Opposition To Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.February 2, 2018

OO 0 NN O N nn BA W N = N O N N N NN NN NN ND N N = Fm em e m mE e m e s = co NN A N nn A W N RL, OO VW NN R A W N = CO LAW OFFICES OF STEPHENSON, ACQUISTO & COLMAN, INC. JOY STEPHENSON-LAWS, ESQ. (SBN 113755) BARRY SULLIVAN, ESQ. (SBN 136571) RICHARD A. LOVICH, ESQ. (SBN 113472) SHADI SHAY AN, ESQ. (SBN 265467) CHRISTOPHER HAPAK (SBN 267212) AANCHAL V. SANGHVI, ESQ. (SBN 315053) 303 N. Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 700 Burbank, CA 91502 Telephone: (818) 559-4477 Facsimile: (818) 559-5484 Attorneys for Plaintiff THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION THE REGENTS OF THE Case No.: 30-2018-00971226-CU-BC-CIC UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a Assigned Judge: Honorable Thomas A. Delaney public trust corporation, on behalf of the University of California, Irvine Medical Center, PLAINTIFF AND CROSS- DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON Plaintiff BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF ’ CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PLAN, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, pater re, 6, 2020 INCLUSIVE, Dept.: CX102 Trial Date: TBD V. Defendants. [Separate Statement and Declarations in support of Opposition filed concurrently herewith] AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION 21620 -1- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 60 9 O&O Un B W N D = N O N N O N N N NN NN N N m e m em em em e m p m p m e m 0 NN O N Un A W N = O OV 0 N N N D R A W N e o TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ...cooittiriieitrteeientessessteeee essere sse esses sete sevens sa sasesens -2- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .........cccoioierteeeeeeeiseesee estes s t sssesane sre seanas -3- UCI MEDICAL CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO KAISER’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES L INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ARGUMENT........cccccovvrreenen. -4- II. UCIRVINE HEALTH HAS PRODUCED FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ITS PRICING AS A. UC Irvine Health Has Identified Facts And Documents That Support Its Contention That Its Billed Charges Represent Reasonable VALE. . s: wc cus si cos ms cues a wns a vio 008 50 500 810 wi 38 ais 5c sss awioes iv -5- B. UC Irvine Health Has Stated Facts That Support Its Contentions That The Value Of Its Services Exceed The Average Rate Paid By Its Contracted Payors...........c..coovviiiiiiiiiiiiiiii eee -7- 1. UC Irvine Health Has No Obligation To Identify Third Parties Who Have Knowledge Of Facts................ccooviiiiiiiininns -9- 2. UC Irvine Health Has No Obligation to Respond 10 30s 32 34, AMI 36 crc: 5m 5005 m5 500 5m 5 50m mn 50m 5 wm 0 5 i ve 596 sa -9- C. UC Irvine Health Has Provided An Explanation Of Its Chargemaster Rates And Kaiser’s Interrogatories Are Fundamentally Overbroad and Unduly Burdensome.................. -10- D. UCI Objections Are Well Founded....................ccovvivenninennnn nm 12- III, CONCLUSION.......ctitiiinineenrerntienneemmmnnesteestsessssssessissaessessassassses™ 1 37 21620 _2- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 0 NN O N Wn Ar W N N O N N N N N NN N N NN Mm o p m e m p m md pe d md md e m 0 NN O N Wn bh W N = O WO 0 0 S h W N D = OO TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California, (2014) 226 Cal. App4th 1260. + «+ vv viv titties nena nana 4,5,6,7 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County, (IS6E) 265 Lal APPA 12 vow ex mss mus amo ann ao 5s sun cums smn 13 Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Merced County, (1961)56 Cal. 2d 355. «vi vii titties tessa n ssn santana 12 Hickman v. Taylor, 3200.8. 495 (1947) viv vite eee t tes es a eee 4 West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, (1961)56 Cal.2d 407 cus sv ven sss as ves ann vo bos gv san sw sues 11,12 Codes Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.020(a), 2019.030(a)(1-2)...ceeererieiiininennnnnnnnn. 12 21620 3- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 00 NN NN wn A A W BN D -- N N O N N N ND N D ND ND ND ND = m e m e m e m e d e d p d e d 00 NN A Wn RA W N = © OV 0 0 N D h A W D N D - = Oo UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ARGUMENT Discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947). In brief, the gravamen of this dispute concerns the appropriate “rate” Kaiser must pay for non-contracted emergency services rendered to its members treated at UC Irvine Health in 2017 and 2018. The Parties recognize Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal. App.4th 1260 as the seminal case governing non-contracted, healthcare provider / payor disputes of this nature and that UC Irvine Health is entitled to the “reasonable value” of the services rendered. However, Kaiser asserts the reasonable value is limited to the so-called “going rate” paid in the marketplace and thus Kaiser seeks to freeride on the negotiated contracts of other commercial payors. UCI Irvine Health is a uniquely situated teaching hospital, Level One Trauma facility, and ‘safety net’ hospital providing essential services to the greater Orange County community. UCI Irvine Health will establish at trial, through percipient and expert testimony, that the reasonable value of its services is well in excess of the rates Kaiser has paid and is in fact commensurate with its total billed charges.’ 