Party Discovery: Sajida Zaman vs. Liqui-Box Corporation

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)                                         Fl EWEU
                                                                                   !80 RS EO
   FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450
                                                                                    AUG 1 8 2022
 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
   Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
                                                                             By:.     E. Macdonald
 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com                                                         Deputy Clerk

 5   ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
 6   LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
     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,
10   SAJIDA ZAMAN

11                               SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12
                                     COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14   SAJIDA ZAMAN,                                     CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
                                                       RESERVATION ID: 2664198
15          Plaintiff,                                 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
     vs.                                               TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO
16                                                     PLAINTIFF      SAJIDA      ZAMAN'S
     LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1                 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
17                                                     DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT LIQUI-
     through 20, inclusive.                            BOX CORPORATION, SET FIVE, AND
18                                                     MONETARY SANCTIONS
            Defendants.
19
                                                       Date: August 25, 2022
                                                       Time: 1:30pm                                    B/FAX
20
                                                       Dept.: 53
21                                                     Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22          Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendant") Memorandum of Points and
23   Authorities in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Furthei
24   Responses to Request for Production, Set Five, and Monetary Sanctions ("Opposition") suggests
25   that it is actually Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') who failed to adequately meet and confer
26   before filing the Motion to Compel. This omits the obvious context that the discovery cutoff in
27   this case was August 12, 2022. Plaintiff tried to meet and confer before the cutoff approached, as
28


                               REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
                                                 1 of 2
 1 Mr. Khosrowshahi's Declaration in Support of the Motion to Compel shows. But Defendant
 2 instead hid behind boilerplate, meritless objections, and did not even bother to meet and confer in
 3 detail as to why they may have merit. Indeed, Defendant stonewalled production on this discovery
4 by simply claiming Plaintiff needed to produce discovery of her own, without meeting and
 5 conferring as to those requests either. If Defendant wanted to explain the merits of its objections
 6 in greater (but still unsatisfactory) detail as it has in its Opposition, it should have done so during
 7 the meet and confer process.
 8           Plaintiff should not have to bear the burden of filing muhiple discovery motions because
 9 Defendant did not engage in a good-faith meet and confer effort, simply for Defendant to
10 opportunistically say Plaintiff did not allow sufficient time to meet and confer adequately
11 Discovery is meant to be a self-executing process. (Clement v. Alegre (2009), 177 Cal. App. 4'tf
12 1277, 1281.) Meeting and conferring requires there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal
13 resolution. The law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views,
14 consult, and deliberate. (Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (2013) 218
15 Cal.App.4th 853, 879.) The record makes it clear Defendant did not take its discovery obligations
16 to meet and confer seriously here at all, with its efforts to now explain away its objections being
17 made far too late in the Opposition.
18           Further, Plaintiff would have been open to compromises to informally resolve the issues
19 but Defendant did not use the meet and confer period to do so.
20           Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectftilly requests this Court GRANT her Motion to
21   Compel, and ORDER Defendant (1) be compelled to provide further response to Requests for
22 Production of Documents, Set 5, (2) produce the documents, and (3) to pay separate monetary
23 sanctions in an amount of $3,160.00 and $250.00.
24 Dated: August 18, 2022                   LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
                                            FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
25
26
27                                          Arash S. Khosrowshahi
                                            Joshua S. Falakassa
28                                          Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman

                               REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
                                                 2 of 2