Michael Olson vs. California Physicians' Service, A California Corporation

Motion to Compel ProductionInspection of Documents or Things

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 19, 2015

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 27 28 John A. Gladych, Esq., Bar No. 139254 Lisa O’Neill, 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 California, County of Orange 09/06/2016 at 09:09:00 Pi 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 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (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] G:A203, 103WLEADINGS\CLSON MT C.RFPCD doc 1 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA OO c e ~~ NN wn nN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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, m 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(a) and (d), and 2031.310(a) and (h), for an order compelling further production of documents 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. w Sis DAs John A. Gladych, Esq. Lisa ONeill, Esq. Attorneys for co, OLSON and TAMAO OLSON GA203. 103\PLEADINGS\OL SON. MTC.RFT'OD doc 2 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA O 0 ~~ O&O Wn BB WwW NN I C C 0 ~~ e y Lb BA W N - = © OU N N in RA W N = DD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) served their Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, on Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California (hereinafter “Defendant™) on March 23, 2016, attached hereto as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lisa O’Neill (hereinafter “ O'Neill Declaration”). On June 30, 2016, following multiple extensions (see O’Neill Declaration, Exhibit B, Defendant served its response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One, attached hereto as Exhibit C. In its response, Defendant refused to produce any documents whatsoever regarding “complaints. . . from any agency. . . about Defendant’s decision on whether a patient’s treatment is or is not preventive care.” See Exhibit A to O’Neill Declaration, Request No. 14. Defendant objected that the Request’s wording was vague and ambiguous, rendering the request unintelligible, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Plaintiffs sent a letter regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses on July 21, 2016, 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. ONeill Declaration, 9 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 documents. 1" 1H G:\203, {UWPLEADINGS\OLSON. MTC. RFPOD, doc 3 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA - PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA H W N O e 3 O N W a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 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. (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 DOCUMENTS ARE 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). GA203, IVNPLEADINGS\OLSON MTC.RFPOD doc 4 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA Ov o o 3 oO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Here, Plaintiffs request further production of documents in response to Request for Production No. 14. Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on the basis of, variously, relevancy, overbreadth, harassment, undue burden, disproportion to the issues and amount in controversy, vagueness, and ambiguity, and based on the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection. See Exhibit C to O'Neill Declaration. These objections are addressed in more detail in the accompanying separate statements, attached. In brief, however, these documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith, m 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 “documents. . .from any agency of the State of California about Defendant’s decision on whether a patient’s treatment is or is not preventive care.” See Exhibit A to O’Neill Declaration, Request No. 14. Defendant objects that these documents are not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that terms within the requests are vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. See Exhibit C to O'Neill Declaration. But the terms make sense within the context of the requests and the issues, as explained more fully in Plaintiffs’ separate statements. Moreover, in its response, Defendants fail to state that it cannot locate responsive documents after a diligent search. Thus, the documents must be assumed to exist. Therefore, Defendant must provide the responsive documents. 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 documents relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims at issue in this lawsuit. G:\203. UBYLEADINGS\OLSON MTC. RFPOD.doc 5 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIF HCURINAS. PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 T Ges IF LEADNGSIOLSON MTC. RFPGD, doc 6 In any event, Defendant’s improper conduct in denying Plaintiffs’ claims for preventive care 1s relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. In addition, pattern and practice evidence-such as would be evidenced by other documents showing instances where Defendant improperly denied claims for preventive care-is crucial to establishing punitive damages against an insurer, and Plaintiffs’ requests are relevant to the same. Mock v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 329. For this reason, Defendant must respond to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. 4. THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS “In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show ‘good cause’ for the request-but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact- specific showing of relevance.” TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002), 96 Cal.App.4th 443. Therefore, good cause generally exists if the documents are not already in possession of the requesting party and are relevant to the proceedings. See id. Here, Plaintiffs have good cause for production of documents in response to Request for Production No. 14 because the documents are not otherwise available and because they are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendant, as discussed in detail in Plaintiffs’ separate statement. Plaintiffs are unable to obtain the requested documents through other avenues than this discovery request. Request No. 14 seeks documents “from any agency of the State of California about Defendant’s decision on whether a patient’s treatment is or is not preventive care,” which documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The State’s documents are relevant to Defendant’s improper denial of Plaintiffs’ claims, which Plaintiffs contend are covered as preventive care. To date, Defendant has produced exactly zero documents falling within the scope of this Request, even though Defendant has not stated that no documents falling within the request MOTION TO COMPLEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA w i A W N OO o o ~~ o n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 G03 103 PLEADING S\OLE ON MI C.RFPOD doc ) 7 can be located after a diligent search. Accordingly, it must be assumed that such documents exist. Plaintiffs having good cause for requesting the same, production should, therefore, be compelled. 