Thus, Thern does not even attempt to establish the absence of an issue of “material fact” related to a party’s claims or defenses, as it must under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.

J. Br.”), OptumHealth Care Solutions, LLC (“Optum”) submits the following documents as exhibits to the Declaration of Andrew Holly in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Holly Decl.”).

Here, Thern is simply seeking the Court’s guidance about a purely legal question, which is not a proper subject of a summary judgment motion.

Under this test, courts consider “five choice influencing factors ... (1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law.” Jepson v. Gen. Cas.

The second factor is “primarily concerned with whether the application of Minnesota law would manifest disrespect for [Wisconsin]’s sovereignty or impede the interstate movement of people and goods.” Jepson, 513 N.W.2d at 471.

... 1 INDEX PAGE Page 2 Page 4 2 3 WITNESS: STEPHANIE HEMKER 4 EXAMINATION BY: 5 Mr. Holly 6 6 Mr. Sonnesyn 129 7 Mr. Holly 132 INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER: (None.) 8 9 10 11 PRODUCTION REQUESTS: (None.

... PAGE Page 2 Page 4 2 3 WITNESS: EMILY LINDSTROM 4 EXAMINATION BY: 5 Mr. Holly 7 6 Mr. Woody 101 7 Mr. Holly 103 8 Mr. Sonnesyn 105 9 10 INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER: (None.) 11 12 PRODUCTION REQUESTS: (None.

I am a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP (“Dorsey”), counsel of record for Defendant OptumHealth Care Solutions, LLC (“Optum”) in the above-captioned case.

I make this Declaration based on my personal knowledge, on information received from Optum, and/or on my review of records maintained by Dorsey in the course of its regularly conducted business activities.

The parties completed depositions with the following individuals and entities prior to Thern filing its Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint: Stephanie Hemker, Robert Patterson, Travis Sonsalla, corporate representatives from Benefit Plan Administrators (“BPA”), and Paul Bittner.

Thern emailed counsel for Optum a redline copy of its proposed second amended complaint on August 25 at 1:32 pm Central Time.

Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the deposition of Stephanie Hemker taken in this matter on August 15, 2023.

Filed in District Court State of Minnesota

Case Type: Breach of Contract & Negligence Court File: 27-CV-23-2668 Judge Susan N. Burke

Plaintiff, OptumHealth Care Solutions, LLC, Defendant.

WHEREAS, this Court issued a Scheduling Order, Referral to Mediation, and Trial Order on May 5, 2023; WHEREAS the parties are currently briefing summary judgment motions that will be heard on September 22, 2023; WHEREAS, the Scheduling Order originally included a discovery deadline of August 27, 2023; WHEREAS the parties subsequently requested that the Court amend the discovery deadline to September 26, in order to allow the parties to take depositions after the August 27, 2023 discovery deadline that were not necessary for the parties’ summary judgement motions; WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and have agreed that certain depositions can be delayed until after the September 22, 2023 summary judgment hearing (and after the September 26, 2023 discovery deadline) as they will be unnecessary if the Court grant’s Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment;

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to request that the Court extend the deadline for deposition discovery until October 27, 2023, which will allow the parties to delay certain depositions in case they are not needed; WHEREAS the parties are also contemplating taking deposition purely for trial purposes, and have agreed to request a December 1, 2023 deadline for such depositions; WHEREAS, the parties’ briefing on their respective motions for summary judgment and the trial block date will not be affected by the extensions to the deposition discovery deadline or the proposed trial deposition deadline contemplated by this stipulation; WHEREAS the parties further agree that the deadline for dispositive motions shall remain fixed as September 26, 2023; WHEREAS, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, agree that there is good cause pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to support a nominal amendment to the Scheduling Order to extend the discovery deadline in the case up to and including October 27, 2023, and to allow depositions purely for trial purposes up to and including December 1, 2023; NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration of the above recitals, by and through their counsel of record, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court to enter the below [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order pursuant to Minnesota General Rule of Practice 111.04 and Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 16, in the form as set forth in the proposed order accompanying this stipulation.

Filed in District Court State of Minnesota

Case Type: Breach of Contract & Negligence Court File: 27-CV-23-2668 Judge Susan N. Burke

Plaintiff, OptumHealth Care Solutions, LLC, Defendant.

WHEREAS, this Court issued a Scheduling Order, Referral to Mediation, and Trial Order on May 5, 2023; WHEREAS the parties are currently briefing summary judgment motions that will be heard on September 22, 2023; WHEREAS, the Scheduling Order originally included a discovery deadline of August 27, 2023; WHEREAS the parties subsequently requested that the Court amend the discovery deadline to September 26, in order to allow the parties to take depositions after the August 27, 2023 discovery deadline that were not necessary for the parties’ summary judgement motions; WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and have agreed that certain depositions can be delayed until after the September 22, 2023 summary judgment hearing (and after the September 26, 2023 discovery deadline) as they will be unnecessary if the Court grant’s Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment;

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to request that the Court extend the deadline for deposition discovery until October 27, 2023, which will allow the parties to delay certain depositions in case they are not needed; WHEREAS the parties are also contemplating taking deposition purely for trial purposes, and have agreed to request a December 1, 2023 deadline for such depositions; WHEREAS, the parties’ briefing on their respective motions for summary judgment and the trial block date will not be affected by the extensions to the deposition discovery deadline or the proposed trial deposition deadline contemplated by this stipulation; WHEREAS the parties further agree that the deadline for dispositive motions shall remain fixed as September 26, 2023; WHEREAS, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, agree that there is good cause pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to support a nominal amendment to the Scheduling Order to extend the discovery deadline in the case up to and including October 27, 2023, and to allow depositions purely for trial purposes up to and including December 1, 2023; NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration of the above recitals, by and through their counsel of record, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court to enter the below [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order pursuant to Minnesota General Rule of Practice 111.04 and Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 16, in the form as set forth in the proposed order accompanying this stipulation.