21620 -4- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 0 NN O N nn ho WW ND = N N N N N N NN DN NN o m m m mt m d p m mm m d pe 00 NN O N Un A W N = O O NO 0 0 N D R A W NN = O Specifically as to the issue of permissible discovery, the Children’s Hospital case lays out a clear roadmap as to what is relevant and is not relevant in these types of disputes. UCI has responded to Kaiser’s discovery in good faith applying the principles of the Children’s Hospital case. Kaiser, on the other hand, seeks to expand the scope and holding of Children’s Hospital to an exponential and untenable degree. II. UC IRVINE HEALTH HAS PROVIDED FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ITS PRICING AS REASONABLE A. UCIrvine Health Has Identified Facts And Documents That Support Its Contention That Its Billed Charges Represent Reasonable Value Kaiser takes issue with the UC Irvine Health response to Special Rogs 23 and 26 which requested that UC Irvine Health state the facts that support its contention that the billed charges reflect the reasonable value of the services rendered. UCI Irvine responded as follows: Objection; this interrogatory is overbroad, vague, compound, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and calls for premature expert testimony. Notwithstanding said objections, and subject to them, Responding Party further responds as follows: The charges for the patients at issue in this case are reasonable given UCI’s unique position in the area it serves. For example, UCI Medical Center is the only level one trauma center in the area; it is a world class NICU, cancer, and transplant facility; and is one of the nation’s leading academic health centers. Among other things, it operates essentially as a “safety net” hospital, given that 21620 -5- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES © 0 NN O N Wn bb W N - N O N O N N N N N N N m m o m e m p m p m p m e m m E 0 NN O N Wn h s W N RL, OO VO 0 N N E W ND Oo Orange County does not have a county hospital, and its patient mix is therefore expansive. Thus, UCI Medical Center’s mission is to serve the vital health care role it plays for the residents of Orange County and to financially support the School of Medicine. These economic responsibilities thus set it apart from most hospitals and, in fact, most academic medical centers. It is clear that no other geographically similarly situated hospital is comparable to UCI Medical Center. UCI charges the exact same amount to every customer that walks through its doors, and its charges are tailored to keep its doors open while maintaining the above-described roles in the community it serves Kaiser contends this response is incomplete because it includes terms like “for example” and “among other things.” The Children’s Hospital court notes “in determining value in quantum merit cases, courts accept a wide variety of evidence. For example, the party suing for compensation may testify as to the value of his services or offer expert testimony.” Id. at 1274. UC Irvine Health, like Kaiser, will rely in some measure on expert testimony in respect to the determination of the “reasonable value” of the services rendered. As such, UC Irvine Health expert may look to these factors and potentially other considerations in determining the Reasonable Value of the services rendered. UC Irvine Health has responded to Special Rogs 23 and 26 in good faith and subject to the expert testimony objection. More specifically, Kaiser asserts that UCI does not identify any documents that support the fact that UC Irvine Health charges every patient the same amount and Kaiser questions that supposition as “demonstrably untrue.” Moving Papers p. 5; 10-12. However, UC Irvine Health does in fact charge every patient the same. The prices billed to every patient are set forth in the publicly available UC Irvine Health chargemasters which have been produced in this case. Declaration of Becky Cloud-Glaab ("Cloud-Glaab Decl.") 5 21620 -6- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 0 NN O N © Br W D D - N O N O N N N N N ND DN N N m e e m e m m e p m e m mt e t 00 NN O N Wn bh W N OO YO N O D NN R E W I N D R O Kaiser further asserts that UC Irvine Health does not identify documents which show its patient mix. This is patently false. UCI is required to produce its patient mix to the state of California and has provided this data directly to Kaiser in this case. Kaiser can determine patient mix categorized as follows: 1) Medicare (traditional); ii) Medicare (manged care); iii) Medi-Cal (traditional); iv) Medi-Cal (managed care); v) County Indigent (traditional); vi) County Indigent (managed care); vii) Third Party (traditional); Third Party (managed care); Other Indigent. Declaration of Christopher Hapak ("Hapak Decl.") § 2, Ex. A. UC Irvine Health has also produced audited financial statements which break down its full costs of operation and revenues specifically by category. 7d. B. UC Irvine Health Has Stated Facts That Support Its Contentions That The Value Of Its Services Exceed The Average Rate Paid By Its Contracted Payors Kaiser’s contends it should be permitted to freeride or ‘piggyback’ off the negotiated rates of other commercial payors. As noted in the UC Irvine Health discovery responses, UC Irvine Health does maintain contracts with numerous major commercial payors. In exchange for discounted rates, these commercial payors provide UC Irvine Health with consideration, most notably patient volume. UC Irvine Health has provided patient encounter data to Kaiser in this matter which reflects patient volume for the respective major commercial payors. The patient data has been divided up by elective and non-elective encounters. As UC Irvine Health and Kaiser do not have a facility contract, UC Irvine Health does not receive the elective procedure patient volume from Kaiser as a general rule. 21620 -7- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 00 NN OO Wn bh W N N N N N N DN N D ND N N m m o e m e m o m e m mm e m b m e n 00 ~~ S N i bh W N = O OO 0 S N EE WwW N D - = Oo With the information that UC Irvine Health has provided, Kaiser may contend the discounts provided are not commensurate with the patient volume provided to UC Irvine Health. Kaiser is within its rights to make such arguments. However, Kaiser also seeks to know how each contract rate is determined. Moving] Papers p.7; 11.5-11. Once more, the Reasonable Value analysis is empirical in nature meaning the rates themselves are of ultimate value and relevance. (“Heil Decl.”) 94. As to prompt pay, prompt pay is a general consideration that UC Irvine Health takes into account when negotiating a potential discount. This most relevant when addressing agreements with payors not subject to the California Health & Safety Code. As Kaiser Foundation Health Plain, Inc. is regulated under the UC Irvine Health has agreed to identify prompt pay provision that differ materially from the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, UC Irvine Health, like Kaiser, will rely in some measure on expert testimony in respect to the determination of the “reasonable value” of the services rendered. As such, UCI’s expert may look to these factors and potentially other factors in determining the “reasonable value” of the services rendered. UC Irvine Health has responded to Special Rogs 30 and 34 in good faith and subject to the expert testimony objection. 21620 -8- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 0 9 O&O n n A W W N N = N N N N N D N N DN N = mm em e m e m e m e m em e m 00 9 O N Un bh W N , O OVO N N N N E W ND = O 1. UC Irvine Health Has No Obligation To Identify Third Parties Who Have Knowledge Of Facts Kaiser contends that UCI must identify all third party commercial payors who have knowledge of negotiated discounts with UCI (Spec Rogs 32 and 36). Moving Papers p.8; 11.5-8. However, Kaiser’s foundational discovery request in this line of inquiry goes to UC Irvine Health’s contentions as noted below, SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do YOU contend that the reasonable value of the services that YOU provided for the KAISER CLAIMS with IDOS in 2017 is more than the CONTRACTED COMMERCIAL AVERAGE PAYMENT RATE for claims with IDOS in 2017? In its discovery requests, Kaiser correctly recognizes the integral question here centers around UCI’s contentions in respect to reasonable value, not the contentions or considerations of other commercial payors. However, in the instant Motion to Compel, Kaiser now seeks to pivot and redirect its inquiry to ascertain the intentions of other third party commercial payors. This cannot be permitted and is not relevant as to Reasonable Value. 2. UC Irvine Health Has No Obligation To Respond to 30, 32, 34, and 36 As a clear and technical matter, UCI responded to Spec Rogs 29 and 33 with an unqualified “yes” which negates any required responses to Spec Rogs 30 and 34 and the relating Spec Rogs 32 and 36. UCI conditioned its responses on its objections which note Kaiser’s apparent error in drafting Spec Rogs 29 and 33. 