Michael Olson vs. California Physicians' Service, A California CorporationMotion to Compel Answers to InterrogatoriesCal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 19, 2015uN S N L R A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~n John A. Gladych, Esq., Bar No. 139254 Lisa ONeill, Esq., Bar No. 301550 GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone (949) 442-8942 Facsimile (949) 442-8949 Email: john@gladychlaw.com Attorneys for MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Califomia, County of Orange 09/06/2016 at 09:09:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By Olga Lopez, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON Plaintiffs Vs. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON. KIM G. DUNNING, DEPT. CX104 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF LISA O’NEILL DATE: OCTOBER 5,2016 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT.: CX-104 COURT TRIAL: DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2016 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT... CX104 [Complaint Filed: October 21, 2015] | G23. 105 PLEADINGS\OLSON MIC. FROG flock 1 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA H O W ND OO © ~~ O n t n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~n TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 5, 2016 at 1:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Kim G. Dunning, in Department CX104 of the above- entitled court, located at 751 West Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701, Plaintiffs, Michael Olson and Tamao Olson, will move the Court, pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010, ef seq., 2030.300(2) and (d), and 2031.310(a) and (h), for an order compelling further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant, California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California, and assessing sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $4,013.00. The Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Lisa O'Neill, the complete court file, and such matters as the court may properly take judicial notice of, as well as the arguments of counsel. Dated: September 6, 2016 GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. or Son BOs John A. Gladych, Esq. Lisa O’Neill, Esq. Attorneys for MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON G203, }0NPLEADINGS\OLSON MTC FROG. docx 2 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA + NO e e N Y La 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) served their Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, on Defendant on March 23, 2016. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded on Defendant, California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California (hereinafter “Defendant™). Declaration of Lisa O’Neill (hereinafter “O’Neill Declaration”), Exhibit A. On June 30, 2016, following multiple extensions (see O’Neill Declaration, Exhibit B), Defendant served its response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, attached hereto as Exhibit C. In its responses, Defendant does not identify even one name of a witness with knowledge of the claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, even though Defendant expressly admits that it believes such persons exist. Plaintiffs sent a letter regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses on July 21, 20186, in the hopes that an informal resolution could be achieved. Weeks later and after Plaintiffs followed up with counsel for Defendant multiple times via email to seek a response to the letter, counsel for Defendant responded with a letter on August 10, 2016. O’Neill Declaration, § 6, Exhibit E. Thereafter, Counsel for the parties ultimately met and conferred on August 17, 2016. O’Neill Declaration, { 8. In light of the delay, Plaintiffs requested and obtained a stipulated extension until September 6, 2016 in order to file a Motion to Compel. ONeill Declaration, § 7. The meet and confer was ultimately unsuccessful at resolving the issues, and to date, Defendant will not supplement responses, and refuses to provide even one single witness requested by Plaintiffs. 2. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party may bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or to a request for production of documents in the event that a party’s responses to discovery are inadequate. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 subd. (a)(1), (3); 2031.310 subd. (a). Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Section 1 G03. 103 PLEADINGSWOLSON MTC FROG.docx 3 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA N N nm Bs W N oa 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 T G563. 10 IFLEADINGS\OLSON MTC. FROG. docx 4 2030.300(a), a party whose objections to interrogatories lack merit or are too general, or who files evasive or incomplete responses to interrogatories may be compelled to provide a further response. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 subd. (a)(1), (3). Similarly, the Court has the authority to compel production of documents over a party’s objections, where the party’s objections to production lack merit or are too general, or where the party’s representation that they are unable to comply with the request is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 subd. (a)(2), (3). Absent substantial justification or other circumstances that would make imposing sanctions unjust, sanctions must be imposed upon a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories or to a request for production. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 subd. (d), 2031.310 subd. (h). 3. THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS MATTER AND THE REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONDED TO California maintains liberal policies towards its discovery statutes that militate in favor of disclosure. See Flagship Theaters of Palm Des., LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1383 (modified and rehearing denied). “California's pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side's evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.” Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 (citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376). Here, Plaintiffs request further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1 and 15.1(b). Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on the basis of vagueness and ambiguity, and based on the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection. See Exhibit C to ONeill Declaration. These objections are addressed in more detail in the accompanying separate statements, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA W N ~~ NN Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 T G03 TF LEADINGS\GLSAN MTC. FROG docx 5 attached. In brief, however, these documents and information are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith, in addition to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages remedy for the bad faith claim. Moreover, case law confirms the broad scope of permissible discovery under these statutes, and allowable for these claims specifically. Plaintiffs request witness and contact information of the persons with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ claims at issue in the suit. See Exhibit C to O’Neill Declaration. Defendant objects that the requests are vague and ambiguous, and on the basis of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. /d. But the terms in the Interrogatories make sense within the context of the requests and the issues. Therefore, Defendant must provide the names and contact information of witnesses and persons with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ claims listed in the Complaint. Moreover, relevancy, as cited by Defendant in its objections, is not a proper basis to object to a request. For instance, in Glenfed Development Corp., supra, the Court found that “even if it is inadmissible at trial, the claims manual may lead to the discovery of other, relevant evidence that is admissible, and no more is required to justify the demand for its production.” Glenfed Development Corp., supra, at 1119. Plaintiffs are entitled to know witness information for those with relevant information about Plaintiffs’ specific claims at issue in this lawsuit. Yet Defendant has not identified a single witness name in response to Plaintiffs’ requests, even though they expressly state that they believe these persons exist. Defendant must respond to the requests. 4, THE COURT SHOULD AWARD SANCTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) provides as follows: The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Likewise, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) provides as follows: MoTI ON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM : CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA oN Oo ee 1 O N Wh 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~n Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.300(a) and 2031.310(h), when a motion compelling further responses and production is granted, the court must impose a monetary sanction against the compelled party, unless the court finds that the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The burden is placed on the party opposing the motion to demonstrate that it acted with substantial justification. California Shellfish, Inc v. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal. App 4" 16, 18; 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797. Sanctions in this context are designed to recompense those who are victims of the misuses of the Discovery Act. Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App.4" 1431, 1438; 72 Cal. Rptr 2d 333. There appears to be no reasonable justification for the conduct of Defendant and its counsel. The responses to the interrogatories and requests for production at issue consist of, variously, boilerplate objections and evasive, inadequate, and/or incomplete non-responses. As set forth in the Declaration of Lisa O'Neill, sanctions should be imposed in the total amount of $4,013.00 against Defendant and its counsel for their failure to respond to discovery, including Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories. 3. CONCLUSION The Court should compel Defendant to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories 1 1 1 T G03 103 PLEADINGS\01 SON. MTC. FROG doce 6 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA oO 0 Na 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 mn within 10 days. Further, the Court should order Defendant and its counsel to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $4,013.00. Dated: September 6, 2016 GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. \ By. po OY oe John A. Gladych, Esq. \ Lisa ONeill, Esq. Attorneys for MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON G:201. 103PLEADINGSWOLSON MTC FROG. docx 7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ON E) FROM CALIFORNIA-PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIF ORNIA OW ee N N un 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 nn 1 G03 TNF LEADING SWOLS0N MTC FROG dock 3 DECLARATION OF LISA O°NEILL I, LISA O°’NEILL, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California; I am an associate at Gladych & Associates, Inc., counsel of record for Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson in this action; I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, could and would testify competently and under oath thereto. 2. I have reviewed the file in preparation for this declaration. 3. On March 23, 2016, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, upon Defendant. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Accordingly, Defendant’s original responses were due on April 27, 2016. 4, A number of extensions were granted to allow Defendant to respond to discovery. Finally, on June 14, 2016, I corresponded with counsel for Defendant, Mr. Mike Godino, who requested a final two week extension to provide responses to the outstanding written discovery. A courtesy two week extension was awarded to Mr. Godino, making the responses due on June 30, 2016. A true and correct copy of my e-mail confirming the discussion and extension is attached as Exhibit B. 5. On June 30, 2016, our office received Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Defendant's responses to Form Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Defendant's responses to Form Interrogatories were evasive and deficient, as they failed to provide the name of even one witness with knowledge or information of the claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, even though Defendant acknowledged that such a witness or witnesses existed. Therefore on July 21, 2016, my office sent Mr. Godino a formal meet and confer letter. A true and correct copy of our meet and confer letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. After multiple e- mail follow-ups seeking a response to the letter, Counsel for defendants sent their letter response on August 10, 2016. A true and correct copy of our meet and confer letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. MOTION TO COMPLEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 5 OO 00 J Nn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 ~n | G03 103PLEADINGSIOLSON MT CFROG docx 9 7. On August 15, 2016, I obtained counsel for Defendant’s agreement to stipulate to a one-week extension to file a Motion to Compel any further discovery responses. Pursuant to the stipulation, the new deadline for Plaintiffs to bring a Motion to Compel is September 6, 2016. A true and correct copy of the parties’ e-mail chain is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 8. On August 17, 2016, I participated in a telephonic meet and confer with Mrs. Mike Godino and Joe Laska, counsel for Defendant. During that meet and confer, no resolution was reached, and thereafter, Blue Shield failed to supplement its responses to Form Interrogatories. On August 18, 2016, I e-mailed counsel for Defendant to follow up on our meet and confer, and to seek any supplemental response. A true and correct copy of my e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit G. No further response-to the e-mail or to the Form Interrogatories-was received. 0. I have spent a total of 13.2 hours preparing a meet and confer letter, meeting and conferring with opposing counsel, and subsequently drafting all three of Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and accompanying Separate Statement. For the instant Motion to Compel, therefore, I estimate a total of 4.4 hours. Moreover, I anticipate spending an additional 9 hours evaluating Defendant’s response to this Motion to Compel and drafting Plaintiffs’ Reply (5 hours), and traveling to Los Angeles for a court appearance for the hearing on the Motion to Compel (4 hours). My hourly rate for this case is $295 per hour. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,013.00 for the instant Motion to Compel, which represents 13.4 hours of attorney time at $295 per hour, plus $60 for the motion filing fee. To avoid a duplicate award for the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel, this fee amount may be lessened by 4 hours ($1,180.00) for each award of attorneys’ fees on Plaintiffs’ two other separately filed Motions to Compel. Executed on September 6, 2016 at Newport Beach, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. A Bh Ss - LIS O°NEILL, Declarant MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT A DISC-001 John A. Gladych, Esq., Bar No, 139254 |__ Gladych & Associates, Inc, 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 TELEPHONE NO: {949) 442-B942 FAX NO. (Optional): (949) 442-8949 E-MAIL ADDRESS {Oplional); john@gladychlaw.com ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nams, Stafe Bar number, and address): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs, Michael Olson and Tamao Olson SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange 751 West Santa Ano Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Civil Complex Center SHORT TITLE OF CASE: Michael Olson, et al. vs. California Physician's Service dba Blue Shield of California Asking Party: Plaintiff, Michael Olson SetNo.: ONE FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Answering Party: Defendant, CA Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield CASE NUMBER: 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC Sec. 1. Instructions to All Parties (a) Interrogatories are written questions prepared by a party to an action that are sent to any other party In the action to be answered under oath. The interrogatories below are form interrogatories approved for use in civil cases. {b) For time limitations, requirements flor service on other parties, and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010-2030.410 and the cases construing those sections. {c) These form interrogatories do not change existing law relating to interrogatories nor do they affect an answering party's right to assert any privilege or make any objection. Sec. 2. Instructions to the Asking Party (a) These interrogatories are designed for optional use by parties in unlimited civil cases where the amount demanded exceeds $26,000. Separate interrogatories, Form Interrogatories-Limited Civil Cases (Economic Litigation) (form DISC-004), which have no subparts, are designed for use in limited civil cases where the amount demanded is $26,000 or less; however, those interrogatories may also be used in unlimited civil cases. (b) Check the box next to each interrogatory that you want the answering party to answer. Use care in choosing those interrogataries that are applicable to the case. {c) You may insert your own definition of INCIDENT in Section 4, but only where the action arises fram a course of conduct or a series of events occurring over a period of time. (d) The interrogatories in saction 16.0, Defendant's Contentions-Parsonal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiffs injuries and damages. (e) Additional interrogatories may be attached. Sec. 3. Instructions to the Answering Party (a) An answer or other appropriate response must be givan to each inlemrogatary checked by the asking party. (b) As a general rule, within 30 days after you are served with these interrogatories, you must serve your responses on the asking party and serve copies of your responses on all other parties to the action who have appeared. See Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260-2030.270 for detalls. Form Approved for Oplional Use Judicial Cound!l of Calfonla DISC-001 Rev. Jenuary 4, 2008] ‘J. 5, [1 © 3 (c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably avallable to you, including the information possessed by your attomeys or agents, permits, If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it to the extent possible. {d} Ifyou do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is equally available to the asking party. {e) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit to the response and referred to in the response. If the document has more than one page, refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found. (f} Whenever an address and telephone number for the same persan are requested in more than one interrogatory, you are required to furnish them in answering only the first Interrogatory asking for that information. {9) Ifyou are asserting a privilege or making an objection to an interrogatory, you must specifically assert the privilege or state the objection in your written response. {h) Your answers to these interrogatories must be verified, dated, and signed. You may wish to use the following form at the end of your answers: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stafe of Califomia that the foregoing enswers are true and correct. FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL (DATE) (SIGNATURE) Sec. 4. Definitions Words In BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these interrogatories are defined as follows: {a} (Check ane of tha following): (1) INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, Injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. Pape 1 of 8 Code of Civ Procedure, £f 2030.010-2030.410, 2033.71D win. courtinfo.ca gov J (2) INCIDENT means (inser your definition here or on a separale, alfached sheet labeled "Sac. 4a)2)’): (b) YOU OR ANYONE AGTING ON YOUR BEHALF includes you, your agents, your employees, your insurance companies, their agents, their employees, your attorneys, your accountants, your investigators, and anyone else acting on your behalf. (c) PERSON includes a natural person, firm, assaciation, organization, partnership, business, trust, Emited liability company, corporation, or public entity. (d) DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of recording upon any tangibia thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them. {(e} HEALTH CARE PROVIDER includes any PERSON referred 1o in Code of Civil Procedure section §67.7(e)(3). (}) ADDRESS maans the street address, including the city, state, and zip code, Sec. 5. Interrogatories The following interrogatories have been approved by the Judicial Councit under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.70: CONTENTS 1.0 [dently of Persons Answering These interrogatories 2.0 General Background Infarmation-Individual 3.0 General Background Infarmation-Businass Entity 4.0 Insurance 5.0 [Reserved] 8.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries 7.0 Property Damage 8.0 Loss of income or Eaming Capacity 8.0 Other Damages 10.0 Medical History 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims 12.0 Investigation-General 13.0 Investigation-Surveillance 14.0 Statutory or Reguiatory Violations 15.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses 16.0 Defendant's Contentions Personal Injury 17.0 Responses to Request for Admissions 18.0 [Reserved] 18.0 [Reserved] 20.0 How the Incident Occurred-Motor Vehicle 25.0 [Reserved] 30.0 [Reserved] 40.0 [Reserved] 50.0 Contract 60.0 [Reserved] 70.0 Unlawful Detainer [Ses separate form DISC-003] 101.0 Economic Litigation [See separals form DISC-004) 200.0 Employment Law [See separaie form DISC-002] Family Law [Sse separate form FL-145] DISC-001 1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories 1.1 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses io these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) 2.0 General Background Information-individual [J 2.1 state: {a) your name; (b) every name you have used in the past; and {c} the dates you used each name. [] 2.2 State the date and place of your birth, (] 2.3 At the time of the INGIDENT, did you have a driver's license? If so stale: (a) the stale or other issuing entity; (b} the license number and type; {c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. (C1 2.4 Atihe time of the INCIDENT, did you have any other permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle? If so, state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. [] 2.5 State: (a) your present residence ADDRESS; (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS. [_] 26 State: {a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b} the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today. [1 2.7 state: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic or vocational institution you have attended, beginning with high schoo; (b) the dates you attended; {c) the highest grade level you have completed; and {d) the degrees received. J 2.8 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state; (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of conviction; (c) the offense; and {d} the court and case number. ] 2.9 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? OC] 2.10 Can you read and write English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? DISC-001 [Rev. January 1, 2008) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Pugs 2 of J 2.11 Atthe time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so, state: {a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and (b) a description of your duties. (_] 212 At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for each person state: {a) the nama, ADDRESS, and telephone number; {b} the nature of the disability or condition; and (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrance of the INCIDENT. 2.13 Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you or any person involved in the INCIDENT use ar take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or medication of any kind (prescription or not)? If sa, for each person state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the nature or description of each substance; {c) the quantity of each substance used or taken; {d) the dale and time of day when each substance was used or taken; {e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken; {f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each person who was present when each substance was used or taken; and {9) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who prescribed or furnished the substance and the condifion for which it was prescribed or furnished, 3.0 General Background Information--Business Entity 3.1 Are you a corporation? If so, state: (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation; {b} all other names used by the corporation during tha past 10 years and he dates each was used; (c) the dale and place of incorporation; {d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (e) whether you are qualified to do business in Cafifomia. 3.2 Are you a partnership? If so, state: (a) the current partnership name; (b) alt other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each was usad; (c) whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what jurisdiction; {d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and (e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.3 Are you a limited liability company? If so, state: (a) the name stated in the current articles of organization; {b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was used; {c) the date and place of filing of the articles of organization; (d} the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California. DISC-001 3.4 Are you a joint venture? if so, state: {a) the current joint venture name; (b) alt other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; {c) the name and ADDRESS of each joint venturer; and {d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.5 Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state: (a) the current unincorporated association name; {b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; and (c) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.6 Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each fictitious name state: {a} the name; (b) the dates each was used; (c) the state and county of each fictitious nama filing; and {d} the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.7 Within the past five years has any public entity regis- tered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration: (a) identify the license or registration; (b} state the name of the public entity; and (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration. 4.0 insurance 4.1 Atthe time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, far each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; {c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; {(d) the palicy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage con- tained in the policy; (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance company; and (9) the name, ADDRESS, and {elephone number of the custodian of the paoiicy. 4.2 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. 5.0 [Reserved] 8.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries [7 1 6.1 Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7). 6.2 Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected. CISC-207 (Rev. January 1, 2008) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Popo Jol B 6.3 Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint stale: {a) a description; (b} whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and (c) the frequency and duration, 6.4 Did you receive any consultation or examination {except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number: (b) the ype of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; {c} the dates you received consullation, examination, or treatment; and (d} the charges fo date. ] 6.5 Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If sg, for each medication state: (a) the name; {b) the PERSON wha prescribed or furnished it; {c) the date it was prescribed or furnished; (d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to date. ] 6.6 Are there any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that you atiribute fo the INCIDENT that were not previously listed (for example, ambulance, nursing, prosthetics)? If so, for each service state: {a) the nature; {b) the date; (c) the cost; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each provider. [1 6.7 Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional trealment for any injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury stata: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; {b) the complaints for which the treatment was advised: and (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment. 7.0 Property Damage 7.1 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property lo the INCIDENT? If so, for each tam of property: (a) describe the property; (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; DISC-001 {c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and {d) if the properly was sald, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, ihe date of sale, and the sale price. 7.2 Has a writlen estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property refered to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and the date prepared; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it; and {c) the amount of damage stated. 