Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV38485, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38485    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-15-25

Case 20STCV38485

Trial Date: 3-10-25

CONTINUE TRIAL, ET AL.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Optum, Inc., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Gabriela Valdez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Continue Trial

Moton to Compel PAGA Trial Plan

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Gabriela Valdez, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees, filed a PAGA complaint against Defendants Optum, Inc., et al. On May 5, 2023, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Optum, Inc., Optum Services, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and Healthcare Partners Management Services California, LLC.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Optumcare Management, LLC moves to compel a PAGA trial plan and continue the trial. Defendant maintains an entitlement to a plan and Plaintiff’s refusal to produce a plan even after ordered by the court. Plaintiff in opposition agrees to produce a plan for a bench trial, but refuses to produce a plan intended to solicit premature expert discovery. Defendant in reply reiterates the necessity of an articulated trial plan given the lack of specificity presented by Plaintiff as to the prosecution of the action. Defendant denies any necessity of penalty determinations as a bar to disclosure of further information. Defendant requests a minimum six month trial continuance.

Defendant seeks information on the intended trial path, which Plaintiff admits requires a number of non-expert, percipient and person most knowledgeable witnesses. The court appreciates the potential 4,000 employees at issue in the subject action, and agrees that “representative testimony, surveys, and statistical analysis” among other forms of evidence will suffice for adjudication of the action, as opposed to the potential presentation of hundreds, if not thousands of employees. (Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582, 618-619.)

Plaintiff however suggests that in adjudicating the case with required, supporting expert analysis, any disclosure violates expert discovery exchange requirements, and said expert testimony is clearly integral to the trial plan. Plaintiff represents prolonged production of PMQ witnesses and payroll records until January and March 2024, delayed expert review. Plaintiff also propounded additional discovery in September and October 2024. [Declaration of Joshua Boxer, ¶¶10-13; Declaration of Mel Cole, ¶¶ 8-12.] It remains unclear as to the state of the subject discovery or expert review. [Ibid.]

The court finds limited support for Plaintiff’s position opposing certain disclosures until required statutory deadlines, but disagrees that the motion seeks to strike or exclude testimony. Manageability requirements applicable to class action suits are not applicable to PAGA action. (Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582, 594, 606.) While the state of the expert review remains unknow, Plaintiff may not completely disregard any response regarding the basis of the claim for damages. If Plaintiff intends to solely rely on expert testimony, an objection can be made for withholding pending further detail as to statistical and survey analysis within the realm of experts. (See Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 751-752.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff tacitly admits in the offer to further meet and confer that some disclosure must occur.

The court therefore grants the motion in order to insure production of a trial plan occurs, as agreed by Plaintiff. The court orders the parties to further meet and confer in order to determine required parameters pending further disclosure with identification of intended expert categories reserved for statutory disclosure deadlines. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.210, et seq.)

On September 26, 2024, six days after the filing of the instant motion, the court continued the trial date from January 27, 2025, to March 10, 2025. The court reserved the right to further continue the trial date. Plaintiff submits no opposition to the motion. The court grants the motion to continue the trial date as well pending updates on the state of discovery and expert review.

Moving party to give notice.