21620 -9- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES O O 00 N N O N Wn bh W N = N O N N N ND DN NN ND DN m o m e m em e m e m ee e m e m e e 0 0 NN O N nn BA W N RL, OO O 0 0 S N R A W N D - R , Oo To the extent the Court affirms this fundamental drafting error, UCI cannot be compelled to provide additional responses to Spec Rogs 30 and 34 and the relating Spec Rogs 32 and 36 as they are inherently ambiguous and unintelligible. C. UC Irvine Health Has Provided An Explanation Of Its Chargemaster Rates And Kaiser’s Interrogatories Are Fundamentally Overbroad and Unduly Burdensome UC Irvine Health has provided a detailed response in respect to the considerations it must take into account while setting its publicly available Chargemaster. Notwithstanding, Kaiser now seeks a more specific accounting. Kaiser’s position is misguided two-fold. First, the interrogatory is fundamentally overbroad. The UC Irvine Health chargemaster involves well over 20,000 individual items, and a vast majority of the items that do not pertain to emergency and trauma claims at issue in the present dispute. Cloud-Glaab Decl. 3 UCI cannot be expected to provide a specific accounting of setting its entire charges in a single interrogatory response as it unduly burdensome. Cloud-Glaab Decl. § 5 Kaiser contends that it must have a full accounting as to how UC Irvine Health’s determined its Chargemaster rates. This is a fundamentally flawed approach and analysis. A specific determination as to #ow a hospital sets its charges is not critical to Reasonable Value analysis. Instead, the focus should be an empirical process using factual data and rates of payment accepted for similar services in comparable business relationships. Heil Decl. 4. A hospital’s charges are set forth in its Charge Description Master (“CDM?” or “Chargemaster”) and these Chargemasters are publicly available. Heil Decl. §4. As such, the UC Irvine 21620 -10- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES O O 600 9 O N Wn A WW ND = N N N N ND DN DN N N P= =m em em mm e m em e e 0 9 O N UL BA W D N R , O O 0 0 N D R W ND - Oo Health Chargemaster can be readily compared to other hospitals in its geographic area. The UC Irvine Health Chargemaster can be also compared to other Academic or Trauma hospitals throughout the state of California. A determination of Reasonable Value is fundamentally empirical in nature and focused on the actual charges and negotiated payment rates. Id. Not only is Kaiser’s interrogatory misdirected for purposes of a Reasonable Value analysis, it is exceptionally overbroad and unduly burdensome and thus under the West Pico Furniture % standard cited by Kaiser, UC Irvine Health's objections on these grounds should be upheld. Like all hospitals, in setting its Chargemaster, UC Irvine Health must take into account all its costs and expenditures and thus identifying all documents to this effect is ultimately unfeasible. Cloud-Glaab Decl. §5. These are costs are laid out in considerable detail in the publicly available financial statements. UC Irvine Health publicly filed OSHPD Disclosure sets forth the cost and expense categories of operating the medical center: i) Salaries & Wages; ii) Employee Benefits; iii) Physician Pro. Fees; iv) Other Pro. Fees; v) Supplies; vi) Purchased Services; vii) Depreciation; viii) Leases & Rentals; ix) Insurance; x) Interest; and xi) All Other Expenses. Hapak Decl, 2 Ex. A. All these factors must be considered when setting the Chargemaster. UCI Medical Center is not exaggerating when it protests that Kaiser is demanding an accounting of every scrap of paper at UC Irvine Health relating to expenditures or revenues because 2 West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. The objections should be upheld under CCP §§ 2017.020(a), 2019.030(a)(1)+2) 21620 -11- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OW 0 J & hn bh W W NN = N O N O N O N NN N N NN N m o e m em e m p m e m e m p m ee 00 J O N Un» bls W N N = D O O N N N N R E W N Y O depreciation, labor contracts, insurances policies, etc. must be taken into account when determining Chargemaster rates. Should Kaiser’s request be held to stand, any time a patient was treated at UCI during a non-contracted period, that patient or that patient’s health plan would have access to an accounting of limitless information pertaining to the above referenced categories. D. UCI Objections Are Well Founded Kaiser also takes issue with UC Irvine Health objections that the requests/interrogatories are overbroad and burdensome which are valid here Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.020(a), 2019.030(a)(1-2), citing West Pico Furniture’s holding that 1) the burden of establishing these objections is on the responding party and 2) the burden of producing the requested documents must greatly outweigh the utility of the information. Within the declaration of Becky Cloud- Glaab submitted herewith, UC Irvine Health lays out in excruciating detail in its opposition how many of Kaiser’s requests impose a substantial burden on UCI. These same requests seek information that is either i) irrelevant to the instant matter and not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence, i1) so voluminous that the burden of production significantly outweighs utility, or iii) essentially impossible to produce. UCI’s objections are proper and supported. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 392 (a court may find inadmissibility to be a factor which should be weighed in determining a claim of undue burden. It may be that the inadmissibility of the material indicates that the advantage to be gained from disclosure is outweighed by the burden which disclosure will entail); see also West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407; 21620 -12- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES © 0 NN O N Wn 2 W N = N O N N O N O N N N N D O N = m mm o e m p m m m e m p m e m 0 NN O N Wn hh W N = O VO N N N P R E W N - = Oo see also Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 18-19. IIL. CONCLUSION For all of the above-stated reasons, UC Irvine Health respectfully requests the Court deny Kaiser’s motion. The motion is just another example of Kaiser engaging in harassing litigation in lieu of negotiating with UCI Medical Center for a consistent payment, and Kaiser must not be allowed to engage in such tactics. STEPHENSON, ACQUISTO OLMAN ~ od HAPAK onl for THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 21620 13- OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OO 0 N N O&O n n Ah WLW ND = N O N N N ND ND N N N N ND = e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m C 0 NN O N Wn A W N D = OO NO 0 0 N D Dh W N = O PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am| over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 303 North Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91502-3226. On 3 January 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: 1. PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 2. PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO KAISER’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 3. DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER HAPAK IN SUPPORT OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 4. DECLARATION OF BECKY CLOUD-GLAAB IN SUPPORT OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 5S. DECLARATION OF MICHAEL HEIL IN SUPPORT OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OO 0 1 O N hn Hh W N N N N RN N N N N N m E e m ee e m E E e m e m C 0 NN O&O Wn A W N = O YW 0 N N N n b s , W NY -= OO by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed) per the attached Service List. [1] [] [X] [X] BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Burbank, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [C.C.P. 1013a(3); F.R.C.P. 5(b)] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the above-stated document(s) to be served by personally delivering a true copy thereof to the individuals identified above. [C.C.P. 1011(a); F.R.C.P. 5(b)] BY TELECOPIER: Service was effected on all parties at approximately ~_____am/pm by transmitting said document(s) from this firm's facsimile machine (818/559-4477) to the facsimile machine number(s) shown above. Transmission to said numbers was successful as evidenced by a Transmission Report produced by the machine indicating the documents had been transmitted completely and without error. C.R.C. 2008(e), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1013(e). BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I caused such envelope(s), with overnightFederal Express Delivery Charges to be paid by this firm, to be deposited with the Federal Express Corporation at a regularly maintained facility on the aforementioned date. [C.C.P. 1013(c) 1013(d)] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By emailing true and correct copies to the persons at the electronic notification address(es) shown on the accompanying service list. The document(s) was/were served electronically and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [BY COURT]: by causing the foregoing document(s) to be electronically filed using the Court’s Electronic Filing System which constitutes service of the filed document(s) at the electronic service address of the individual(s) listed on the attached mailing list. State: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Oo 00 NN O N Wn kA W N = N O N N N N N NN N N N N ND mm o m mm o m e m e m p m p m pe 00 J O N Wn A W N = O 0 0 N N N N E W N D - = oO [ 1 Federal: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on 3 January 2020 in Burbank, California. ANGELA DEMERS © 00 3 O N wn bh W N N N N O N O N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 00 J O N Wn bh W N = O OO 0 N N N bh W N = O SERVICE LIST MARK PALLEY, ESQ. MARION’S INN LLP 1611 TELEGRAPH AVENUE SUITE 707 OAKLAND, CA 94612 mp(@marionsinn.com KEVIN R. NOWICKI, ESQ. RALPH H. BLAKENEY, ESQ. GORDEE, NOWICKI & BLAKENEY, LLP. 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 870 Irvine, California 92618 Kevin Nowicki knowicki@gna-law.com Ralph H. Blakeney rblakeney(@gna-law.com