Motion-Secondary: Sajida Zaman vs. Liqui-Box Corporation

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
  FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
                                                                FILED/ENDORSED
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
                                                                       AUG 2 5 2022
  Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com                                 By:        E, Medina
                                                                          Deputy Clerk

 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHl (SBN: 293246)
   LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
 6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300
 7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
   Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
 8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com
 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff,
   SAJIDA ZAMAN
10
11                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

12                                        COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

13
      SAJIDA ZAMAN,                                    CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
14
                                                       MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
                             Plaintiff,
15                                                     AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
      vs.                                              DEFENDANT           LIQUI-BOX
16                                                     CORPORATION'S    EX    PARTE
      LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES I                APPLICATION    FOR     ORDER
17    through 20, inclusive.                           SPECIALLY SETTING A HEARING
18                                                     ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
                             Defendants.               EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION
19
                                                       Date: August 25, 2022       g y FAX
20                                                     Time: 9:00a.m.
21                                                     Dept.: 53
                                                       Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
23          Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) respectfully opposes Defendant Liqui-Box
24   Corporation's ("Defendant") Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting a Hearing on
25   Defendant's Motion for Expert Witness Designation {"exparte application").
26          First, there is no good cause here. Defendant originally served its Demand for Exchange
27   of Expert Witness Information on July 1,2022, with an explicit date of exchange of July 21,2022.
28   (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Opposition ["Khos. Decl."], ^ 3; attached as Exhibit

                               MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                                              1 of 3
 1 A is a tme and correct copy of Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Demand for Exchange of
 2   Expert Witness Information.) Thereafter, Plaintiff timely served her Designation of Expert
 3   Witnesses and Demand for Exchange with supporting declaration on July 21, 2022. (Khos. Decl.,
 4   T[ 4; attached as Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Designation of
 5   Expert Witnesses and Demand for Exchange; Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi.)
 6           Despite Defendant itself designating the exchange date of July 21, 2022, Defendant did
 7   not provide its list of designated expert witnesses until July 25.2022, four days after already
 8   having obtained Plaintiff's designated expert list. (Khos. Decl., ^ 5; attached as Exhibit C is
 9   a tme and correct copy of Defendant's Exchange of Expert Witness Information and Expert
10   Witness Declaration.) This delay prejudiced Plaintiff because Defendant violated the
11   simultaneous exchange rule by being provided in advance Plaintiffs list of expert witnesses
12   before proffering its own. If anything, it is Plaintiff who suffers prejudice and irreparable harm if
13   ex parte relief is granted here. (See Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 1019 [The Court
14   of Appeal determined that the defendant had misused the expert disclosure process. The defendant
15   knew the issues in the case and what issues likely would require expert testimony. By not
16   designating any expert at the time of the initial designation, the defendant abused the discovery
17   process].)
18          Further, there is no irreparable harm to Defendant here. Plaintiff intends to file a motion
19   in limine to exclude Defendant's designated expert witnesses on this same basis, namely that
20   Defendant's late exchange violated the simultaneous exchange mle under Code of Civil
21   Procedure § 2034.210, and hence should be excluded per Evidence Code § 723. Defendant can
22   oppose that motion at trial, rather than continue to waste this Court's time with yet another ex
23 parte application seeking pre-trial relief which, frankly, was caused once again by Defendant's
24   lack of diligence in not timely serving its designated expert witness list in the first place.
25          Simply put, there is no irreparable harm nor good cause here. The ex parte application
26   must be denied.
27          ///
28          ///


                                MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                                               2 of 3
 1   Dated: August 24, 2022            LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
                                       FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2
3
4
                                       Arash S. Khosrowshahi
5                                      Joshua S. Falakassa
                                       Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
6
7
 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


                              MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                                             3 of 3