7.3 Has any item of property referred to in your answer to interrogatory 7.1 been repaired? If so, for each item state: {a} the date repaired; {b) a description of the repair; (c} the repair cost; {d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it; {e) tha name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who pald for the repair. Loss of Income or Earning Capacity 8.1 Do you attribute any loss of income or eaming capacity to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8). [1 8.2 state: {a) the nature of your work; {b) your job title at the time of the INCIDENT: and {c) the date your employment began. [183 State the last date before the INCIDENT that you worked for compensation. ] 8.4 State your manthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated, 1] 8.5 State the date you returned to work at each place of employment following the INCIDENT. [[] 8.6 State the dates you did not work and for which you Jost income as a result of the INCIDENT. | 8.7 State the otal income you have lost to date as a result of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated. ] 8.8 Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If 50, state: (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; {b) an estimate of the amount; {c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income Is calculated. OISC001 [Rev. January 1, 2008 FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page data 8.0 Other Damages ] 9.1 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage state; (2) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; {c} the amount; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was incurred. OJ 9.2 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.17 If sg, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 10.0 Medical History ] 10.1 At any time before the INCIDENT did you have com- plaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If sag, for each state: {a} a description of the complaint or Injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and {elephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted ar who examined or treated you. [J 10.2 List alt physical, mental, and emational disabilities you had immediately before the INCIDENT. (You may omit mental ‘or emotional disabilities uniass you atirbule any mental or emotional injury to the INCIDENT.) CC] 10.3 At any time after the INCIDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind far which you are now claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise ta an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred; {(b) the name, ADDRESS, and lelephone number of any other PERSON involved; {c) the nature af any injures you sustained; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and ielephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you consulted or who examined or treated you; and (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration. 41.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims ] 11.1 Except for this action, in the past 10 years have you fled an action or made a written claim or demand for compensation for your personal injuries? If so, for each action, claim, or demand state; (a) the date, time, and place and location (closest street ADDRESS or infersection) of the INCIDENT giving rise to the action, claim, or demand; {b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON ageinst whom the claim or demand was made or the action filed; DISC-001 {c) the court, names of the parlies, and case number of any aclion filed; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any attomey reprasenting you; {e) whether the claim or aclion has been resolved or is pending; and (f) a description of the injury. 1 11.2 in the past 10 years have yau made a written claim or demand for workers' compensation benefits? If so, for each claim or demand state: {a) the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT giving rise io the claim; (b} the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury; {c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the warkers' compensation insurer and the claim number; {d) the period of time during which yau received workers’ compensation benefits; (e} a description of the injury; {f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who pravided services; and {g) the case number at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. 12.0 Investigation-Generat 12.1 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: {a} who witnessed the INCIDENT or the evenis occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; {b} who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; {c) wha heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and {d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT {except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). 12.2 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual conceming the INCIDENT? !f so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and {elephone number of the individual interviewed; {b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. 12.3 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c} the date the statement was obtained; and {d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSDN who has the original statement or a copy. DISC.003 [Rav. January 1, 2005) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page 5018 12.4 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff's injuries? If sa, state: (8) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotapes; {b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped; {c} tha date the photographs, films, or videotapes were {aken; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs, films, or videotapes; and (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes. 1 12.5 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or mode! of any place or thing {except for items developed by exper! witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procadure sections 2034.210- 2034.310) cancerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item stale: (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model); (b) the subject matter; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has it 12.6 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; {b) the date and type of report made; {c} the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and {d) the name, ADDRESS, and felephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report. [(C]127 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection {except for exper witnesses covered hy Code of Civii Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310); and (b) the date of the inspection. 13.0 Investigation-Surveillance [7] 13.1 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF conducted survelllance of any individual involved in the INCIDENT or any party to this action? If so, for each sur- veillance state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual or party; (b} the time, date, and place of the surveillance; (c} the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who conducted the surveillance; and (d} the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of any surveillance photograph, fim, or videotaps, Lo DISC-001 1 13.2 Has a writen reporl been prepared on the surveillance? If so, for each written report state: {a) the title; (hb) the date; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who prepared the report; and {(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy. 14.0 Statutory or Regulatory Violations 1] 14.1 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ardinance, or regulation that was violated. J 14.2 Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as 2 result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: {a} the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b} the statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c) whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, If so, the plea entered; and {d) the name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number. 15.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defensas 15.1 Identify each denial of a malerial allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b} state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of ali PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify ali DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 16.0 Defendant's Contentions-Personal Injury 1] 16.1 Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each PERSON: (a) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; {c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {d} identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. ] 16.2" Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so: (a} state all facts upon which you base your contention; (b} state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {c) Identify all DOCUMENTS znd ather tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. DHSC-081 [Rav, January 1, 200B( FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page Gafl [] 16.3 Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far In this case were not caused by the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury: (2) Identify it; {b) state all facts upon which you base your coniention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the nama, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [] 16.4 Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the INCIDENT? If so: {a} identify each service; (b} state all facts upon which you base your contention; {c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telaphone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [lies Bo you contend that any of the costs of services fumished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed as damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable? If so: (a) identify each cost; (b} state all facts upon which you base your contention; {c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. ] 16.6 Do you contend that any part of the loss of eamings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the INCIDENT? If 50: (a) identify each part of the loss; (b} state all facts upan which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of ali PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {d) identify all DOCUMENTS and ather tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [1187 Do you contend that any of the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery Proceedings thus far in this case was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so: {a) identify each item of property damage; {b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; {c} state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers af all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {d} identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things thal support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. DISC-001 [ 116.8 Do you contend that any of the costs of repairing the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far In this case wera unreasonable? If so: (a} identify each cost item; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; {c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and {d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [] 16.9 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT (for example, insurance bureau index reports) conceming claims for personal injuries made befora or after the INCIDENT by a plaintiff in this case? If so, for each plaintiff state: {a) the source of each DOCUMENT; {b) the date each claim arose; {c} the nature of each claim; and {d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 16.10 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT concerning the past or present physical, mental, or emotional condition of any plaintiff in this case from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER not previously identified (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310)7 If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; {b) 2 description of each DOCUMENT; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 17.0 Responses to Request for Admissions [] 17.1 Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) stale the number of the request; {b) state ali facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and {d) identify ail DOCUMENTS and other tarigible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 18.0 [Reserved] 18.0 [Resarved] 20.0 How the Incident Occurred--Motor Vehicle [1] 20.1 State the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT {closest street ADDRESS or intersection). 1 20.2 For each vehicle involved in the INCIDENT, state: (a) the year, make, model, and license number; {b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the driver; QISC-001 [Rav. January 1, 2008) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Pago 7of8 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each occupant other than the driver; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each registered owner; {e} the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each lessee; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and {elephone number of each owner other than the registered owner or lien holder; and (g)the name of each owner who gave permission or consent to the driver to operate the vehicle. []20.3 State the ADDRESS and location where your trip began and the ADDRESS and location of your destination, 1 20.4 Describe the route that you followed fram the beginning of your trip to the location of the INCIDENT, and state the location of each stop, other than routine traffic stops, during the trip leading up to the INCIDENT. LJ] 20.5 State the name of the street or roadway, the lane of travel, and the direction of travel of each vehicle involved in the INCIDENT for the 500 feet of travel before the INCIDENT. [Jos Did the INCIDENT occur at an intersection? If so, describe all traffic control devices, signals, or signs at the intersection. CC] 20.7 Was there a traffic signal facing you at the time of the INCIDENT? If so, stale: (a) your location when you first saw it; {b} the color; (c) the number of seconds it had been that color; and {d) whether the color changed between the time you first saw it and the INCIDENT. [1208 Stats haw the INCIDENT occurred, giving the speed, direction, and location of each vehicle involved: {a) just before the INCIDENT; {b) at the time of the INCIDENT; and {c} just after the INCIDENT. [] 20.9 Do you have information that a malfunction or defect in a vehicle caused the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify the vehicle; (b) identify each malfunction or defect; {c) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who Is a witness fo or has information about each malfunction or defect; and (d) slate the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has custody of each defective part. [Jzo0.10 Do you have information that any malfunction or defect in a vehicle contributed to the injuries sustained in the INCIDENT? if so; (a) identify the vehicle; (b) identify each malfunction or defect; {c) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSDN who is a witness la or has information about each malfunction or defect; and DISC-001 (d) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has custody of each defective part. ] 20.11 State the name, ADDRESS, and ielephone number of each owner and each PERSON who has had possession since the INCIDENT of each vehicle involved In the INCIDENT. 25.0 [Reserved] 30.0 /Resarvad] 40.0 [Resarvad] 80.0 Contract 50.1 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) Identify each DOCUMENT thatis part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that part of the agreement was made; identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; state each modification not in writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification was made; {f) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT. { -- - {c (d ~ (e - 50.2 Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each breach describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement. 50.3 Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so, identify each agreement excused and state why performance was excused. 50.4 Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, Identify each agreement terminated, the date of termination, and the basis of the termination. 50.5 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforce- able? If so, identify each unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceahle. 50.6 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? if so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous. 60.0 [Reserved] RISC-001 [Rev. Jomsary 1, 2000) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Pago arg ND - G o w a o m w PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. §§1013(a) and 2015.5) I, the undersigned, declare: 1 am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210, Newport Beach, California 92660. On March 33, 2016, I served true and correct copies of the following document(s): FORM INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE, on the parties to this action, as follows: See attached SERVICE LIST. (*) By Mail: 1 am readily familiar with the firm's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the copy(ies) were enclosed is a sealed envelope and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at Newport Beach, California, addressed to the parties and at the addresses listed on the attached Service List. () By Personal Service: I caused such document(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). By Overnight Courier: 1 caused such document(s) to be delivered by overnight courier (Federal Express) for next day delivery to the parties and at the addresses on the attached Service List. ( ) By Facsimile Machine: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted during normal business hours from FAX number: 949-442-8946/9 to the persons indicated on the attached Service List. FAX transmission reports confirming successful transmission were received for each such party. ( ) By Electronic Mail: By electronically transmitting such document(s) in .pdf or other computer readable format, pursuant to CCP §1010.6 and CRC 2.260, from email address: Janelle@gladychlaw.com to the parties and at the email addresses indicated on the attached Service List. A read/delivery receipt was received indicating successful transmission. ( ) By Electronic Mail: By electronically transmitting such document(s) in .pdf or other computer readable format to the court's electronic file and serve provider, One Legal, which e-served the same, pursuant to C.R.C., Rule 2.251(2)(B), to the parties at the email addresses indicated on the attached Service List. Executed on Marcha(3, 2016, at Newport Beach, California. (Kk) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Drs 20 Shp oe QANELLE JAMES DOCHI01 IDEDISEOVER Y:CALIFOHNIA PHYSICIANS SEWVICKE DHA BLUE SHIELD OF CA:OLSGH FOIL ROGS (5) TO GLUE 1 SWHELD F0Y due FORM INTERROGATORIES - PROOF OF SERVICE Michael Olson and Tamao Olson vs. California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of CA Orange County Superior Court Case No.: 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC SERVICE LIST Joseph E. Laska, Esq. Michael C. Godino, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS, ET AL. 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Tel: (310) 312-4000 Direct: (310) 312-4352 Fax: (310) 312-4224 Email: jlaska(tdmanatt.com; mgodino@manatt.com Attorneys for Defendant, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVICE, a California corporation dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA DOCS). [VEDISCOVER V:CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE OBA BLUE SHIELR OF CA:DLSON FORM ROGS (1) TO BLUE SHIELD.FQY das FORM INTERROGATORIES - PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT B fron: Godino, Michael MGodinv&manait.com Subject: RE: Olson v. Blue Shield Dete: June 14, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Lisa O'Nelll lisa@gladychiaw.com, John Gladych John@gladychlaw.com Cc: Laska, Joseph JLaska@manali.com Lisa, Thank you for responding on John’s behalf while he’s away, as well as for your professional courtesy in granting this extension. Best, Mike Michael Godino Associate Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 D 310.312.4253 F310.914.5781 MGadino@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous a-mall messagas attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. if you are nat the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it io the intended recipient, yau are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or usa of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received his kmnsmission in error, please immediatsly notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its etlachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From: Lisa O'Neill [mailto:lisa@gladychlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:44 PM To: Godino, Michael; John Gladych Cc: Laska, Joseph Subject: Re: Olson v. Blue Shield Mike, John doesn't have access to e-mail right now, so I'll respond on his behalf. We will agree to a discovery extension for you until June 30, but in light of the hearing tomorrow and the fact that a trial date will likely be set by the Court, this is the last extension that we will be able to grant. Best regards, Lisa Lisa O'Neill, Esq. GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210 Rlmrssm mnt PDs mA Nr ren NEWPOTtL peal, LA 2Z00U Tel: 949-442-3942 Fax: 949-442-8949 From: Godino, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:25:32 PM To: John Gladych Cc: Lisa O'Neill; Laska, Joseph Subject: RE: Olson v. Blue Shield John, I'm following up on Joe's below email from this past Friday. Could you please let us know if you're amenable to an additional two-week extension of time for Blue Shield to respond to plaintiff's original batch of discovery? (All but the second set of special interrogatories.) As Joe noted, we propose a new deadline of June 30, the current deadline for responses to the second set of special interrogatories, so that everything is due at the same time. Also, when you are back from vacation, we would like to discuss some additional information that bears on our settlement discussions. Thank you, Mike Michael Godino Associate Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W, Olympic Bivd Los Angeles, CA 80064 D 310.312.4253 F310.814.5781 MGodino@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or pravious e-mail messages atlachad {o it, may contain confidential information that is legally privilaged. if you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosura, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this messages is STRICTLY PROHIBITED, If you have received this lransmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the oniginel {ransmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From: Laska, Joseph Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 4:51 PM To: John Gladych (John@gladychlaw.com) Cc: Lisa O'Neill; Godino, Michael Subject: Olson v. Blue Shield Hi John, Two things: item aa on D (415) 291-7446 F (415) 291-7474 1. I'm writing to request an additional two-week extension on plaintiff's original batch of discovery. | propose a new deadline of June 30, the current deadline on plaintiff's latest batch of discovery, so that everything is due at the same time. 2. Separately, we've learned some information that bears on our settlement discussions, and I'd like to discuss it with you when you have a moment. | understand from your receptionist that you're on vacation. Hope you have a great time. We can talk when you get back. Thanks, Joe Joseph Laska Partner Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 D (310) 312-4352 F (310) 996-6951 JLaska@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files, or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. EXHIBIT C MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP JOSEPH E. LASKA (SBN 221055) E-mail: jlaska@manatt.com MICHAEL C. GODINO (Bar No. 274755) 3 | Email: mgodino@manatt.com 11355 West Olympic Boulevard 4 Log Angeles, California 50064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 5 | Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 6 || Attorneys for Defendant CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE 7 | dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 11 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 12 13 0a MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON, Case No. 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC - Plaintiffs, Hon. Kim G. Dunning, Dept. CX104 Vs. DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA ey PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE, SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA'S 17 | dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, and | RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM 18 | DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson 23 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of 24 California 25 SET NO: One 26 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTOUNEYS AT LAW Lng ANGELES DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) NJ Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California (“Blue Shield”) objects and responds to the Form Interrogatories (Set One) propounded by Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson (“Plaintiffs”). vO © ~~ o y Wu MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANCELES RESPONSES TO F RM INTERROGATORIES FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: These responses were prepared by Joseph E. Laska and Michael C. Godino, Blue Shield’s attorneys at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, whose address and telephone number are listed on the caption page of these responses, with the assistance of Leslie Crawford, Litigation Specialist for Blue Shield, who has verified the responses. Ms. Crawford works at Blue Shield’s offices at 50 Beale Street in San Francisco. She may be contacted through Blue Shield’s counsel of record. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: Are you a corporation? If so, state: (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation; (b) all other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each was used, (c) the date and place of incorporation; (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: Blue Shield responds that it is a corporation with its principal place of business at 50 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Blue Shield objects that the remainder of the information requested in this interrogatory is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, which also renders it unduly burdensome and harassing. 2 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2: 2 Are you a partnership? If so, state: 3 (2) the current partnership name; F ® all oiler names used by ie partnership during the past 10 years and the dates eaci | 5 || was used; 6 (c) whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what 7 || jurisdiction; 8 (d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and 9 (e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 10 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2: 11 No. 12 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3: 13 Are you a limited liability company? If so, state: 14 (a) the name stated in the current articles or organization; 15 (b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each 16 | was used; 17 (c) the date and place of filing of the articles of incorporation; 18 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and 19 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California, 20 {| RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3: 21 No. 22 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4: 23 Are you a joint venture? If so, state: 24 (a2) the current joint venture name; 25 (b) all other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates 26 || each was used; 27 (c) the name and ADDRESS of each joint venture; and 28 (d).. the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. MANATT, PHELPS & 3 PHILLIPS, LLP LD5 ANGELES ATIGRIETS ASLAN DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) No ~ N E W 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law Los AnceLes RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4: No, FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5: Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state: (a) the current unincorporated association name; (b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; and (c) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each fictitious name state: (a) the name; ® the dates each was used; (c) the state and county of each fictitious name filing; and (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: Blue Shield objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving the its objections, Blue Shield responds: Yes. (a) Blue Shield of California; Bb) 1950 to present; (©) California; (d) 50 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 4 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7: 2 Within the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If so, 3 i for each license or registration: 4 (a) ideniily the {icense or registrafion; 5 (b) state the name of the public entity; and 6 (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration. 7 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7: 8 Blue Shield objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is 9 | neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 10 | discovery of admissible evidence. Blue Shield further objects to this interrogatory on the ground 11 || that the term “your business” is vague and ambiguous. 12 To the extent that “your business” means California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield 13 | of California and not the general business of health care service plans, and subject to and without 14 || waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: 15 Since July 27, 1978, Blue Shield continuously has been licensed as a health care service 16 | plan under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, California Health & Safety 17 | Code §§ 1340 et seq. 18 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 19 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which 20 | you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability 21 | coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of 22 | the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: 23 (a) the kind of coverage; 24 ®) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; 25 (ce) the name, ADDRESS, and teleplione number of each named insured, 26 (d) the policy number; 27 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; 28 63) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists MANATT, PHELPS & 5 PHILLIPS, LLP ATIORHEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 | between you and the insurance company; and NJ (2) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. 3 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: Blue Shield objects that the term "INCIDENT 15 vague and ambiguous 11 the coniext ol this case. Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection or any other applicable privilege or evidentiary rule. Blue Shield also objects to the extent that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, OU © NN on wn» Bp Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: No. 10 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 11 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen 12 | out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. 13 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 14 Blue Shield objects that the term “INCIDENT?” is vague and ambiguous in the context of 15 | this case. Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information subject to the 16 || attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection or any other applicable privilege or’ 17 || evidentiary rule. Blue Shield also objects to the extent that this request seeks information that is 18 || neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 Without waiving its objections, and construing the term “INCIDENT™ to refer to Blue 20 | Shield’s processing of the claims alleged in the complaint, Blue Shield responds as follows: 21 No. 22 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: 23 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: 24 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after 25 the INCIDENT; 26 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; 27 (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the 28 scene; and MANATT, PHELPS & 6 PHILLIPS, LLP Avrora A Law DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 10s ANGELES oo « N N hy Wn MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAY LOS ANGELES (d who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALT claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO: 12.1: Blue Shield objects that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product protection. Blue Shield objects that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. Without waiving its objections, and construing the term “INCIDENT™ to refer to Blue Shield’s proeessing of the claims alleged in the complaint, Blue Shield responds: Blue Shield believes that certain employees of Blue Shield, including those identified in the documents to be produced by Blue Shield, may have knowledge supporting these faets. Those witnesses may be contacted through Blue Shield’s counsel. Discovery is ongoing. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: Blue Shield objects that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection. Blue Shield also objects that the terms “INCIDENT” and “interview” are vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. Without waiving its objections, and construing the terms “INCIDENT” and “interview” broadly, Blue Shield responds as follows: No non-privileged interviews have taken place. 7 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) ££ w o ~ Oh W n MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obiained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (©) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or protection. Blue Shield also objects that the terms “INCIDENT” and “written or recorded statement” are vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. Without waiving its objections, and construing the terms “INCIDENT” and “written or recorded statement” broadly, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield has obtained no written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff’s injuries? If so, state: (a8) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape; (b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped; (©) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken; 8 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the nN photographs, films, or videotapes; and 3 (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4: Blue Shield objects that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection. Blue Shield also objects that the term “INCIDENT™ is vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. OO © N Y wn A Without waiving its objections, and construing the term “INCIDENT” broadly, Blue 10 | Shield responds as follows: 11 No. 12 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 13 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: 14 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made 15 the report; 16 (b) the date and type of report made; 17 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the 18 report was made; and 19 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the 20 original or a copy of the report. 21 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 22 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 23 | attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or 24 | protection. Blue Shield also objects that the terms “INCIDENT™ and “report” are vague and 25 | ambiguous in the context of this case. 26 Without waiving its objections, and construing the terms “INCIDENT” and “report” 27 | broadly, Blue Shield responds as follows: 28 No. MANATT, PHELPS & 9 PHILLIPS, LLP ATToRuEws ATLAY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Los ANCELES nN I oO 0 8 ~~ ) G Y L n 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law 10S ANGELES FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or protection, or that is otherwise confidential and proprietary. Blue Shield also objects that subsection (b) of this interrogatory is unduly burdensome and harassing to the extent that it requires Blue Shield to determine and identify all persons with knowledge of particular facts. Blue Shield also objects that subsection (c) of this interrogatory is unduly burdensome and harassing to the extent that it requires Blue Shield to identify documents that Plaintiffs have also requested to be produced, and that Blue Shield has agreed to produce. In addition, Blue Shield objects that its investigation is continuing, and it reserves the right to supplement these responses at a later time. Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: First through Twenty-Third Affirmative Defenses (a) Plaintiffs allege that the claims hsted in their complaint were for preventive care services, They further allege that Blue Shield did not process those claims as ones for preventive care services, and required Plaintiffs to pay for some portion of those services, either in the form of a co-pay or an accrual toward Plaintiffs’ deductibles. However, whether a claim is processed as “preventive” is determined by the billing codes 10 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) No selected by the provider who renders the service at issue and submits the claim to Blue Shield. The CPT codes selected by Plaintiffs’ providers and listed in the claims at issue were not for preventive care, with limited exceptions as noted in Blue Shield’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Special MANATT, PHELPS & PHiLLps, LLP ATTUNNEYS AT LAW 105 ANGELES Interrogataries (set Une). therefore, Blue Shield processed Plamiiffs™ claims correctly. Further, Blue Shield did not “reclassify” preventive care claims as “diagnostic,” as alleged in paragraph 7 of the complaint. Additionally, contrary to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Blue Shield has responded to Plaintiffs’ grievances. It has even gone out of its way to accommodate Plaintiffs by reprocessing one or more of their claims as claims for preventive care, as onetime exceptions, even though Blue Shield was not required to do so under the terms of Plaintiffs’ health plans. For example, claim number 151515721200 was billed with only one CPT code, 99243. That code is for an office consultation, and does not indicate a preventive care service. However, after Tamao Olson appealed the claim, Blue Shields Appeals & Grievances Department reviewed it and found that the provider had assigned a diagnosis code that corresponded to a colon screening, which may be covered as preventive care in certain circumstances, Typically, that service is covered as preventive care where the member is over the age of 50 years old, though that beginning age may be reduced where a member is at increased risk. While Ms. Olson was under age 50, another diagnosis code listed by the provider indicated that Ms, Olson had a family history of colon cancer. Because Ms. Olson may have been at increased risk, Blue Shield decided to reprocess the claim as one for preventive care as a onetime exception, Discovery is ongoing, and Blue Shield reserves its right to supplement this response at a later time. (b) Blue Shield believes that Plaintiff has knowledge supporting these facts. In addition, Blue Shield believes that certain émployees of Blue Shield, including those identified in the documents to be produced by Blue Shield, may have knowledge supporting these facts. Those witnesses may be contacted through Blue Shield’s counsel. (¢) In lieu of identifying documents in response to this interrogatory, Blue Shield will produce the responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control. 11 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS" FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Na FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1: For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: 3 (a) identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the 7 Tare, ADD : CIT PE 5 - DOCUMENT; 6 ®) state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and 7 telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that 8 part of the agreement was made; 9 (©) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing 10 and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON 11 who has the DOCUMENT; 12 (d) identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, and 13 for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who 14 has the DOCUMENT; 15 (e) state each modification not in writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS, and 16 telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and the date the 17 modification was made; 18 ® identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement not in 19 writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each 20 PERSON who has the DOCUMENT. 21 [| RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1: 22 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 23 | attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or 24 [ protection. Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds: 25 (a) Plaintiffs subscribed to a Blue Shield Basic PPO for HSA health plan in 2014 and 26 || a Blue Shield Bronze 60 HSA PPO health plan in 20135. The terms of coverage for those health 27 | plans are set forth in the applicable Evidences of Coverage and Health Service Agreements, 28 || which are being produced along with these responses. Lice, LLP 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LDS ANGELES DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS® FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 (b) There was no part of the contract not in writing. 2 (c) Not applicable. 3 (d) Not applicable. 7 ©) Not applicable: 5 ® Not applicable. 6 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2: 7 Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each breach 8 | describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement. 9 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2: 10 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 11 | attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or 12 | protection. Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds: 13 Plaintiffs subscribed to a Blue Shield Basic PPO for HSA health plan in 2014 and a Blue 14 || Shield Bronze 60 HSA PPO health plan in 2015. Plaintiffs failed to pay their premium for 15 || January 2016, despite notice from Blue Shield and a thirty-day grace period. As a result, their 16 | health plan was cancelled effective January 31, 2016. Payment of all outstanding amounts was 17 | not received by Blue Shield within the required time frame for reinstatement as set forth in 18 | Plaintiffs’ Evidence of Coverage. 19 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.3: 20 Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so, identify each 21 || agreement excused and state why performance was excused. 22 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.3: 23 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 24 || attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection. 25 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: 26 No. MANATT, PHELPS & 13 PHILLIPS, LLP ATIOUNEXS AT LAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Loz ANGELES 1 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4: 2 Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, release, 3 | accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, identify each agreement terminated, the date of 4 || termination, and the basis of the termination. 5 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4: 6 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 7 | attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection. 8 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: 9 No. 10 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5: 11 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforceable? If so, identify each 12 | unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceable. 13 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5: 14 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 15 | attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection. 16 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: 17 No. 18 | FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 19 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous 20 | agreement and state why it is ambiguous. 21 | RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 22 Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the 23 || attorney-client privilege and the attomey work product protection. 24 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: 25 * No. MANATT, PHELPS & 14 PHILLIPS, LLP ATIRIEE AT LAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS® FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Los ANGELLS 1 | Dated: June 30, 2016 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP or Pim Lil Michael C. Godino/ Attorneys for Defendant BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA o o ~~ ] on Lh += [F % 2 0 28 MANATT, PHELPS & 13 PHILLIPS, LLP ATIORIEYGAT LAW DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) LDS ANGELES ND a ©0 0 N N O n uni n p W 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTODNEYS AT Law Las ANGELES VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM O xl O Executed at San Francisco, California on June 30, 2016. Cs ‘INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) and know its contents. I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am a Litigation Specialist employed by California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California. I am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document(s). I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. I am one of the attorneys of record for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county in which I have my office, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I have read the foregoing document(s). I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. ) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the contents of this verification are true and correct. adhe Cavtond Leslie Crawford VERIFICATION PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Rebecca Blake, declare as follows: 3 I am employed in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Iam over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is MANATT, PHELPS & 4 || PHILLIPS, LLP, 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064-1614. On Tune 30, 2016, I served the within: 5 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA 6 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 7 on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 8 GLADYCH AND ASSOCIATES 9 John A. Gladych, Esq. 10 1400 Bristol Street N, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 11 Phone: 949 442 8942 Fax: 949 442 8938 12 (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) By placing such document(s) in a sealed envelope, 13 for collection and overnight mailing at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, California following ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar 14 with the practice at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP for collection and processing 15 of overnight service mailing, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the overnight messenger service, 16 Golden State Overnight, for delivery as addressed. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 | foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 30, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. 19 = 20 Fylusca. ee 21 "Rebecca Blake 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTURHEYS AT LAW PROOF OF SERVICE Los ANGELES EXHIBIT D GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. A Professional Law Corporation July 21,2016 Yia U.S. Mail and E-Mail Michael C. Godino, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS, ET AL. 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 RE: Olson v. California Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California Our File No.: 203.103 Dear Mr. Godino: We are setting a meet and confer in my office for August 1, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. We wish to discuss the following inadequacies in your client’s discovery responses. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Request for Production No. 11: Any and all claims manuals used by YOU, YOUR agents, servants, employes, or contractors in effect for the years 2013 to the present. Response to Request for Production No. 11: Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks documents that are confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under any applicable law or regulation. Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the undefined term “claims manuals” is vague and ambiguous, which renders this request unintelligible, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to both scope and time, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. With regard to scope, the request appears to seek “claims manuals” that 1) are unrelated to the claims alleged in the complaint, and 2) were “used by” individuals with no connection to Plaintiffs’ claims. With regard to time, the request seeks documents from 2013 to the present, even though none of the claims listed in Plaintiffs complaint were received by Blue Shield before March 20, 2014, and Plaintiffs’ coverage appears to have ended before the date of this response. Request for Production No. 12: Any and all DOCUMENTS related to training on handling claims issued by YOU to YOUR agents, servants, employees, or contractors in effect for the years 2013 to the present. Michael C. Godino, Esq. July 21, 2016 Page -2- Response to Request for Production No. 12: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “training on handling claims” is vague and ambiguous, which renders this request unintelligible, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to both scope and time, and seeks documents: that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. With regard to scope, the request appears to seek documents regarding “handling claims” that 1) are unrelated to the claims alleged in the complaint, and 2) were issued to individuals with no connection to Plaintiffs’ claims. With regard to time, the request seeks documents from 2013 to the present, even though none of the claims listed in Plaintiff's complaint were received by Blue Shield prior to March 20, 2014, and Plaintiffs* coverage appears to have ended before the date of this response. Blue Shield further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under any applicable law or regulation. Discussion of Responses to Request for Productions Nos. 11 and 12: ~~ ..In response to Requests 11 and 12, which seek claims manuals and other documents relating to claims handling, your client has objected on the basis of confidentiality and trade secrets. We are willing to stipulate to an appropriate protective order. Please prepare what you think is needed to protect your client's confidentiel information. Your client objects on the basis of ambiguity. We consider this gamesmanship, as the terms “claims manual” and documents related to “training on handling claims” are clear, unambiguous, and well known amongst those in the insurance industry and those who handle bad faith claims. Your client then objects on the basis of relevancy. Relevancy is not a proper grounds for objection. Besides, “relevancy to the subject matter has been construed to be broader than relevancy to issues.” Bridgestone-Firestone Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391. “The ‘subject matter of the action’ is the circumstances and facts out of which the cause of action arises; it is the property, contract or other thing involved in the dispute; it is not the act or acts which constitute the cause of action, but describes physical facts in relation to which the suit is prosecuted.” Darbee v. Superior Court (1962) 208 Cal. App. 2d 680, 688. In determining what is relevant, “the discovery statutes must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes of denial.” Id. at 685 (citations omitted). Here, the request is relevant. The complaint alleges bad faith by your client in denying the claim. Discovery of claims manuals and documents related to training on claims handling is relevant in a bad faith case. Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App.4th 1113. Additionally, in Mock v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, the court emphasized that pattern and practice evidence is crucial to establishing punitive damages against an insurer. Finally, your client objects on attorney client privilege grounds and confidentiality. As Michael C. Godino, Esq. July 21, 2016 Page -3- stated above, we will stipulate to an appropriate protective order. Please provide a privilege log of any documents withheld on this basis. Request for Production No. 14: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to correspondence, Letters of Inquiry, complaints, email, or other writings, evidencing or relating to complaints from any agency of the State of California about YOUR decision on whether a patient’s treatment is or is not preventive care. Response to Request for Production No. 14: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrases “complaints from any agency of the State of California” and “YOUR decision on whether a patient’s treatment is or is not preventive care” are vague and ambiguous, which renders this request unintelligible, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to both scope and time, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Among other things, the request seeks documents that are unrelated to the claims alleged in the complaint. Additionally, this request contains no time limitation. Blue Shield further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under any applicable law or regulation. Discussion of Response to Request for Production No. 14: Request No. 14 relates to documents sent by any agency of the State of California related to improper claims handling or denials of coverage because of a claim not being for preventive care. The request is clear in what it seeks and none of the words used in the request are ambiguous. Your client objects that the request is overbroad because it is not limited in scope. We will limit the request to the past 3 years, from 2013 to the present. Your client objects that the request is not relevant, Again, relevancy is not a basis for objection. Glenfed Development Corp., supra, at 1119 (“Moreover, even if it is inadmissible at trial, the claims manual may lead to the discovery of other, relevant evidence that is admissible, and no more is required to justify the demand for its production.””). Further, the evidence is relevant as to Defendant’s improper denial of claims that Plaintiffs contend are covered as preventive care. The complaints may show other instances of such improper conduct by the Defendant which is relevant to the bad faith claim. California law holds that similar acts of misconduct are relevant in insurence bad-faith actions. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785; Moore v. American United Life Insurance Company (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 610 (rehearing denied, and certified for partial publication). In Mock, supra, the court emphasized that pattern and practice evidence is crucial to establishing punitive damages against an insurer. 4 Cal. App.4th 306, 329. Finally, your client objects on attorney client privilege grounds and confidentiality. As Michael C. Godino, Esq. July 21, 2016 Page -4- stated above, we will stipulate to an appropriate protective order. Please provide a privilege log of any documents withheld on this basis. Request for Production No. 15: Any and all documents, including by not limited to guidelines, tips, FAQs, memorandum, correspondence or other writings, provided by YOU to health care providers related to preventive health care. Response to Request for Production No. 15: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “related to preventive health care” is vague and ambiguous, which renders this request unintelligible, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Among other things, this request contains no time limitation. Blue Shield further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discussion of Response to Request for Production No. 15: Request No. 15 relates to documents, such as FAQ, guidelines, etc. sent byw you to 0 health care providers related to preventive health care. The request is clear in what it seeks and none of the words used in the request are ambiguous. Your client objects that the request is overbroad because it is not limited in scope. We will limit the request to the past 3 years to the present. Your client also objects that the request is not relevant. Again, relevancy is not a basis for objection. Glenfed Development Corp., supra, at 1119 (“Moreover, even if it is inadmissible at trial, the claims manual may lead to the discovery of other, relevant evidence that is admissible, and no more is required to justify the demand for its production.”). Further, the evidence is relevant because in its discovery responses, your client implies that it has delegated to the health care providers the determination whether a given service was “preventive care” or not. Documents that would indicate what your client told these health care providers what the term “preventive care” means are certainly relevant. Likewise, documents related to Defendant’s improper denial of claims that Plaintiffs contend are covered as preventive care are also highly relevant. FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Form Interrogatory No. 12.1: 12.1 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:( (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; I Michael C. Godino, Esq. July 21, 2016 Page -5- (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1: Blue Shield objects that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product protection. Blue Shield objects that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. Without waiving its objections, and construing the term “INCIDENT” to refer to Blue Shield’s processing of the claims alleged in the complaint, Blue Shield responds: Blue Shield believes that certain employees of Blue Shield, including those identified in the documents to be produced by Blue Shield, may have knowledge supporting these facts. Those witnesses may be contacted through Blue Shield’s counsel. Discovery is ongoing, Discussion of Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1: Interrogatory 12.1 asks forthe name of wimesses. Defendant states that some of its employees, including those identified in documents produced by Defendant, may have knowledge. No names are provided. The documents produced by Defendant contain numerous initials for person employed by Defendant and also contain individuals identified only by First Name. Plaintiffs are entitled to know the names of anyone with relevant information. By referring Plaintiffs to names identified in documents, it is impossible to tell if the individuals have relevant information or merely made ministerial entries ia the documents. Further, by failing to provide the Plaintiffs with the full names of those involved, Plaintiffs are precluded from doing background research regarding those individuals in order to prepare for depositions. We demand a supplemental answer providing the full names of all those with relevant information. Form Interrogatory No. 15.1: 15.1 Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (1 (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. Response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1(b): This discussion is directed at Blue Shield’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1(b), reproduced here: Michael C. Godino, Esa. July 21, 2016 Page -6- Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or protection, that is otherwise confidential and proprietary. Blue Shield also objects that subsection (b) of this interrogatory is unduly burdensome and harassing to the extent that it requires Blue Shield to determine and identify all persons with knowledge of particular facts. Blue Shield also objects that subsection (¢) of this interrogatory is unduly burdensome and harassing to the extent that it requires Blue Shield to identify documents that Plaintiffs have also requested to be produced, and that Blue Shield has agreed to produce. In addition, Blue Shield objects that its investigation is continuing, and it reserves the right to supplement these responses at a later time. Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: First through Twenty-Third Affirmative Defenses (b) Blue Shield believes that Plaintiff has knowledge supporting these facts. In addition, Blue Shield believes that certain employees of Blue Shield, including those identified in the documents to be produced by Blue Shield, may have knowledge . supporting these facts. Those witnesses may be contacted through Blue Shield’s counsel. Discussion of Response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1: This discussion is directed at Blue Shield’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1(b). Interrogatory 15.1(b) asks for the name of witesses. Defendant states that some of its employees, including those identified in documents produced by Defendant, may have knowledge. No names are provided. The documents produced by Defendant contain numerous initials for person employed by Defendant and also contain individuals identified only by First Name. Plaintiffs are entitled to know the names of anyone with relevant information. By referring Plaintiffs to names identified in documents, it is impossible to tell if the individuals have relevant information or merely made ministerial entries in the documents. Further, by failing to provide the Plaintiffs with the full names of those involved, Plaintiffs are precluded from doing background research regarding those individuals in order to prepare for depositions. We demand a supplemental answer providing the full names of all those with relevant information. : SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Discussion of Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-20: These interrogatories seek the identity of each person who was involved in the handling of the claim either before or after the EOB was issued. Defendant has not identified by name even one person involved in handling Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, Defendant objects on the basis that “handling” is ambiguous. Handling is not ambiguous in the context as used in these Michael C. Godino, Esq. July 21, 2016 Page -7- interrogatories. Defendant objects on the basis that it is overbroad because 10 claims are involved. Each interrogatory is directed at a specific claim, Defendant objects that it is overbroad because it is not limited to employees of Defendant. If Defendant retained outside contractors to handle Plaintiffs’ claims, then it must identify the outside companies retained and the names of those employees of those companies of which Defendant is aware. This wording does not make these interrogatories overbroad since each one is limited to the claims in question in this lawsuit. While claim “15151721200” is missing a number and should be 151515721200, Defendant's objection is frivolous since Defendant identified the complete claim number in answer to Special Interrogatory No. 39. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO Discussion of Special Interrogatories Nos, 41 - 44: Interrogatories 41- 44 seek statistical information on the number of colonoscopy claims submitted to Defendant, the number that were determined to be “preventive care,” and the number of claims on which Defendant charged either a co-pay or allocated the charges to the insured’s deductible. Defendant objects based on HIPAA, but that objection is improper because the interrogatories do not request information that identifies any individual plan members and there is no reasonable basis to believe that it could be used to identify an individual. 45 CFR 164.514(a). Defendant makes bogus objections of ambiguity, such as “insured”, “deductible” and “determined by YOU to be preventive care.” These type of objections are purely obstructionist tactics, Finally, Defendant objects that the information is overbroad and irrelevant. The requests are not overbroad, as they are limited to the time periods pertinent hereto (2014 to the present). Further, they are not irrelevant as the complaint includes claims of bad faith. “[R]elevancy to the subject matter has been construed to be broader than relevancy to issues.” Bridgestone-Firestone Inc., supra, 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391, “The ‘subject matter of the action’ is the circumstances and facts out of which the cause of action arises; it is the property, contract or dther thing involved in the dispute; it is not the act or acts which constitute the cause of action, but describes physical facts in relation to which the suit is prosecuted.” Darbee, supra, 208 Cal. App. 2d 680, 688. Whether Defendant treated Plaintiffs differently than it treated other insureds is relevant to that bad faith claim. Whether Defendant improperly handled colonoscopy claims for many, most, or all of its insureds is relevant to the issue of punitive damages. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., supra, 31 Cal.3d 785; Moore, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d 610; Mock, supra, 4 Cal. App.4th 306, 329 (emphasizing that pattern and practice evidence is crucial to establishing punitive damages against an insurer). Michael C. Godino, Esq. July 21, 2016 Page -8- Please confirm you will supply supplemental responses to all of the discovery requests identified above, or, alternatively, that you are free to meet on the above scheduled date, Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very Truly Yours, GLAZYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. John A. Gladych , Esq. [hors Lisa O°Neill, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON LOJJ cc: Joseph E. Laska, Esq. G:\203. 103\CORRESPONDENCE\Godina.001 Meet & Confer itr.docx EXHIBIT E Michael Godino manatt Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP is Direct Dial: (310) 3124253 manatt { pha hill anat | phelps | phillips . E-mail: MGodino@manatt.com August 10, 2016 Client-Mutter: 25274-422 BY U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL Lisa ONeill, Esq. Gladych & Associates, Inc. 1400 Bristol Street N., Ste. 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Olson v. Blue Shield of California Case No. 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC Dear Ms. O'Neill: This responds to your July 21, 2016 meet-and-confer letter regarding Blue Shields ~~~ discovery responses. A. Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 We disagree with your responses to Blue Shield’s objections and your statement of the governing law, as set forth more fully in our discussion of subsequent requests below. Among other things, your use of the terms “claims manuals and “training on handling claims” remain vague and ambiguous. You assert that the terms are “clear, unambiguous, and well known” in the insurance industry, but you do not provide any explanation or further clarification, which further undermines your accusation of “gamesmanship.” Also, you failed to address Blue Shield’s objection that the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome as to scope. As stated in Blue Shield’s objections, the request seeks a broad range of documents that are unrelated to the claims alleged in the complaint, as they are not even limited to “claims manuals” or “training on handling claims” for preventive services. Nevertheless, Blue Shield has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for “claims manuals” as it understands that term, and has confirmed that it does not have “claims manuals.” Blue Shield will provide a supplemental response to that effect. With respect to request no. 12, Blue Shield agrees-without waiving its objections, and once a suitable protective order (which Blue Shield will prepare) is entered-to produce the following documents regarding claims for preventive services: Preventive Care Reference Details; Preventive Care Reference Details (Facets); Preventive Care by Procedure Codes- 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, Califomia 80084-1614 Telaphona: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 Albany | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Palo Alto | Sacramento | San Francisco | Washington, D.C. manatt manatt | phelps | phillips Lisa O’Neill, Esq. August 10, 2016 Page 2 Grandfathered Plans; Claim Research-IFP (Facets); Women’s Preventive Health Customer Service Support Tool; and Preventive Health Services 1B (Including Women’s Preventive Services) Benefit Policy. “IFP” stands for “Individual and Family Plans,” which is the type of plan under which Plaintiffs were covered. “Facets” is the claims processing system under which IFP member claims were processed in 2014 and 2015. B. Response to Request for Production No. 14 Your letter fails to demonstrate that Plaintiffs are entitled to the documents sought by this request. Among other things, you assert that “[relevancy is not a proper grounds for objection.” That is a misstatement of the most fundamental rule underlying discovery. Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010 expressly states that a party may only obtain discovery of matter that is “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ....” (Emphasis added.) You have not shown that documents from state agencies about Blue Shield’s coverage decisions pertaining to completely unrelated members, on issues that may not have any similarity to those oo alleged in the Complaint, would have any relevance to Plaintiffs’ case. In fact, you appear to concede that such documents have no relevance to Plaintiffs’ claims on the merits. Instead, you first assert that they may show “similar acts of misconduct” by Blue Shield, and you cite Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 785 (1982), for the proposition that such acts are relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. But Colonial Life is inapposite. There, limited evidence beyond the plaintiff's claim was deemed relevant to bad faith only because the plaintiff brought suit under Insurance Code § 790.03(h), and a company’s “general business practice” was expressly encompassed by that statute. Id, at 790-91; see also Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 313, 316 (1986) (“Because any alleged violation of section 790.03, subdivision (h) necessarily contemplates inquiry into how the allegedly culpable insurance company regularly conducts its business in the handling of claims, as a matter of ongoing practice, it is perhaps arguable that the contents of other claim files could be relevant ....”). Here, Plaintiffs do not assert a claim under Insurance Code § 790.03(h), nor could they-the California Supreme Court has since held that the statute does not afford a private right of action. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 56 Cal. 3d 287,304 (1988). Moreover, in Colonial Life, the court only permitted discovery into the names and addresses of 35 other claimants whose claims were all adjudicated by one particular claims adjuster, id. at 788-89, and even then it imposed a number of procedural safeguards. The scope of request no. 14, which seeks all documents from any state agency, regardless of the Blue Shield representative(s) who adjudicated the underlying claims, is far broader than that permitted in Colonial Life. See Hofinann Corp. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 3d 357, 364 (1985) (“IW]e must observe a critical difference in the breadth of discovery in the Colonial Life case manatt manatt | phelps | phillips Lisa O'Neill, Esq. August 10, 2016 Page 3 where the court ordered limited access to only names of claimants whose claims had been processed by one specific employee of the insurance company as distinguished from our case where access to petitioner’s entire customer list is sought.”). You next assert that the documents requested are relevant to establishing punitive damages, citing Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co., 4 Cal. App. 4th 306 (1992). This too fails. Plaintiffs cannot obtain a greater punitive damages award based on harm purportedly suffered by others, and the introduction of such evidence would violate Blue Shield’s constitutional due process rights. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the Supreme Court held that “[a] defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff .... Due process does not permit courts, in the calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties’ hypothetical claims against a defendant under the guise of the reprehensibility analysis ....” Id. at 423. As the California Court of Appeal has subsequently explained, “State Farm ... impliedly disapproved th[e] broad view of the goal and measure of punitive damages” that some California courts had is a punitive damages analysis that focuses primarily on what defendant did to the present plaintiff...” Id. Finally, the burden and expense of searching for and producing the far-reaching and irrelevant information requested greatly outweighs any benefit, especially “taking into account the amount in controversy” in this case--Iless than $1,100. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(g). This remains true even if the timeframe is limited to 2013 to the present, as you propose, especially since the claims at issue date only from 2014 and 2015. C. Response to Request for Production No. 15 You assert that the phrase “related to preventive health care” is not ambiguous. But as with request nos. 11 and 12, you simply repeat the request verbatim and do not provide any clarification. And your discussion of this request demonstrates that it is ambiguous. You assert that “documents related to Defendant’s improper denial of claims” are “highly relevant.” But it is unclear how such documents are encompassed by your request for documents “provided ... to health care providers related to preventive health care.” Also, you again assert that “relevancy is not a basis for objection,” which is wrong for the reasons discussed above. You do not substantively address Blue Shield’s related objection that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Among other things, the request calls for a// “memorand[a], correspondence, or other writings” Blue Shield has provided to health care providers (with the ambiguous caveat that they be “related to preventive health care”). To the limited extent Blue Shield is able to make sense of the request, virtually all such documents ~ previously espoused. Romo v. Ford Motor Co., 113 Cal. App. 4th 738, 801 (2003). “[TJhe resuit manatt manatt | phelps | phillips Lisa O'Neill, Esq. August 10, 2016 Page 4 would be irrelevant and would not assist Plaintiffs in determining whether Blue Shield properly adjudicated their claims in this case. Moreover, the burden and expense of searching for and producing this expansive category of information greatly outweighs any minimal benefit it might provide, especially since less than $1,100 is at issue in this case. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(g). Limiting the request to the past three years does little to resolve this problem. Further, contrary to your statement, Blue Shield’s discovery responses did not imply that it somehow “delegated” any determination regarding preventive care to providers. Rather, Blue Shield’s responses simply stated that whether Blue Shield processes a claim as “preventive” is determined by the billing codes providers submit to Blue Shield along with their claims. Blue Shield’s responses also noted that where warranted, Blue Shield’s Appeals & Grievances Department may conduct a further review of the claims to determine whether they should be processed as ones for preventive care. Nevertheless, in the interest of cooperation and without waiving its objections, Blue ~~ Shield agrees to produce the following documents: (I) “Preventive Health Guidelines for ~~~ Healthy Children, Adolescents and Adults,” which is available through Blue Shield’s Provider Connection; and (2) Health Reform Frequently Asked Questions: Benefit Changes, available through Blue Shield’s website. These are in addition to two documents Blue Shield has already produced: “Getting the most of your preventive care coverage” (BSC-OLSON000293-295) and “understanding your preventive care benefits.” (BSC-OLSON000296.) D. Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1, Form Interrogatory No. 15.1(b), and Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-20 Your discussion of Blue Shield’s responses to these form and special interrogatories raises similar issues, so we address them together. The interrogatories seek the identities of every individual that has any kmowledge about, or was “involved in the handling of,” each of the ten claims alleged in the complaint. First, you maintain that the term “handling,” as used in special interrogatories 1-20, is not ambiguous. Yet you do not explain what aspect of the claim processing or adjudication process you believe to be encompassed by that term. Next, as stated in Blue Shield’s objections, these interrogatories are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing, and disproportionate to the issues in this case and the amount in ! Plaintiff's use of the generic term “INCIDENT” in Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 is vague and ambiguous, but Blue Shield has done its best to interpret that term in the context of the present case. ‘manatt manatt | phelps | phillips Lisa ONeill, Esq. Angust 10, 2016 Page 5 controversy. Among other things,” Blue Shield has already reprocessed approximately half of the claims listed in the Complaint. Mr. Gladych acknowledged the reprocessing of most of these claims on March 28, 2016, when he confirmed that the amount at issue had been reduced to approximately $1,300 (and it is currently even less). Thus, the identities of many of the individuals with knowledge of those claims are no longer relevant.’ We believe the most efficient and cost-effective method of proceeding would be to set up a call to determine: (1) what level of involvement would indicate an individual has information sought by the interrogatories; and (2) the precise claims that remain at issue. E. Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 41-44 Of the claims at issue, only two relate to screenings for colorectal cancer-one for Michael, and one for Tamao. Blue Shield provided a detailed explanation regarding its processing of Tamao’s claim (claim no. 151515721200) in its response to special interrogatory 39. The information shows that the claim Was initially processed as non-preventive b cause of ~~~ the manner in which the provider billed the service. Blue Shield has since reprocessed both claims as ones for preventive care, so that Plaintiffs currently have no out-of-pocket loss. Despite these facts, special interrogatories 41-44 seek to require Blue Shield to engage in an expensive and time-consuming search of its records for every month from 2014 through June 2016 and provide an extensive and detailed breakdown of the manner in which it has processed and adjudicated all claims for “services rendered in the performance of a colonoscopy” (a vague and ambiguous phrase). As explained below, the burden imposed by these interrogatories far outweighs the importance of the information sought. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.090(b); CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21 (1968) (requiring a weighing of “the relative importance of the information sought against the hardship which its production might entail”). As a preliminary matter, responding to these interrogatories as written is not even possible because the terms and phrases used are vague and ambiguous. You have refused to further explain the ambiguous phrase “services rendered in the performance of a colonoscopy.” Any number of services may be performed along with a colonoscopy, but (1) it is unclear which services are encompassed by the phrase, (2) certain of those services may not have been involved 2 Another issue is your position that the request encompasses not just Blue Shield employees, but also outside contractors. * Even if they were, taking the depositions of a/l such individuals (as you appear to suggest) would not be warranted, especially given the amount in controversy. manatt manatt | phelps | phillips Lisa O'Neill, Esq. August 10, 2016 Page 6 in the claims at issue, and (3) it is not clear that information regarding any such services would be relevant to this case. Moreover, your assertion that Blue Shield’s “vague and ambiguous” objections are “bogus” and “purely obstructionist tactics” indicates your lack of familiarity with the nature of the coverage at issue, even though almost ten months have passed since you first filed your Complaint. As Blue Shield explained in its responses to interrogatories 43 and 44, your use of the term “insureds” is vague and ambiguous, and renders the requests unintelligible and unanswerable, because Blue Shield is not an insurance company (it is a health plan) and, as a result, it does not have “insureds” (it has “members”™). The phrase “determined by YOU to be preventive care” is also vague and ambiguous. As Blue Shield explained in its discovery responses, whether a claim is processed as “preventive” is determined by the billing codes selected by the provider who renders the service at issue and submits the claim to Blue Shield. Also, the information sought by special interrogatories 41-44 is not even relevant. Your assertion that it is relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim and to the issue of punitive damages is erroneous, as explained at length in the discussion of Blue Shield’s response to request for production no. 14 above. In fact, information indicating that (as you put it) Blue Shield treated other insureds “differently” would be even less relevant under Colonial Life than the documents sought by request for production no. 14. In Colonial Life, the court allowed limited discovery under Insurance Code § 790.03(h) into the defendant’s “general business practice.” In these requests, Plaintiffs apparently seek information showing that Blue Shield did not engage in a general business practice. Just as importantly, the figures Plaintiffs request in nos. 41 and 42 will show nothing more than the number of claims submitted or adjudicated. They will not provide information about whether the claims themselves were handled “differently” or “improperly.” As explained in Blue Shield’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, and as evidenced by the documents Blue Shield has already produced, screening for colorectal cancer is covered as “preventive” only in certain circumstances. For example, unless a patient is at increased risk, he or she must be 50 to 75 years of age. And the service must be rendered by an in-network provider. The figures you seek would not provide that information, and therefore they are not relevant to this case. See Collins v. JC Penny Life Ins. Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8455, at *10 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2003) (“Denial statistics standing alone do not establish that ‘legitimate claims’ were denied.”). manatt manatt | phelps | phillips Lisa ONeill, Esq. August 10, 2016 Page 7 Please let me know when you’re available to continue our meet and confer by telephone. Sincerely, Michael Godino cc: John A. Gladych Joseph E. Laska EXHIBIT F 15/2016 Riu Gluion ov, Blue & Replyall |v fii Delete Junk |v ees » RE: Olson v. Blue Shield of California GM Godino, Michael & & Replyall |v Wed 8/17, 9:48 AM Lisa O'Neill; John Gladych; Laska, Joseph ; Maureen Gentry ¥ inbax Lisa, Great, we will call you at 2:00. Thanks, Mike Michael Godino Associate Manatt, Phelps & Philllps, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd D 310.312.4253 F310.914.5781 MGodino@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files ar previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the Information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please Immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From: Lisa O'Neill [mailto:lisa@gladychlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:05 AM To: Godino, Michael Cc: John Gladych; Laska, Joseph; Maureen Gentry Subject: Re: Olson v. Blue Shield of California Mike, Thank you for agreeing to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel until September 6. I am available for a telephonic meet and confer tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2pm. Our office number is (949) 442-8942. 1 will anticipate your call then. Best, isa «.0ffice.com/owa/projection.aspx - -grerzute RE: Olson v. Blue Shicld of California Lisa O'Neill, Esq. GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949-442-8942 Fax: 949-442-8949 From: Godino, Michael Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:03:18 PM To: Lisa O'Neill Cc: John Gladych; Laska, Joseph; Maureen Gentry Subject: RE: Olson v. Blue Shield of California Lisa, We will agree to an additional one-week extension of the deadline to file a motion to compel. That would provide over three more weeks to meet and confer, and the new September 6th deadline would be almost exactly two months before trial. We are concerned that an extension beyond that time would interfere with the scheduled trial date. Additionally, we believe it would be premature to file a motion to compel before engaging in a telephonic meet and confer. We are available this Wednesday if that works for you. If so, are you free at 2:00 p.m.? Best; Mike Michael Godino Associate Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP er mn med mn eb am --. D 310.312.4253 F310.914.5781 MGodino@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidentlal information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contalned in or attached to this message Is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately natlfy us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and ils attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From: Lisa O'Nelll lisai@giadychlaw.com Subject: Meet and Confer Follow-Up Date: August 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM To: mgodino@manatt.com Cc: jlaska@manatt.com, John Gladych John@gladychiaw. Ei: Maureen 0 Gentry maureen @gladychiaw. com Counsel, This e-mail follows up on our meet and confer yesterday afternoon. To date, you have not provided one single name of a person at Blue Shield in response to discovery requests, even though, for instance, in response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 you state that "Blue Shield believes that certain employees of Blue Shield, including those identified in the documents to be produced by Blue Shield, may have knowledge supporting these facts." My clients are entitled to the names of persons with relevant information in order to determine the scope of their involvement in handling the claim and to determine the correct party for deposition. Likewise, by referring Plaintiffs to names identified in documents, it is impossible to tell if the individuals have relevant information or merely made ministerial entries in the documents. By failing to provide Plaintiffs with the full names of those involved, Plaintiffs are precluded from doing background research regarding those individuals. Therefore, we are unable to adjust our requests for the names of persons at Blue Shield solely to those persons who had some "discretion" in handling the claim. As to the statistical records and data requested in Special Interrogatories Nos. 41 - 44, please let me know if you are willing to provide a declaration to the effect that obtaining the records and data would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate as stated in your responses. On the phone yesterday, you indicated that the search process is not just a straightforward computer search that would result in, for instance, an excel spreadsheet of relevant statistical records and data, but rather, that the records are extremely voluminous and unwieldy to search through. Please consider providing such a declaration, so that we can have a better idea of the nature of the burden involved and can better evaluate our request for supplementation of Special Interrogatories 41 - 44. This email also confirms that Michael Olson’s deposition will take place at 10am--instead of 9am- -on September 7, 2016, and that Tamao Olson is unavailable to be deposed that day. We will obtain an additional date for Tamao Olson to be deposed, and will provide you with this date. Best, Lisa Lisa O'Neill, Esq. GLADYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949-442-8942 Fax: 949-442-8949 hh RA WwW Oo 0 N n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 253 26 27 nn T G20 16RPLEADINGSIOLSON MTC. FOG. docx 10 - PROGF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210, Newport Beach, California 92660. On September 6, 2016, I served true and correct copies of the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF LISA O’NEILL, on the parties to this action, as follows: See attached SERVICE LIST. () By Mail: Iam readily familiar with the firm's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the copy(ies) were enclosed is a sealed envelope and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at Newport Beach, California, addressed to the parties and at the addresses listed on the attached Service List. By Personal Service: [ caused such document(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). () By Overnight Courier: I caused such document(s) to be delivered by overnight courier (Federal Express) for next day delivery to the parties and at the addresses on the attached Service List. ( ) By Electronic Mail: By electronically transmitting such document(s) in .pdf or other computer readable format, pursuant to CCP §1010.6 and CRC 2.260, from email address: Janelle@gladychlaw.com to the parties and at the email addresses indicated on the attached Service List. A read/delivery receipt was received indicating successful transmission. (v') By Electronic Mail: By electronically transmitting such document(s) in .pdf or other computer readable format to the court’s electronic file and serve provider, One Legal, which e-served the same, pursuant to C.R.C., Rule 2.251(2)(B), to the parties at the email addresses indicated on the attached Service List. Executed on September 6, 2016, at Newport Beach, California. (v) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Q. Lorrie d JANELLE JAMES MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM : CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA. vo o e 1 h nn bh W N N O N No No No MN ho ro y- Y- - - - - - y- - -_ N y i bh W N = O W w e N Y i D W N -=, J 2 Michacl Olson and Tamao Olson vs. California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of CA Orange County Superior Court Case No.: 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC SERVICE LIST Joseph E. Laska, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, CALIFORNIA MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP PHYSICIANS® SERVICE, a California One Embarcadero Center, 10" Floor corporation dba BLUE SHIELD OF San Francisco, CA 94111 CALIFORNIA Tel: (415) 291-7400 Fax: (415) 291-7474 Email: jlaska@manatt.com Michael C. Godino, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, CALIFORNIA MANATT, PHELPS, ET AL. PHYSICIANS® SERVICE, a California 11355 West Olympic Boulevard corporation dba BLUE SHIELD OF Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 CALIFORNIA Tel: (310) 312-4000 Direct: (310) 312-4352 Fax: (310) 312-4224 Email: mgodino@manatt.com T GGii3 103 PLEADINGSWOLSCGN MTC FROG. docs 11 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHY SICIAN: §’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA
