On March 08, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Zaman, Sajida,
and
Does 1-20,
Liqui-Box Corporation,
for (Wrongful Termination)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 08/25/2022 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard K. Sueyoshi
CLERK: J. Servantez
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: S. Brooks, J. Reilly
CASE NO: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 03/08/2019
CASE TITLE: Zaman vs. Liqui-Box Corporation
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Special Interrogatories Set
Five
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's ("Plaintiff") motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set five is
ruled upon as follows.
Plaintiff served Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") with the subject Special Interrogatories,
Set Five via email on May 27, 2022. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 3.) The discovery included 22
interrogatories related to Plaintiff's employment claims against Defendant. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 4,
Exh. A.) As of the filing of Plaintiff's motion on August 2, 2022, Defendant did not provide responses to
the special interrogatories. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in conjunction with
this motion.
Defendant opposes on the basis that Plaintiff's motion was premature because Defendant's counsel
asked for extensions to provide responses that were either ignored or not granted. (Jones Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)
Defendant's counsel also asserts that his office did not receive the proof of service for the requests for
admissions or the special interrogatories until May 31, 2022, which resulted in his office's calendaring
department calendaring the date responses would be due to July 5, 2022. (Jones Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant
also contends that Plaintiff's counsel's conduct constitutes a misuse of the discovery process warranting
sanctions. Defendant also requests that the motion be continued and heard concurrently with
Defendant's upcoming motion for relief from waiver of objections.
The Court finds that Defendant's arguments regarding its failure to provide timely responses to be
without merit for the purposes of this motion, and would have been more properly addressed in
Defendant's motion for relief from waiver of objections if such motion had been promptly filed and
noticed for hearing. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide
code compliant responses to the special interrogatories, set five, without objection on or before
September 1, 2022.
DATE: 08/25/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Zaman vs. Liqui-Box Corporation CASE NO: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS
The parties' dueling requests for sanctions are DENIED. While the Court had considered the close
question of whether sanctions against Defendant are proper, in the balance, the Court finds that the
imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
DATE: 08/25/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
Document Filed Date
August 25, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 08, 2019
Category
(Wrongful Termination)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 08/25/2022 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: 53 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard K. Sueyoshi CLERK: J. Servantez REPORTER/ERM: None BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: S. Brooks, J. Reilly CASE NO: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 03/08/2019 CASE TITLE: Zaman vs. Liqui-Box Corporation CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Special Interrogatories Set Five TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's ("Plaintiff") motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set five is ruled upon as follows. Plaintiff served Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") with the subject Special Interrogatories, Set Five via email on May 27, 2022. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 3.) The discovery included 22 interrogatories related to Plaintiff's employment claims against Defendant. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) As of the filing of Plaintiff's motion on August 2, 2022, Defendant did not provide responses to the special interrogatories. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in conjunction with this motion. Defendant opposes on the basis that Plaintiff's motion was premature because Defendant's counsel asked for extensions to provide responses that were either ignored or not granted. (Jones Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Defendant's counsel also asserts that his office did not receive the proof of service for the requests for admissions or the special interrogatories until May 31, 2022, which resulted in his office's calendaring department calendaring the date responses would be due to July 5, 2022. (Jones Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant also contends that Plaintiff's counsel's conduct constitutes a misuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions. Defendant also requests that the motion be continued and heard concurrently with Defendant's upcoming motion for relief from waiver of objections. The Court finds that Defendant's arguments regarding its failure to provide timely responses to be without merit for the purposes of this motion, and would have been more properly addressed in Defendant's motion for relief from waiver of objections if such motion had been promptly filed and noticed for hearing. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide code compliant responses to the special interrogatories, set five, without objection on or before September 1, 2022. DATE: 08/25/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Zaman vs. Liqui-Box Corporation CASE NO: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS The parties' dueling requests for sanctions are DENIED. While the Court had considered the close question of whether sanctions against Defendant are proper, in the balance, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances. COURT RULING There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling. DATE: 08/25/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 53 Calendar No.