3; 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: 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 iinposition 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 requests for production at issue consist of, variously, boilerplate objections and evasive, inadequate, and/or incomplete non-responses. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA ~~ PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA iE Ww ~~ O y nn A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 T Gxt TPL EADINGSWOLSON MTC.IFFOD doc 8 As set forth in the Declaration of Lisa O'Neill, sanctions should be imposed in the amount of $4,013.00 against Defendant and its counsel for their failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents. 6. CONCLUSION The Court should compel Defendant to provide further production of the requested documents 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. John'A” Gladych, Esq. Lisa ONeill, Esq. Attorneys for MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS” SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 5 = O 00 J O&O Lv A W O N © Nu a Li A W R N = © VW © u n AEA W R N -~ oo T G03 TFL EADINGSOLSON MT C.RFPOD toc 9 DECLARATION OF LISA O’NEILL I, LISA O°NEILL, declare: 1. [ 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. Zo [ have reviewed the file in preparation for this declaration. 3. On March 23, 2016, Plaintiff served its Requests for Production of Documents, 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 Requests for Production of Documents. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents propounded by Plaintiffs is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents were evasive and deficient, as they failed to provide documents “from any agency of the State of California about Defendant’s decision on whether a patient’s treatment is or is not preventive care,” which documents Plaintiffs contend are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith. It is Plaintiffs’ contention that the State’s documents would be relevant to Defendant’s denial of Plaintiffs’ claims, which Plaintiffs contend are covered as preventive care. Therefore on July 21, 2016, my office sent Mr. Godino a Formal meet and confer letter. A true and correct copy of our MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD .OF CALIFORNIA : 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 24 25 26 27 28 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. 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 Copel 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 Requests for Production of Documents. 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 Requests for Production of Documents-was received. 9. 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 I i m- G\203, FOWPLEADINGS\OLSON.MTC_RFPOD. doc 10 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA ~ 1 O N nn BA Ww NO award of attoneys’ 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 1s true and correct. nD Non LISA O’NEILL G20. (0NPLEADINGS\OLSON. MTC.RFPOD doc 1 1 _ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA PHY SICIANS®. SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT A Gr w o e A e y R T John A. Gladych, Esq., Bar No. 139254 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 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAQ OLSON, Plaintiffs vs. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00815773-CU-IC-CXC ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO HON. KIM G. DUNNING, DEPT. CS104 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVE Defendants. DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON SET NO. ONE [Complaint Filed: October 21, 2015] PROPOUDING PARTY: Plaintiff, MICHAEL OLSON RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA SET NUMBER: One DA LTE SHIELD OF CA SL AZ AFFAE (1) 10 UL UE SLD oc 1 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE CI N e e e e Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010, 2031.030 ef seq., Plaintiff, MICHAEL OLSON requires that Defendant, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA produce and permit Plaintiff to inspect and copy or cause to be copied the documents specified below. Defendant, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA shall make such production within thirty (30) days of service hereof, at the office of Gladych & Associates, 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660, or such other place as shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties. INSTRUCTIONS I. Unless otherwise noted, this set of requests requires the production of documents or tangible things that were prepared, created, written, sent, dated or received at any time up to the date of service of your response to these requests. 2. In producing documents or tangible things pursuant to these requests, please identify the following: a. The paragraphs, paragraph or subparts of the demand to which each document or tangible thing corresponds; and b. The location from which the document or tangible thing was produced, including address, file, drawer, or cabinet name and number. 3 If you withhold any document or tangible things under a claim of privilege, please furnish with your response to these requests the statement required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240(b), identifying each document or tangible thing for which privilege is claimed, including the following information: a. The date, sender, recipient, and subject matter of the document or tangible thing; b. The relationship between the author and each of said recipients at the time the document or tangible thing was received by the recipient; c. The basis upon which privilege is claimed; DOCS;301, 103: DISCOVERY CALIFQINIA TFIIYSICIANS SERVICE DEA ALE SHIELD OF CA:DLSOR.NFPOD {1) TO BLUE SHIELD. 