Plaintiff Spears's Discovery Motions, however, there are two 12 basic reasons to deny them. 13 First, Health Net granted Plaintiff Spears an extension to file her Discovery Motions until 14 two weeks after Judge Perkins is expected to rule on the motion to sequence discovery. Heallh Net 15 did so to ensure that Plaintiff Spears would not be prejudiced in the outside chance Judge Perkins 16 did not address the issues implicated by these Discovery Motions. In filing these Discovery 17 Motions, Plaintiff Spears disregarded the Court's admonition in its December 15, 2017, Order to 18 "all counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears's counsel] that... there are simply not enough judicial 19 resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have 20 been resolved informally." There was no reason for Plaintiff Spears lo file these Discovery Motions 21 now. 22 Second, Plaintiff Spears's arguments are meritless. Health Net either properly objected to 23 the discovery in question or, and contrary to Plaintiff Spears's representations. Health Net has 24 already produced the information she is seeking, or is in the process of doing so, as well she well 25 knows. 26 For all these reasons the Court should deny these Discovery Motions. The Court should 27 also do more. Health Net asked Plaintiff Spears's counsel to withdraw these needless motions, 28 reminding counsel of the Court's prior admonition. Health Net also pointed out that if Plaintiff -1- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL . INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS } 1 Spears refused to withdraw these Discovery Motions, Health Net would seek sanctions. Plainliff 2 Spears's counsel refiised to withdraw these Discovery Motions. As a result. Health Net requests 3 that the Court issue sanctions against Plaintiff Spears's counsel for having forced Health Net (and 4 the Court) to expend needless effort, and incur substantial costs for having to oppose these needless 5 Discovery Motions in the amount of $6,292. 6 H. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 7 A. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Claims Against Health Net 8 Plaintiff Spears is a former non-exempt customer service representative who worked for 9 Heallh Net for approximately two years at a call center located in Rancho Cordova. On April 5, 10 2017, she filed a putative wage-and-hour class action against Health Net, purporting to represent 11 all current and former non-exempt Health Net employees in Califomia from April 5, 2013 to the 12 present. On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a first amended complaint adding PAGA 13 allegations. Declaration of Stephanie Gail Lee ("Lee Dec"), ^ 2. 14 Plaintiff Tomas Arana currently works for Health Net and has held various non-exempt and 15 exempt positions at the same Rancho Cordova call center at which Plaintiff Spears worked. 16 Plaintiff Arana filed his putative wage-and-hour class complaint against Health Net on August 1, 17 2017, purporting to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Health Net, among 18 others, and a subclass of exempt employees, /rf. at f 3. 19 Upon stipulation ofthe parties, the Court consolidated the two cases on October 11, 2017. 20 Id. at ^4. On December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint alleging: (a) failure 21 to provide meal periods, (b) failure to provide rest periods, (c) failure to pay hourly and overtime 22 wages, (d) failure to correctly pay overtime based on Health Net's alleged failure to properly 23 calculate the regular rate, (e) unlawful rounding practices, (f) failure to provide accurate wage 24 statements, (g) failure to timely pay all final wages, (h) unfair competition, and (i) related PAGA 25 claims. Id. at ^ 4, Exh. A. Plaintiffs attempt to certify four classes, including a non-exempt class, 26 an exempt class, a rounding class, and a UCL class, as well as eight subclasses that, in total, would 27 sweep in nearly 5,000 current and former Health Net employees. Id. at ^ 4, Exh. A; Declaration of 28 Diane C. Rodes ("Rodes Dec"), ^ 2. Health Net filed its Answer to the Consolidated Complainl -_2^ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 on January 22, 2018, and anticipates filing a dispositive motion as to Plaintiffs' regular rate and 2 rounding claims by the end of the month. Lee Dec, ^ 5. 3 B. Summary Of Relevant Prior Discovery-Related Proceedings 4 Prior to consolidation, both Plaintiffs propounded extensive written discovery on Health 5 Net. Plaintiff Spears served herfirstsets of document requests, special interrogatories, employment 6 law form interrogatories, and admission requests on July 25, 2017. Id. at \ 6, Exhs. B, C. And, 7 Plaintiff Arana served his first and second sets of special interrogatories and first sets of document 8 requests, employment law form interrogatories, and admission requests on September 19,2017. Id. 9 at 17. 10 Health Net served responses to Plaintiff Spears's discovery on September 12, 2017 and 11 produced additional responsive documents two days later. Id. at ^ 8, Exhs. C, E. After the Court's 12 consolidation of the two cases, counsel for Health Net initiated meet-and-confer discussions with 13 both Plaintiffs' counsel to discuss written discovery and a Belaire-West notice. Id. at ^ 9, Exh. F. 14 During their October 24-25, 2017 meet and confer over the telephone and e-mail, all parties' 15 counsel agreed lo raise the issue of phasing discovery at the December 8, 2017 initial CMC, and 16 Health Net agreed that it would provide class certification-related discovery in the interim. Id. The 17 parties did not discuss the specifics of any particular discovery request, and Health Net granted 18 Plaintiff Spears an extension to file any motion to compel until after the CMC so that Plaintiff 19 Spears would not be prejudiced. Id. 20 On November 24, 2017, counsel for Health Net e-mailed a stipulation and proposed 21 protective order to Plaintiffs' counsel in anticipation that it would govem the parlies' exchange of 22 confidential documents and information. Id. at |12, Exh. I . Instead of signing or providing 23 suggested revisions to the draft protective order, on December 1, 2017, Plaintiff Spears filed a 24 motion to compel fiirther production of documents and on December 6, filed a motion to compel 25 further interrogalory responses regarding her first set of special interrogatories. Id.aX ^13, Exhs. J, 26 K. 27 As it had committed, on December 6 and 7, 2017, Health Nel served its supplemental 28 documents and discovery responses, including supplemental responses to special interrogatories, • ' • -3 - DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 and agreed to produce additional documents once an appropriate protective order was in place. Id. 2 at H 14, Exh. L. With respect to putative class members' contact information. Health Net agreed 3 that it would provide such information with an appropriate Belaire- West notice procedure to govem 4 the exchange. And although Health Net had previously provided Plaintiff Spears with its suggested 5 revisions to her draft Belaire-West nolice. Plaintiff Spears outright rejected them and instead filed 6 her Motion for Opt-Out Privacy Notice to Be Sent to Putative Class Members ("BW Motion") 7 prematurely before engaging with Health Net on the language. Id. at 10-11, Exhs. G, H. 8 At the December 8,2017 CMC, Judge Perkins set February 15,2018 as the hearing date for 9 Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at f 15, Exh. M. That aftemoon, Health Net's 10 counsel reached out to Plaintiffs' counsel and requested that Plaintiff Spears continue the hearing 11 dates on her then pending motions to compel until after Judge Perkins ruled on the Motion to 12 Sequence. Health Net did so because many of the issues raised by those motions overlapped wilh 13 Health Net's forthcoming Motion to Sequence. Id. at H 16, Exh. N. Plaintiff Spears's counsel did 14 not respond to Health Net's counsel's request. Id. 15 On December 15,2017, Plaintiffs finally provided their signatures on Health Net's proposed 16 protective order. Id. at ^ 17, Exh. O. Within two business days, Health Net served its supplemental 17 document production, /c/. at ^ 18, Exh. P. 18 The Court mled on Plaintiff Spears's BW Motion on December 15, 2017, continuing the 19 hearing to January 4, 2018, ordering the parties to further meet and confer and "remind[ing] all 20 counsel but especially [Plaintiff Spears's] that given the number of motions such as this which must 21 be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve 22 each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally." Id. 23 at II 19, Exh. Q. After the Court's admonitions, Plaintiff Spears withdrew her discovery motions at 24 counsel for Health Net's request because the issues raised significantly overlapped with Health 25 Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. at ^ 20, Exhs. R, S. Further, Health Net continued both 26 Plaintiffs' respective deadlines to bring motions to compel further responses to their written 27 discovery until March 1, 2018 - two weeks after Health Net anticipates receiving a mling on its 28 -4 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Motion to Sequence Discovery. Id. al K 20, Exhs. R, S. On January 23, 2018, Health Net filed its 2 Motion to Sequence Discovery, /rf. at f 21, Exh. T. 3 Despite the Motion to Sequence and Health Net's extending her deadline to file these 4 Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Spears filed these Discovery Motions which are set to be heard on 5 Febmary 13, 2018 - before Judge Perkins will hear Heallh Net's Motion to Sequence. Id. at \ 22. 6 After Plaintiff Spears's filing, Health Net requested that she withdraw her motions, and 7 likewise informed her that if she did not do so, Health Net would have no choice but to seek 8 sanctions, /c/. at ^23, Ex. U. Plaintiff Spears refused Health Net's request./c?. 9 C. Health Net Produced Extensive Discovery Related To Class Certification. 10 As detailed above, both Plaintiffs have propounded extensive written discovery on Health 11 Net. In response. Health Net provided detailed, expansive responses and documents, including: 12 • Plaintiffs' persoruiel files; 13 • Plaintiffs' payroll data; 14 • Plaintiffs'timesheet dala; 15 • Plaintiffs'wage statements; 16 • Meal period policies for all putative class members; 17 • Employee policies, manuals and guides for all putative class members; 18 • Hourly compensation policies for all putative class members; 19 • Bonus compensation policies for all putative class members; 20 • Policies relating to health and welfare benefits for all putative class members; 21 • Meal premium policies for all putalive class members; and 22 • Overtime compensation policies for all putalive class members. 23 In total. Health Net has produced more than 2,600 pages of discovery and 21,880 lines of 24 data in Microsoft Excel sheets related to Plaintiffs' personal claims, class certification and the 25 merits of Plaintiffs'regular rate and rounding claims. Id. at 1(24. 26 However, as described in Health Net's Motion to Sequence Discovery, not all of the 27 discovery Plaintiffs seek is relevant and proper at this juncture. For example, Plaintiff Spears seeks 28 discovery for claims she does not personally have, like claims based on improper commission pay. -5- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 In addition, much ofthe discovery Plaintiff Spears seeks goes to the merits of her claims, is unduly 2 burdensome, and infringes on privacy rights of non-party employees. For this reason. Health Net 3 objected to providing certain information and documents, and filed its pending Motion to Sequence. 4 The sequencing Health Net proposes avoids costly and unnecessary discovery, appropriately defers. 5 difficult discovery issues, and does not unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs. 6 IIL ARGUMENT 7 While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not \yithout limits. See Williams v. Superior 8 Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 549 (2017). As Williams acknowledges, trial courts may limit discovery 9 where it is unduly burdensome and expense outweighs the utility ofthe information sought. Id.; 10 Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.020(A),' see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal 2d 407, 11 417 (1961) (trial coml may sustain objections to interrogatories due to undue burden). The trial 12 court has broad discretion to manage, stmcture, and limit discovery. Greyhound Corp., v. Superior 13 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 382 (1961). 14 A. The Court Should Defer Any Decision On This Motion Until Judge Perkins Decides Health Net's Motion To Sequence Discovery. 15 Judge Perkins informed the parlies lhat he will make a determination on Health Net's 16 pending Motion to Sequence Discovery on Febmary 15,2018. That motion is based on the Court's 17 authority to "establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parlies and 18 witnesses and in the interests of justice" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020(b). 19 See Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 551 (trial court may sequence discovery upon motion under section 20 2019.020(b)). Health Net asks the Court to sequence discovery on seven categories of claims 21 asserted by Plaintiffs: (1) meal and rest break, (2) off-the-clock and (3) misclassification claims, 22 and derivative (4) wage statement, (5) waiting time, (6) unfair competition and (7) PAGA claims. 23 Good cause exists for the Court to exercise its statutory and inherent power to sequence discovery 24 so that the parties first address whether certification is appropriate and whether Plaintiffs have 25 standing to represent other allegedly aggrieved employees. Stmcturing discovery in this manner 26 promotes judicial economy, the convenience of the parlies and the interests of justice contemplated 27 in Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020. 28 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS . • 1 Because the Motion to Sequence Discovery is pending before Judge Perkins and will be 2 decided shortly, this Court should decline to decide the issues presented in Plainliff Spears's 3 Discovery Motions. 4 B. Classwide. Detailed Pay Information Is Merits Based, Unduly Burdensome And Premature (Interrogatory Nos. 6. 7 and 19). 5 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, the 6 pay periods when they were paid overtime and cash payments in lieu of health benefits during the 7 same period (No. 6), the number of putative class members who were paid overtime and cash 8 payments in lieu ofhealth benefits during the same period (No. 7) and the total number of meal 9 premiums paid to putative class members (No. 19), irrespective of the burden on Health Net and 10 the fact that she has nol certified a class.' She is mistaken. 11 The Interrogatories seek detailed pay data for nearly 5,000 individuals. Rodes Dec, ^1 2. 12 Producing this information would be incredibly burdensome. These merits-based, classwide 13 interrogatories not only require compilation and review of an enormous amouni of dala, they 14 require detailed analysis and calculations which are extremely time consuming. Lee Dec.,^ 25, 15 Exh. V, Declaration of Chrissy Schneider (hereinafter "Schneider Dec"), 2-24. In part, this is 16 because older payroll and timekeeping data was stored on a system that is no longer used by Health 17 Net, and archived information from that database is not readily accessible. Schneider Dec, ^ 3. 18 More recent payroll and timekeeping records are stored across two different databases, both of 19 which are different than the database used for the archived records. Id. at f^f 3-4. Health Net has 20 no ready-to-use application to gather the information necessary to respond to these Interrogatories 21 from the archive, so collecting the data would require employees to devise queries and/or build 22 tables to extract the data. Id. at 6-7. The result would likely be so large that it would notfitinto 23 Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, so employees would need lo build another tool or database to host 24 it. Id at ^ 7. " 25 26 27 ' Health Net has produced this information for Plaintiff Spears because she is an actual plaintiff in this matter, not a speculative putative plaintiff for an alleged class that may not, and likely will nol, 28 ever be certified. -7- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS • . 1 A similar process would be used to pull data from current databases because there is no 2 ready-to-use application in the current databases either. Id. at | 8. In sum, this process would take 3 an enormous amount of time and would be complicated and difficult for employees to complete in 4 addition to their regular duties. Id. at 7-8, 13-18. Due to the enormous volume of information 5 at issue, it would likely take, at a bare minimum, a team of three to four individuals in the 6 Company's IT and Payroll Departments three to six months of dedicated time to complete the 7 analysis Plaintiff Spears demands. Id. at ^ 24. 8 Such herculean efforts are unnecessary and premature prior to class certification. Health 9 Net has already provided every relevant class-wide policy related to meal premiums, overtime, and 10 health and welfare benefits. Providing detailed, individualized meal premium information and 11 listing pay periods in which putative class members' received both overtime and "cash payments 12 in lieu of health benefits" makes little sense considering the information will be irrelevant if she 13 never certifies this case as a class action.'^ Such discovery should be deferred until and unless 14 Plaintiff Spears is able to certify this case. Weighing the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff Spears against 15 the significant resources, time, emd expense necessary to answer these Special Interrogatories for 16 thousands ofHealth Net's current and former employees over several years, the Court is well within 17 ils discretion to deny this merits-based discovery at this early juncture. 18 The Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion as to these Interrogatories. 19 C. Interrogatory No. 6 Seeks Private Information. ^ 20 Interrogatory No. 6 seeks identification of employees who did nol receive certain health 21 benefits. Providing such information would violate putative class members' privacy rights. 22 Although Plaintiff Spears may be entitled to putative class members' contacl information after they 23 are given the opportunity to opt-out, payroll data and health benefits data deserve additional privacy 24 protections. As one Califomia appeals court has noted, "Payroll information is personal. Ask any 25 26 ^ Plaintiff Spears cites no cases in support of her request to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7, and the case she cites in support of compelling responses to Interrogatory No. 19 is not 27 relevant lo this case. As reflected in Plaintiffs own moving papers, Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 241 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2015) concemed allegations that management actively 28 modified time records to hide wage and hour violations. There are no such allegations here. " ^8^ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 ordinary reasonable person if he or she would want their payroll information routinely disclosed to 2 parties involved in litigation and one would hear a resounding, 'No.'" City of Los Angeles v. 3 Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883, 892 (2003). And medical privacy is entitled to even more 4 stringent protections. See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 441 (1996) (medical privacy is a 5 quintessential zone). There is no good reason to jeopardize putative class member privacy rights 6 before Plaintiff Spears certifies this case as a class action. 7 D. Classwide Pay Codes Are Irrelevant And Premature At This Juncture (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). 8 Plaintiff Spears argues that she is entitled to, for each and every putative class member, 9 detailed pay informationfromwage statements, including pay codes (No. 11) and explanations for 10 pay codes (No. 12). However, these Interrogalories seek merits discovery that is not relevant to 11 class certification.^ All of the information Plainliff Spears seeks will be irrelevant if she never 12 certifies this case as a class action. 13 The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion as to these premature Interrogatories. 14 E. Interrogatory No. 14 Is Vague. Ambiguous And Overbroad. 15 Interrogalory 14 seeks "all forms of compensation" the putative class members were 16 "eligible to receive[]." Lee Dec, ^1 6, Exh. E. Health Net objected to this Interrogatory because it 17 is vague and ambiguous. Simply put. Health Net does not know what "forms of compensation" 18 means. "Forms of compensation" might include hourly and overtime wages. It might require a 19 breakdown of hourly versus salary versus overtime versus commission versus bonuses. It might 20 entail the value of health benefits, paid time off, holiday pay, sick leave, other forms of leave, 21 disability policies, etc It might include payouts for benefits or unused paid time off. It might 22 include a plethora of things which comprise an employee's total compensation package and perks. 23 Health Net does not know because the Interrogatory is unclear, and despite asking Plainliff Spears 24 for clarification, she has provided none. Lee Dec, ^ 26, Exh. W."* Health Net should not be left to 25 guess at what it is being asked lo answer. 26 27 ^ Health Net has produced this information for Plainliff Spears. ^ Plaintiff Spears's counsel was unable to provide clarification, but rather, explained that what she 28 actually seeks are the pay codes received by non-exempt putative class members and a description DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Furthermore, to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information regarding "forms of 2 compensation" (whatever that phrase means) which Plaintiff Spears did not receive, it is overbroad 3 and seeks irrelevant informalion. There is nothing in Plaintiff Spears's complaint or moving papers 4 to explain how she might be affected by or represent others with respect to forms of compensation 5 she did not receive. Indeed, she cannot. She is not entitled to information that did not apply to her 6 and has nothing to do with the claims she has standing to bring. 7 F. Health Net Already Served Meal Period Policies And Identified Bates Numbers In Response To Interrogatory Nos. 15-16. 8 Plaintiff Spears misleads the Court. Health Net has already produced documents responsive 9 to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Health Net has also already identified the corresponding bates 10 numbers for the responsive documents: HCNA000692-1070; HCNAOOO1785-86, 1875-1918, 11 1933-1940, 1973-1989. Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio ("Rivapalacio Dec"), ^ 7, Ex. 7. 12 Plaintiff Spears is well aware of this fact, as she attached correspondence identifying these 13 documents to her Motion. Id. Health Net is puzzled as to why Plaintiff Spears brought a motion 14 on this issue. In any event, her motion should be denied. 15 „ G. Interrogatory No. 18 Seeks Irrelevant Information And Is Overbroad And 16 Unduly Burdensome. 17 Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the job duties and tasks perfonned by the non-exempt putative 18 class members. This Interrogatory seeks conceming hundreds of job titles and duties for thousands 19 of current and former employees. Rodes Dec. Tl 6. Responding to this Interrogatory would involve 20 far more than flipping a switch. Jobs evolve and change, as do job descriptions, id. This 21 Interrogatory seeks information from over a four year period. Id. Health Net would have to cull 22 through many electronic and hard copyfilesto locate information responsive lo this Interrogatory. 23 Id. The job would be . more challenging because many of the documents that contain this 24 information have been archived and area not readily available. Id. Needless to say, it would be 25 burdensome for Health Net to respond to this Interrogatory. Id. 26 27 of such pay codes (Interrogatory Nos. 11-12). Id. If, in fact, she has abandoned this Special 28 Intenogatory; she should have stated as such. -10- DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 The information sought is also irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 2 discovery of admissible evidence because the job duties of these non-exempt putative class 3 members are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's allegations. The job duties Plaintiff Spears seeks are 4 not necessary to prove any of the elements of her claim. She does not allege that she or any non- 5 exempt putative class member was misdassified as exempt.^ There is no allegation that calls into 6 question any of the job titles, duties, or job descriptions of the exempt putative class. There is no 7 justification for burdening Health Net with this Interrogatory when the information sought is 8 irrelevant. 9 Plaintiff Spears's reliance on Williams is also unavailing. Under Williams, discovery is still 10 subject to valid objections, including that it is irrelevant and burdensome. 11 Health Nel produced Plaintiff Spears's job description, which included her job duties. That 12 is this all lhat is required under the Discovery Act. Health Net should not be burdened to produce 13 answers for hundreds of positions for thousands of non-exempt putative class members when they 14 are irrelevant to Plaintiff Spears's claims. 15 H. Plaintiff Spears's Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Warrant The Imposition Of 16 Monetary Sanctions. 17 Under section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must impose monetary 18 sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. "Failing 19 to confer . . . with an opposing party or attomey in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve 20 informally any dispute conceming discovery" qualifies as a misuse of the discovery process that 21 warrants the imposition of sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010; see also Leko v. Cornerstone 22 Building Inspection Serv., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1122-24 (2001) (affirming the award of sanctions 23 against the moving party's attorney for failing to meet and confer in good faith). Moreover, the 24 Court must impose a monetary sanction against whichever party loses the motion to compel - 25 26 ^ For example, in Tierno v. Rite AidCorp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71795 (N.D. Cal. June 16,2016), 27 the court ordered the defendant to provide job duties of putative class members because the plainliff in that case asserted a claim that the putative class members were misdassified. Id. at *2. Plainliff 28 Spears does not assert a misclassification claim. -JA^ DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 including the party who brought the motion, unless that party did so with substantial justification. 2 Civ. Proc Code § 2030.300(d). 3 Plaintiff Spears's counsel cannot be said to have engaged in any meaningful, good faith 4 meet-and-confer before she filed these Discovery Motions. Had counsel done so and taken to heart 5 this Court's prior admonition "that... there are simply not enough judicial resources available to 6 resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved 7 informally," she never would have filed these Discovery Motions. Counsel knew that Judge 8 Perkins, at the parties' request, intended to decide all the issues she is raising in these Discovery 9 Motions. Counsel knew that if Judge Perkins somehow didn't, Health Net had granted Plaintiff 10 Spears extra time to file a motion to address any lingering issues. There was no reason tofilethese 11 Discovery Motions now - except to try and end-around Judge Perkins. Counsel knew all of this 12 and was reminded about it by Health Net when Health Net asked counsel to withdraw these 13 Discovery Motions, but still persisted. There was no legitimate justification for doing so. 14 The Discovery Motions similarly lack substantial justification. Heallh Net has already 15 produced much of the information/data Plaintiff Spears is seeking or, in the case of contacl 16 information for the Belaire-West administrator, has been in the process of doing so. As for the 17 remaining discovery in dispute, Health Net asserted legitimate objections, all of which are part of 18 the reasons why Health Net is seeking to have Judge Perkins sequence discovery. 19 Health Nel's counsel spent in excess of ten (10) hours preparing its Opposition and 20 supporting papers. Declaration of Timothy J. Long, ^3. Health Net's counsel's hourly rate is $572. 21 Id. Health Net's coimsel expects to spend an additional two (2) hours preparing for and appearing 22 in Court for the hearing on these Motions. Id. Therefore, sanctions in the amoimt of $6,292 are 23 reasonable and just. 24 25 26 27 /// 28 III -J2J: - DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ' 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff Spears's Motion and impose 3 sanctions against Plaintiff Spears in the amount of $6,292. 4 5 Dated: January 30, 2018 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 6 7 By:_ STEPHANIE GAIL LEE 8 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 . 3 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business address is 4 On-ick, Henington & Sutcliffe LLP, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000, Sacramento, Califomia 5 95814. 6 On January 30, 2018,1 served the following document(s): 7 DEFENDANT'S IMEIVIORANDUIVI IN OPPOSITION T O PLAINTIFF'S IMOTION TO C O M P E L F U R T H E R 8 RESPONSES TO S P E C I A L I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ; ^ R E Q U E S T FOR SANCTIONS; D E C L A R A T I O N OF STEPHANIE G A I L L E E IN SUPPORT 10 OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES T O 11 DOCUMENT R E Q U E S T S AND S P E C I A L ^2 I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ; R E Q U E S T F O R SANCTIONS; D E C L A R A T I O N OF T I M O T H Y J . LONG IN SUPPORT O F 13 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS T O PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS T O C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT 14 R E Q U E S T S AND S P E C I A L I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ; ^^ R E Q U E S T FOR SANCTIONS; D E C L A R A T I O N OF DIANE C. RODES IN SUPPORT O F 16 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS T O C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES T O DOCUMENT 17 R E Q U E S T S AlVD S P E C I A L I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ; R E Q U E S T F O R SANCTIONS; AND 1o DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE T O SEPARATE STATEMENT 19 IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO C O M P E L F U R T H E R RESPONSES T O 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 21 22 • (BY MAIL) By placing a tme copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed 23 envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing 24 following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for 25 collection and processing of conespondence for mailing. Under that practice, the conespondence 26 would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 fiilly prepaid at Sacramento, Califomia, in the ordinary course of business, on the interested 2 parties in this action by placing tme and conect copies thereof in sealed envelope(s) addressed as 3 follows: 4 Norman B. Blumenthal Attomeys for Plaintiff Andrea Spears ^ Kyle R. Nordrehaug Aparajit Bhowmik Telephone: (858) 551-1223 6 Piya Mukherjee Facsimile: (858)551-1232 Victoria B. Rivapalacio 7 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOMIK 8 2255 Calle Clara g La Jolla, CA 92037 10 Shaun Setareh Attomeys for Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana H. Scott Leviant 11 SETAREH LAW GROUP Telephone: (310) 888-7771 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 12 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 13 14 • (BY EMAIL AS A MATTER OF COURTESY) By transmitting a tme pdf copy 1^ of the foregoing dociiment(s) by e-mail transmission from pheath@orrick.com to the interested ^^ parties only as indicated on the below service list at the e-mail addresses set forth on said service 17 list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on declarant's e- mail transmission record. Each such transmission was reported as complete and without enor. 19 • (BY ELECTRONIC FILING VIA CASE MANAGEMENT/ ELECTRONIC ^ CASE FILING: By transmitting via e-filing through the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") system, to be sent electronically and simultaneously to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF"), including the following: 23 1^ (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I deposited in a box or other facility regularly 94 maintained by UPS, a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope or package designated by UPS, addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list, with fees for ovemight 9<^ delivery paid or provided for: 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Norman B. Blumenthal Attomeys for Plaintiff Andrea Spears Kyle R. Nordrehaug 2 Aparajit Bhowmik Telephone: (858)551-1223 3 Piya Mukherjee Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Victoria B. Rivapalacio 4 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOMIK 5 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 6 7 Shaun Setareh Attomeys for Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana H. Scott Leviant 8 SETAREH LAW GROUP Telephone: (310) 888-7771 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 9 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 10 11 0 (BY FACSIMILE) By transmitting a tme copy of the foregoing document(s) via 12 facsimile transmission from this Firm's sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is 13 (916) 329-4900, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth 14 on the attached mailing list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time 15 stated on the transmission record issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine. Each such 16 transmission was reported as complete and without enor and a transmission report was properly 17 issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine for each interested party served. A tme copy of 18 each transmission report is attached to the office copy of this proof of service and will be 19 provided upon request. 20 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above 21 is tme and conect. 22 23 Executed on January 30, 2018, at Sacramento, California. 24 25 Patricia M. Heath 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE