Reply To MotionReplyCal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 10, 2014W w © © N N O O 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California Lisa CHAO Supervising Deputy Attorney General LAURA E. ROBBINS Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 234652 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6254 Fax: (213) 897-5775 E-mail: Laura.Robbins@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Respondent and Defendant Dave Jones in his Capacity as Insurance Commissioner ofthe State ofCalifornia Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE PACIFICARE LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner and Plaintiff, DAVE JONES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents and Defendant. “Case No. 30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC RESPONDENT DAVE JONES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX BILL OF COSTS Date: August 8, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: CX102 Judge: The Honorable Peter Wilson Trial Date: January to February 2017 Action Filed: July 10, 2014 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) © 0 N u 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2a 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS ADIATIONAL FACTS wunvisnmsnsicsrmossosemimm ss somos ess vss iosissnssssss PACIFICARE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES TO PREPARE AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.......ccccviiviiiniriciiiicccie, L. The Commissioner Did Not Fail to Comply With His Obligations Under Government Code Section 11523 As the Department of Insurance Prepared an Administrative Record and Was Prepared to Correct Any Alleged Deficiencies mM the Rectcnnmmmissasirasa II. PacifiCare’s Work Was Not Reasonably Necessary to the Conduct of the LItI@ATION vetteesterasessaesbeebs esses esses bres e eae e ent ee enna nne ens PACIFICARE’S NUMBER OF HOURS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS SOUGHT AND RATES SOUGHT PER HOUR ARE UNREASONABLE ...c..ssimssssmsassosussess I. PacifiCare Seeks Reimbursement for an Unreasonable Number of Hours...... II. PacifiCare Seeks Reimbursement for Unreasonable Hourly Rates ................. CONCLUSIONcetteesseesses eee t ease e ess snae es saneasesenssseeesnaeeessnnneeessanasssesasesssseensns 2 Page ER 4 RN 5 - 5 - 8 soe 5 pi 10 - 10 sa 12 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) = W N O O 0 ~ ~ O O W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.APP.Ath TOT «eeveeeersteessasae saan be ease seas 11 No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (2016). 1 TRLADEE LLIO cuosmuamnusimaisimesiiamisssttdammrentons seats 8 Otay Ranch v. County ofSan Diego (2D1AVZI0 CalAPPAtE BU Louiessssmmsows saisSegaassSi es sas 8,11 STATUTES California Environmental (ality Act [CBRIA) commissionsisis:5,8,9 . Code Civ. Proc. § 1032iiieAbeens beets e hee e Reena ene e abe e bees aah bb anaes ern s+ § 1033.5ieee eeb eaeeteee na ete nae eben a beets heen eet ee be nate sae eae enreeneens4 § 1933.5; mibds (©)(2) snaanmmnnvansoisasTT--4,8 8 TOURS, ub. (8) cssammmmumsmmsisesmmmmme seis iasmsssesaTSATTGTA5 GINEODE, § TIED uinnmmmnsnsmnsmmmis sons mascosss sones om sossses sot somos sassy vss seis sin5,6,7.8 Pub. Res, Coie, 5211676, subd. [HIE]«cumminsmssassess5 COURT RULES Cal. Rules of Court TULE 3.367, SUDA. (@)..urveiiiiiiiiiiieiiieee eee eesite estes erie ees erae es snae ese sse ee aaeeessaeessaeeesrsnsaessseessaeensseesrnseanns 8 EEE BA A67 or sermanememmanesssin iisAASRRRSRTStsetsanaranns 8 PIE 3.2200 suvinmnniimmsumnusns amssama aa i soaoSAEARACRSNEASASSSSA8 3 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) O o 0 N1 1 N N w n A W N = N O N O N N O N O N N N N m e e m e m e m p m m a e m pe a 0 N N W N = Y Y R R W N -~ = O o PacifiCare attempts to justify its attorneys’ fees for what it characterizes as preparing the administrative record in its Opposition. Sections 1032 and 1033.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit the prevailing party in an action to recover certain costs. However, in order to be recovered, the “[a]llowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).) The cost also “shall be reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (¢)(3).) As the Commissioner explains below, PacifiCare has not metits burden to show that the costs are either reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation or reasonable in amount. ADDITIONAL FACTS After PacifiCare requested the administrative record, the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Insurance each prepared a separate record composed of the documents in its possession. Department of Insurance employees expended significant time and resources on preparation of an administrative record in this matter. (Campbell Decl., 2.) The Office of Administrative Hearings provided the documentsinits possession to PacifiCare on August 28, 2014. The Office of Administrative Hearings only certified the documents in its possession, which did not include the hearing exhibits; those exhibits were provided to PacifiCare by the Department of Insurance. (Campbell Decl. § 2.) Teresa Campbell, Assistant Chief Counsel at the Department of Insurance, prepared the administrative record atthe Department, which had the majority of the documents. Ms. Campbell entered into a contract with an outside vendor, Digital Knox LLC, paying that vendor $9,970.24 to create OCR processed (searchable) PDF files of the exhibits, transcripts, and pleadings and had them placed on CDs,! (Campbell Decl, §3 & Ex. A.) Three CDs containing those documents were provided to PacifiCare on January 8, 2015. (Campbell Decl. §4.) PacifiCare said it was unable to open the CDs. Even though the CDs worked on Department of Insurance computers, Ms, Campbell provided a new set of CDs to PacifiCare in July, 2015. (Campbell Decl. § 4.) Some of the CDs were again provided in August, 2015. (Campbell Decl. § 4.) I PacifiCare was not billed for these costs. 