2 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE o N Te Cb LE wT d. The paragraphs, paragraph or subparts of the request to which the document or tangible thing corresponds; and e. A general description of the subject matter of the information contained in the document or tangible thing. 4, In the event that any requested document and tangible thing can be obtained from a computer or any other electronic media, such information should be printed out and provided, as well as provided on the media on which the information and programs that access it are stored. 5. Unless specifically requested, duplicative originals or copies that are absolutely and totally identical to a produced document or tangible thing need not also be produced. However, any duplicate which is in any way different (e.g., contains notes or has missing material) must also be produced. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Unless otherwise noted, this set of requests requires the production of documents or tangible things that were prepared, created, written, sent, dated or received at any time up to the date of service of your response to these requests. 2. In producing documents or tangible things pursuant to these requests, please identify the following: a. The paragraphs, paragraph or subparts of the demand to which each document or tangible thing corresponds; and b. The location from which the document or tangible thing was produced, including address, file, drawer, or cabinet name and number. 3 If you withhold any document or tangible things under a claim of privilege, please furnish with your response to these requests the statement required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240(b), identifying each document or tangible thing for which privilege is claimed, including the following information: a The date, sender, recipient, and subject matter of the document or tangible DOCS. WESCOVENY:CALIFOHNIA PHYSICIANS BERVICE OBA BLUE SHIELD OF CA:OLSON IFPRI (|) TO ALLE SINELD Joc 3 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE o r W a a e R T e e d e 13 4 15 18 | § 17 lie 20 = 23 24 26 a 28 thing; b. The relationship between the author and each of said recipients at the time the document or tangible thing was received by the recipient; c. The basis upon which privilege is claimed; d. The paragraphs, paragraph or subparts of the request to which the document or tangible thing corresponds; and e. A general description of the subject matter of the information contained in the document or tangible thing, 4. In the event that any requested document and tangible thing can be obtained from a computer or any other electronic media, such information should be printed out and provided, as well as provided on the media on which the information and programs that access it are stored. 5. Unless specifically requested, duplicative originals or copies that are absolutely and totally identical to a produced document or tangible thing need not also be produced. However, any duplicate which is in any way different (e.g., contains notes or has missing material) must also be produced. DEFINITIONS A. The term “YOU” and “YOUR” shall refer to Defendant, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA. B. The term “DEFENDANT, HADDAD?” shall refer to Defendant, MADHI HADDAD, acting on his own behalf, his gi, investigators, and anyone else acting on behalf of Defendant, MADHI HADDAD. B. The terms “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” shall have the meaning employed in California Evidence Code Section 250, and also includes, without limitation; any written, recorded, filmed, or graphic matter, whether produced or reproduced on paper, cards, tapes, film, electronic media, facsimile, computer storage device, or any other media; including, without limitation, memoranda, notes, electronic mail (“e-mail”), minutes, records, employment files, case files, pleadings, photographs, slides, correspondence, telegrams, diaries, bookkeeping entries, DOCS 2HB.INY DISCOVER Y-CALIFGIONA TIYSICIARS SERVICE DNA NLUE SHIELD OF CA:DLSONRFPOD{1) TO HLUE SIGELY doc 4 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE C e w e T w 10 12 1 i 16 17 Cs os oh 5s = eg ou Ca og financial statements, tax returns, checks, check stubs, reports, studies, charts, graphs, blueprints, drawings, statements, notebooks, handwritten notes, applications, agreements, books, pamphlets, periodicals, appointment calendars, notes, records and recordings or oral conversations, and work papers, and also including, without limitation, originals, drafts, and all copies that are different in any way from the original whether by interlineation, receipt stamp, notation, indication of copies sent or received, or otherwise. C. The terms “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN” means constituting, containing, consisting of, comprising, embodying, summarizing, mentioning, memorializing, discussing, showing, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 140204341800. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 140212269801. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 140324479500. DOCS 201 18LAISCOVERY CALIFORNIA FRYSICIANS SERVICE DOA ALUE SHIELD OF CA:DLSDN.RFPOD (1) TO BLUE SIRELD due 5 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 140378080400. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 141509224201. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 150550220700. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 151120082200. | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 151183422700. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts DOCS:203.183:DISCAVER Y: CALIFORNIA FITVEICIANS SERVICE DHA 8LUE SHIELD OF CA:OLSDN.RFPOD 1) TQ BLUE SHIELD dee 6 - REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE A L a w e y u n of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 151481299700. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 15151721200. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Any and all claims manuals used by YOU, YOUR agents, servants, employees, or contractors in effect for the years 2013 to the present. 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 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 claims handling or denials of coverage for the reason that a doctor was not on the approved list of network providers. 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. nn in i" DOCU 1B: [USCOVERY. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE DOA BLUR SHIELD OF CA:DLSON IFHOID (1) TO BLUE SHIELD dag 7 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE B a N h WU E u 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. R Dated: March ,2016 GLADYCH & ASSOCIAPES/INC. { By: il n/ Johh A G W Esq. ~~ rneys tor MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAQO OLS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE E e e N o v U n RE Ga o o PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. §§1013(a) and 2015.5) I, the undersigned, declare: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I 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 J3, 2016, I served true and correct copies of the following document(s): REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVE 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: 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. (J) 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 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 readahle 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 March 32, 2016, at Newport Beach, California. ( ) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Z/ IANELLE JAMES TT HOCE20). 100 DISCOVERY CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE 9 DIA BLUE SNIELD OF CA:OLSOM, (FIO (31 TO BLUE SHIELD.doe REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE a W e e s e y c w ds 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@manatt.com; mgodino@manati.com Attorneys for Defendant, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVICE, a California corporation dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA DOCS:203. [FEOISCOVERY CALFURRIA PI YHICIANS SERVICE 1X 8LUE EHIELD UF CA:OLSON AFTFOD (1) TO BLUE SINELT das 10 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED TO CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA BY MICHAEL OLSON, SET NO. ONE EXHIBIT B Fron: Godino, Michael MGodino&manait.com Subject: RE: Olson v. Blue Shield Daiz: June 14, 2016 at 3:53 PM Ta: Lisa O'Neill lisa@gladychiavi.com, John Gladych John@gladychiaw.com Cc: Laska, Joseph JLaska@manall.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 Bivd Los Angeles, CA 90064 D 310.312.4253 F310.914.5781 MGodino@manatt.com manati.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or 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 defivering it {o 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 immedialely notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its altachments 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 Matin Nee mA Nr rn INEWPUIL BEACT, LA 2£00U Tel: 949-442-8942 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 Blvd Los Angeles, CA 80064 D 310.312.4253 F310.914.5781 MGodino@manatt.com manaii.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail iransmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached 1o it, may conlain confkidentiat information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible far delivering it to the intended racipient, you ara hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached io this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. tf you have received this fransmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destray the original transmission 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: 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 D (415) 291-7446 F (415) 291-7474 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 1 | MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP JOSEPH E. LASKA (Bar No. 221055) 2 || Email: jlaska@manatt.com MICHAEL C. GODINO (Bar No. 274755) 3 | Email: mgodino@manatt.com 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Cos Angeles, CA 90064-16124 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 Attorneys for Defendant % 5 6 CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE 7 | dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE I1 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 12 13 | MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAO OLSON, Case No, 30-2015-00815773-CU-1C-CXC 14 Plaintiffs, Hon. Kim G. Dunning, Dept. CX104 15 Vs. DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE 16 | CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVICE, SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA’S RESPONSES dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, and | TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR 17 | DOES 1 through 25, inclusive PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 18 Defendants. : 20 | PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson 21 | RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of 22 California 23 {| SETNO: One 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTRENEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS® REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Luy ANGELES 1 Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California (“Blue Shield®) 2 || objects and responds to the Requests for the Production and Identification of Documents (Set 3 | One) propounded by Plaintiffs Michael Olson and Tamao Olson (“Plaintiffs”) as follows. 4 RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS 5 || REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 6 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 7 | printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 8 | claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 9 I Claim No. 140204341800. 10 || RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 11 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all 12 | DOCUMENTS" and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among 13 | other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to 14 | this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 15 | calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the 16 | extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- 17 || product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 18 | any applicable law or regulation. 19 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce 20 || the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 21 || request. 