4 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) B W O e a O y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On October 16, 2015, PacifiCare’s counsel contacted Ms. Campbell claiming that there were missing documents in the administrative record prepared by the Department, and providing her with indices of pleadings, transcripts, and exhibits. (Campbell Decl. § 5 & Ex. B.) Ms. Campbell did not ask PacifiCare to look for allegedly missing documentsor to gather the documents that PacifiCare said needed to be added to the administrative record. (Campbell Decl. 15 & Ex. B.) In fact, once PacifiCare informed her of the missing documents, she located them in order to supplement the administrative record. (Campbell Decl. § 5.) It was her expectation that she would supplement the administrative record with the documents she had located. (Campbell Decl. § 5.) In the spirit of cooperation, as PacifiCare’s indices were accurate and it had located the same documents as Ms. Campbell, she agreed to allow PacifiCare to submit the record using the indices and documents it had located. {Campbell Decl. § 5.) Similarly, even though the Department had earlier informed PacifiCare that no stipulation was necessary, the Department agreed to stipulate that the administrative record was complete. (Campbell Decl. § 5) PACIFICARE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PREPARE AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD I. THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH HIS OBLIGATIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11523 AS THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE PREPARED AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND WAS PREPARED TO CORRECT ANY ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES IN THE RECORD : As the Commissioner demonstrated, Government Code section 11523 requires that the administrative record in this case be “prepared by the Office of Administrative Hearings or the agency.” There is no provision authorizing a private party, such as PacifiCare, to prepare the administrative record in a case such as this, PacifiCare cites Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (a) (Opp. at 2), but that section simply allows a prevailing party that has incurred authorized costs of preparing the record to recover those costs. It does not authorize 2 For example, if a party paid the Office of Administrative Hearings or the agency for the cost of those governmental entities preparing the record, the party can later seek to recoverthat amount if it ultimately prevails, Or, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute explicitly authorizes private parties to elect to prepare their own administrative record. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21167.6, subd. (b)(2) [“The plaintiff or petition may elect to prepare the record of proceedings . . . .”’].) Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (a) thus allows a prevailing party that has elected to prepare its own record to seek to recover costs in doing so. 5 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) t r e m i= c o m i n c o e © o e 3 A N w n B h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a party challenging an administrative decision under Government Code section 11523 to arrogate to itself the government's duty to prepare the record and then to charge the government the fees the party paid to its lawyers. | PacifiCare claims that it had no choice but to prepare the administrative record itself because of the Commissioner’s and the Department of Insurance’s “utter failure” to prepare the record. (Opp. at 2.) But it cites no evidence demonstrating that the Commissioner or the Departmentfailed to or refused to perform its duties under Government Code section 11523, On the contrary, PacifiCare admits that the Department of Insurance provided the administrative record to PacifiCare on multiple occasions, with 3 CDs provided on January 8, 2015 and re- provided in July, 2015-and some of the CDs provided again in August, 2015. (Gorman Decl. § 8.) By its own admission, PacifiCare received the administrative record from the Department of Insurance. As a result, PacifiCare did not prepare the administrative record. As Joseph Gorman stated in his May 21, 2018 Declaration attached to the Memorandum of Costs, PacifiCare created indices, determined what documents were missing from the administrative record, and located the missing documents (a task that was also performed simultaneously by the Department on Insurance). (May 21, 2018 Gorman Declaration 7-12.) PacifiCare complains that the administrative record prepared by the Department was not timely provided “within 30 days after the request,” as required by Government Code section 11523. (Opp. at 2.) But that statute provides that this period “shall be extended for good cause shown,” Elsewhere in its opposition, PacifiCare essentially argues in support of such good cause, acknowledging that preparing the record in this case “was a huge undertaking, given that the administrative proceedings spanned nearly three and a half years from December 2009 to June 2013.” (Opp. at 1.) Moreover, any issues PacifiCare claims to have had with the administrative record should have been raised with the Department of Insurance to allow the Department the opportunity to address them consistent with its obligations under Government Code section 11523. Instead, after receiving a “a complete, fully functional set of CDs”containing the administrative record in August 2015 (Gorman Decl., §8), PacifiCare claims to have identified a number of missing 6 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) N e E E E Y n o n o N o B o C E E S ) n o n o N o - - p d - - - - - - - c w N N L h R A W N = O 0 0 N N N W w e documents and then decided-without informing the anyone at the Department of Insurance-to take it upon itself to prepare the administrative record, even though nothing in section 11523 authorizes it to do so. Then, after a month and a half of substantial billing on the matter, PacifiCare sent the Departmenta letter on October 16, 2015-a two-page letter PacifiCare now seeks compensation of over $1,000 in attorney’s fees for drafting (Klaber Decl., Ex. A, p. 3 [10/13/2015 Gorman entry; 10/14/2015 Scolnick entry])}-informing the Department that PacifiCare had itself supplemented the record and created new indices, and requesting that the Departmentstipulate to this updated version of the administrative record (Gorman Decl., Ex. C). Nowhere in this letter nor in any other correspondence (until PacifiCare filed its memorandum of costs years later on May 21, 2018) did PacifiCare ever claim that it would be demand that the Department of Insurance pay PacifiCare’s attorney’s fees for performing this work. On the contrary, upon receiving PacifiCare’s October 16, 2015 letter, the Department immediately told PacifiCare that the Department was trying “to figure out what is missing,” noting that “most of the missing pleadings and transcripts are early motions, pre-trial stuff, etc.” (Campbell Decl., Ex. B [October 16, 2015, 12:29 pm email from Campbell to Scolnick].) But PacifiCare responded that “we’re not asking for you to look for anything further at this point,” and that PacifiCare was “offering to compile them together with what we already received from you and OAH.” (/d., Ex. B [October 16, 2015 2:18 pm email from Scolnick to Campbell].) Subsequently, the Department informed PacifiCare that it had “located, identified, and reviewed most of the documents [PacifiCare] had identified as missing . ..” (id., Ex. B [November 13, 2015 11:53 am email from Campbell to Scolnick}), but PacifiCare again stated it would “provide the missing documents to CDIto ease its burden” and that it was “willing to assumethis burden, notwithstanding the statute” (id., Ex. B [November 25, 2015 email from Scolnick to Chao, Campbell]). It does not ease the Department’s burden by requiring it to pay nearly $50,000 in attorney’s fees for work the Department was already performing. PacifiCare’s attempt to now charge the Department for these substantial attorney’s feesis not only impermissible under the statute, but also inconsistent with PacifiCare’s contemporaneous representations to the Department during the time the company was performing the work. The 7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) O O © ~ ~ & n h b h Ww W N = N O N O N N O R O R N N N N e e e s a e e e m e R e s e e 0 J O N n n A A W N = Q O Y W N N n h s w N = O o Department stood ready and willing to correct any alleged deficiencies in the record. That PacifiCare insisted on doing so (and largely did so without even informing the Department) does not provide grounds for awarding it fees now. PacifiCare cites Otay Ranch v. County ofSan Diego (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 60 and No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1136 for the proposition that attorney’s fees may be recoverable where a party prepares the administrative record. Unlike these cases, however, PacifiCare did not prepare the administrative record. Rather, it created unnecessary indices and added a select number of documentsto the administrative record that the Department of Insurance prepared, duplicating work done by the Department of Insurance, which had also located the documents. Further, Otay Ranch was a CEQA case in which the public entity was awarded its costs for preparing an administrative record, The No Toxic Air case did not involve a statute requiring that a public entity prepare the record. Those cases therefore do not hold that a private party seeking judicial review under Government Code section 11523 may recover costs for its work on preparing an administrative record. II. PACIFICARE’S WORK WAS NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION Even assuming that this work is construed as part of preparing the administrative record,it was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).) PacifiCare has not established that the creation of three indices was reasonably necessary to the litigation. Perhaps doing so was convenient or beneficial, but that is not the standard for awarding costs, much less substantial attorney and paralegal fees. An index is not statutorily required.> Mr. Gorman admits, “Creation of the indices [for the pleadings index, transcript index, 3 PacifiCare asserts that an index is required for administrative records in CEQA actions under California Rules of Court, rule 3.367, subd. (a). (Opp at 6.) The Commissioner was not able to locate this Rule in database searches, PacifiCare may be referring to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1367 (renumbered as rule 3.2205) applicable to CEQA actions. This is not a case, however, brought under CEQA. 8 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) ~ S S O O X X N N N W n 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and exhibits index] was the most time-consuming aspect of preparing and compiling the administrative record.” (May 21, 2018 Gorman Declaration § 11.) As a result, the vast majority offees sought as costs of preparing the administrative record must be disallowed. PacifiCare also asserts that it is entitled to fees for ascertaining which documents were missing from the administrative record and locating the missing documents. Teresa Campbell, who prepared the administrative record at the Department of Insurance, did not ask PacifiCare to look for missing documents or to gather the documents that needed to be added to the administrative record. In fact, once PacifiCare informed her of the missing documents, she located them in order to supplement the administrative record. In the spirit of cooperation, as PacifiCare’s indices were accurate and it had located the same documents as Ms. Campbell, she agreed to allow PacifiCare to submit the record using the indices and documentsit had located. Similarly, even though it had earlier informed PacifiCare that no stipulation was necessary, the Department agreed to stipulate that the record was complete. As a result, thiswork was not reasonably necessary to the litigation as Teresa Campbell at the Department of Insurance did the same work. PacifiCare’s fees for this work cannot be allowed. PACIFICARE’S NUMBER OF HOURS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS SOUGHT AND RATES SOUGHT PER HOUR ARE UNREASONABLE PacifiCare seeks attorney’s fees for 1.9 hours of Daniel Kolkey’s time at the rate of $985 per hour for a total of $1,871.50, 1.2 hours of Kahn Scolnick’s time at the rate of $760 per hour for a total of $912, 3.9 hours of Joseph Gorman’stime* at the rate of $665 per hour for a total of $2,593.50, 4.2 hours of Joseph Gorman’s time at the rate of $685 per hour for a total of $2,877, and 113.9 hours of Lolita Gadberry’s time at the rate of $365 per hour for a total of $41,573.50. (Klaber Decl. Ex. A pg. 6.) As explained below, both the number of hours and hourly rates are unreasonable. * The individual billing entries attached as Exhibit A to the Klaber Declaration reflect time billed by “Joseph Gorman” (Klaber Decl., Ex. A, pp. 1-5), but the “Summary of Totals” page identifies the timekeeper as “Daniel Gorman” (id., Ex. A, p. 6). The Commissioner assumes PacifiCare is seeking fees for Joseph Gorman. 3 The summary oftotals chart refers to Mr. Gorman as Daniel Gorman. The Commissioner thinks that the use of the word Daniel is a typo and that PacifiCare is actually referring to Joseph Gorman. 9 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) O O © u N O O 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. PACIFICARE SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR AN UNREASONABLE NUMBER OF HOURS Even assuming that PacifiCare is entitled to some attorney’s fees, PacifiCare seeks reimbursement for an excessive number of hours for work that was not reasonably necessary to the litigation. At best, it was merely convenient or beneficial. For instance, as representative examples, even assuming indices were necessary, the time entries for Lolita Gadberry reflect reformatting of the documents. (Klaber Decl. Ex. A. pg. 3 12/8/2015 and 12/9/2015 entries for Lolita Gadberry.) That was not necessary. Similarly, time spent renaming documents was not necessary. (Klaber Decl. Ex. A. pg. 5 1/13/2016, 8/2/2016, and 8/3/2016 entries for Lolita Gadberry.) Moreover, the January 5, 2016 billing entry for Daniel Kolkey includes work unrelated to the preparation of the administrative record including meet and confer efforts with Supervising Deputy Attorney General Lisa Chao, counsel for PacifiCare, and his co-counsel Felix Woo relating to “subsequent hearings for our action,” which had nothing to do with the administrative record. (Klaber Decl. Ex. A pg. 4 [1/5/2016 entry for Daniel Kolkey].) As Mr. Kolkey block billed, his time must be disallowed. Furthermore, the attorney’s fees sought relate to an overbroad period of time. PacifiCare seeks fees incurred between September5, 2015 and August 3, 2016. All fees incurred after October 16, 2015 must be stricken. On October 16, 2015, PacifiCare provided Teresa Campbell with three indices, of pleadings, transcripts, and exhibits. Ms. Campbell reviewed these indices, located the missing documents, and based upon them, agreed that the indices were complete. As a result, on December 3, 2015, even though the Commissioner felt it was not necessary, the parties stipulated that the administrative record was complete. Thus, as the record wasstipulated to be complete based upon the indices transmitted to the Department of Insurance on October 16, 2015, which identified all of the exhibits, any attorney’s fees incurred after October 16, 2015, including work on the indices, were not necessary. PacifiCare fails to meet its burden to show thatit is entitled to attorney’s fees for its desired number of hours. II. PACIFICARE SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREASONABLE HOURLY RATES PacifiCare seeks reimbursement at the following hourly rates: Daniel Kolkey $985 per hour, Kahn Scolnick at the rate of $760 per hour, Joseph Gorman at the rate of $665 per hour and 10 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) = W N ~ N O Y W n 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 at the rate of $685 per hour, and paralegal Lolita Gadberry at the rate of $365 per hour. These rates are excessive. Deena Klaber’s Declaration fails to justify these extremely high rates for the administrative tasks of preparing an index, comparing the index to the administrative record, and locating documents that were not in it. It also fails to show that the desired rates are reasonable in Orange County, California. For example, in Otay Ranch, L.P. v. County ofSan Diego (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 60, 71-72, a case cited by PacifiCare, the Court of Appeal upheld rates of $350 per hourfor attorneys and $100 per hour for paralegals as reasonable. The rates PacifiCare seeks are far above this threshold, including the rate of $365 per hour sought for a paralegal, more than the attorney rate in Otay Ranch. Moreover, PacifiCare’s reliance on the total amount awarded in Otay Ranch does not establish the reasonableness ofits own memorandum of costs (Opp. at 7). The costs awarded in Otay Ranch covered the defendant county’s costs for preparing the entire administrative record from scratch-not for reviewing an already prepared record and adding allegedly missing documents. _- h _ ) ) PacifiCare’s attempt to use effective billing rates also fails. (Opp. at 7.) In orderto create the effective billing rate, PacifiCare is relying on hours for which it is not seeking attorney’s fees and for which it has not provided any supporting billing records to allow the Commissioner and the Court to verify those hours. As PacifiCare elected not to seek attorney's fees for those hours, it cannot later use those unsupported and unverifiable hours in its calculation of each biller’s hourly rate. PacifiCare asserts that its hourly rates are reasonable and “the Commissioner has failed to show otherwise.” (Opp. at 8.) PacifiCare, however, has inverted the burden of proof. “[I]f the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proofis on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) As the Commissioner has properly objected to the attorney’s fees sought by PacifiCare, PacifiCare has the burden of proofto justify them. It has failed to meet that burden. 111 111 111 11 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) S S O O 0 N N | LA2014512258 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein and in its Motion, the Commissioner requests that the Court grant its Motion to Strike and Tax Costs. Dated: August 1,2018 Respectfully Submitted, XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California Lisa CHAO Supervising Deputy Attorney General LAURA E. ROBBINS Deputy Attorney General Attorneysfor Respondent and Defendant Dave Jones in his Capacity as Insurance Commissioner ofthe State ofCalifornia 53007591.docx 12 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS (30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT COURIER Case Name: Pacificare Life And Health Insurance Company v. Dave Jones, In His Capacity As Insurance Commissioner Of The State Of California Case No.: 30-2014-00733375-CU-WM-CXC I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member’s direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter; my business address is: 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013. Iam familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for overnight mail with the FED EX. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the overnight courier that same day in the ordinary course of business. On August 1, 2018, I served the attached RESPONDENT DAVE JONES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX BILL OF COSTSby transmitting a true copy via electronic mail. In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the internal mail system ofthe Office of the Attorney General, for overnight delivery, addressed as follows: Daniel M. Kolkey, Esq. Kahn Scolnick, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP - San Francisco 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 dkolkey@gibsondunn.com kscolnick(@gibsondunn.com Steven Velkei, Esq, Felix Woo, Esq. Dentons, US LLP - Los Angeles 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704 Steven.velkei@dentons.com felix.woo@dentons.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 1, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. Carolina Castillo &re CeasZils Declarant Signature L.A2014512258 53007778.docx