22 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 23 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 24 || printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 25 | claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 26 || Claim No. 140212269801, 27 28 NeAmLine, LL ! ATTORHEYS AT LAY LDS ANGELES DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS* REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) 1 | RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 2 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all 3 | DOCUMENTS?” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the 4 5 6 7 | extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- 8 | product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 9 | any applicable law or regulation. 0 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce 11 || the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 12 | request. 13 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 14 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 15 | printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 16 | claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 17 | Claim No. 140324479500. 18 | RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 19 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all 20 | DOCUMENTS” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among IN ) f d other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to 22 || this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 23 || calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the 24 | extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- 25 | product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 26 || any applicable law or regulation. MANATT, PHELPS & 2 PHILLIPS, LLP ATIOUMEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Los ANCELES 1 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce bo the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 140378080400, RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 10 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all OW 00 3 & wv B A W 11 || DOCUMENTS” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among 12 | other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to 13 || this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 14 | calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the 15 || extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- 16 | product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 17 | any applicable law or regulation. 18 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce 19 || the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 20 || request, 21 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 22 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 23 || printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 24 | claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 25 || Claim No. 141509224201, 26 | RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 27 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all 28 | DOCUMENTS” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN," among MANATT, PHELPS & 3 PHILLIPS, LLP ATTOUNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Los AnuniLes other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the [S e] w MANATT, PHELPS & PHiLLips, LLP ATTORNEYS AT Lay Los ANCELES any applicable law or regulation. EXTent [Hat this Tequest seeks documents subject to The ailormey-client privilege or attorney work= product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or irade secret under Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN -Claim No. 150550220700. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS?” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attomey-client privilege or attorney worlk- product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under any applicable law or regulation. Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this request. 4 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS® REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) 1 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, Ww MN printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN Claim No. 151120082200. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS" and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among OO 0 0 3 a v o N other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to 10 || this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 11 || calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the 12 || extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- 13 | product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 14 || any applicable law or regulation. 15 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce 16 || the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 17 || request. 18 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 19 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 20 | printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 21 || claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 22 | Claim No. 151183422700. 23 | RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 24 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all 25 | DOCUMENTS” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among 26 || other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to 27 || this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 28 || calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the MANATT, PHELPS & 5 PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Los AnGELES 1 | extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- [0S ] product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 3 | any applicable law or regulation. TT 4~ Without waiving its objections, Bite Slield Tesponds as follows: Blue Shield Will produce 5 | the somprivilEged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 6 | request. 7 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 8 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 9 | printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 10 | claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 11 || Claim No. 151481299700. 12 i RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 13 Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all 14 { DOCUMENTS” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among 15 || other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to 16 || this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably 17 || calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Blue Shield objects to the 18 | extent that this request seeks documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work- 19 | product protection, or that are otherwise confidential, private, proprietary, or trade secret under 20 || any applicable law or regulation. 21 Without waiving its objections, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce 22 | the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 23 || request. 24 | REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 25 Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to claim forms, email, bills, 26 | printouts of electronic claim submittals, CMS-1500 forms, UB-04 claims, memorandum, EOBs, 27 || claim denials, correspondence, notes, or other writings, which REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN 28 Claim No. 15151721200. MANATT, PHELPS & 6 PHILLIPS, LLP ATibutizys ATLAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) LDS ANGELES ro Oo 0 8 3 hn t n B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 N o B W No No Ln 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTONNEYSE AT Law LOS ANDELES RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS” and the incomplete defined term “REFER, RELATE OR CONCERN,” among other things, render this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Blue Shield also objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Among other things, “15151721200” is not a complete claim number. Further, Blue Shield 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. Without waiving its objections, and construing this request as referring to claim number 151515721200, Blue Shield responds as follows: Blue Shield will produce the non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that relate to claim number 151515721200. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Any and all claims manuals used by YOU, YOUR agents, servants, employees, 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 Plaintiff"s complaint were received by Blue Shield before March 20, 2014, and Plaintiffs’ coverage appears to have ended before the date of this response. 7 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) O W D o 3 N w » PB w R - - - - - - - -_ ~ J oN w h + ww Q® ] - oO - Do 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law Los ANGELES 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. 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 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 claims handling or denials of coverage for the reason that a doctor was not on the approved list of network providers. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Blue Shield objects to this request on the ground that the phrases “complaints from any agency of the State of California” and “claims handling or denials of coverage for the reason that a doctor was not on the approved list of network providers” are 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 8 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Ia VO 2X NN S N t h B A W MANATT, PHELPS & PHiLLiP5, LLP ATTOUNEYR AT LAW Las ANGELES scope and time, and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Among other things, none of Plaintiffs’ claims allege an error in any of Blue Shield’s “approved lists of network providers.” Moreover, 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. 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to guidelines, tips, FAQs, memorandum, correspondence or other writings, provided by YOU to health care providers related to preventive health care. 9 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) OO 0 0 0 o h nn R W -_- = Qa J - J- t y- t yt y- t - - o e ~~ ] on wh = Ww ND J d Oo 20 MANATT, PHELPS & PHiLLIPS, LLP ATTUHZEYS AT LAW LD5 ANGELES 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. Dated: June 30, 2016 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP By: ToD Ah Michael C. Codi Attorneys for Defendant CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS® SERVICE dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS® REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Oo 0 3 O N wn A 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS (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. [x] 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. Cd I am one of the attorneys of record for a party to this acon. 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. Executed at San Francisco, California on June 30, 2016. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the contents of this verification are true and correct. : Neale Canstind Leslie Crawford VERIFICATION PROOY OF SERVICE 2 I, Rebecca Blake, declare as follows: 3 1 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 & 41" PHILLIPS, TEP, T1355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064-1614. On June 30, 2016, I served the within: 5 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA 6 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND 7 IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 8 | on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 9 GLADYCH AND ASSOCIATES John A. Gladych, Esq. 10 1400 Bristol Street N, Suite 210 11 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949 442 8942 12 Fax: 949 442 8938 13 [%] (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) By placing such document(s) in a sealed envelope, for collection and overnight mailing at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los 14 Angeles, California following ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar 15 with the practice at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP for collection and processing of overnight service mailing, said practice being that in the ordinary course of 16 - business, correspondence is deposited with the overnight messenger service, Golden State Overnight, for delivery as addressed. 17 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 30, 2016, at Los 19 § Angeles, California. 20 ER j i = pe 21 NEAA FE 7 Rebecca Blake 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORHEYS AT LAw Lui ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBITD 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 Plaintiff's 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 “(raining 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 confidential 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.” Bridgesione-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” arc 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 fo 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 insurance 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 by you to 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: [J (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; Michsael 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 for the name of witnesses. 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. 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:0 (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; 0 (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 Na. 15.1(b), reproduced here: Michael C. Godino, Esq. 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 (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 (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. 13.1(b). Interrogatory 15.1(b) asks for the name of witnesses. 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. Tuly 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 Interrogaiories 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, GLAIAYCH & ASSOCIATES, INC. John A. Gladych , Esq. [prs Lisa O°Neill, Esq. Attomeys for Plaintiffs, MICHAEL OLSON and TAMAQO OLSON LO:JT ce: Joseph E. Laska, Esq. G:\203. 103\CORRESPONDENCE\Godina.001.Mect & Confer ltr.docx EXHIBIT E Michael Godino manatt Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP manatt | phelps | phillips Direct Dial: (310) 312-4253 E-mail: MGodino@manatt.com August 10, 2016 Client-Matter: 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 complamt, 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, California 90064-1614 Telephone: 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 1IFP 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 “[r]elevancy 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 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. /d. 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 Hofmann Corp. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 3d 357, 364 (1985) (“[W]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 petitioners 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 introduetion 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 ....” /d. 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 previously espoused. Romo v. Ford Motor Co., 113 Cal. App. 4th 738, 801 (2003). “[TThe result is a punitive damages analysis that focuses primarily on what defendant did to the present plaintiff ....” /d. 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-less 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/l “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 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: (1) “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 knowledge 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 O'Neill, Esq. August 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 because 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 ? 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// 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 /ess 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 O’Neill, Esq. August 10, 2016 Page 7 Please let me know when you’re available to continue our meet and confer by telephone. Sincerely, Mer Oct f eA - Michael Godino cc: John A. Gladych Joseph E. Laska EXHIBIT F J W5/2016 . Peon v, Blug Shield of Califo. D Replyall |[¥ {ii Delete Junk Iv ees RE: Olson v. Blue Shield of California Godino, Michael 5 Replyall |v Wed 8/17, 9:48 AM Lisa O'Neill; John Gladych; Laska, Joseph ; Maureen Gentry ¥ GM Inbox Lisa, Great, we will call you at 2:00. yy + > de rr Michael Godino Associate H Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd em mmm ml. D 310.31 2.4253 .F310.814.5761 MGodino@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mall messages attached to it, may contain confidential Information that is iegally 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 (his message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received (his transmission In error, please immediately notlly us by reply email and dastroy the original transmission and Its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From: Lisa O'Neil [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, bs Wednasiay, at 2pm. ¢ Our athe number is s (949) 442-8942. Twill anticipate your call then. RE-- SR Best, Lisa hitps://outlook.office.com/owa/projection aspx 9/6/2016 ) Be a he . REOln v. Blue Shicld of Califomla © Leos. © ‘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.? Ract. - srry rm - t= = ; Mike Michael Godino Associate , Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP mmm ra uM 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-mall messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. Jf you are nat the intended recipient, or a person responsibla for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribullon or use of any of tha information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have recelved this transmission in error, please Immediately notify us by reply emall and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them ar saving them to disk. Thank you. EXHIBITG From: Lisa O'Neill tisa:& wadychlaw.com Subject: Meet and Confer Follow-Up Date: August 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM fe To: mgodino@manatt.com Cc: jlaska@manatt.com, John Gladych John@gladychlaw.com, Maureen Gentry maureen@gladychlaw.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 ~N O N nh BR W N oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TG 203 In PLEADINGSOLSON. MTC. REPOD. doc LL 12 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I 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 September 6, 2016, I served true and correct copies of the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (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: I 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 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. JANELLE JAMES (_/ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA sil PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA nig ma NN A wn RA W N oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 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. 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 G\203, 101PLEADINGS\WOLSON.MTC.RFPOD. doc 1 3 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) FROM CALIFORNIA ~~ PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA -