Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FILED/Ef^OORSED
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
DepLi:v (^lerk
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
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: 2664201
15 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
vs. TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
16 TO PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
17 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 THREE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
through 20, inclusive.
18
Date: August 25, 2022
Defendants. B FAX
19 Time: 1:30pm
Dept.: 53
20 Trial Date: September 12, 2022
21 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendanf) Memorandum of Points and
22 Authorities in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Furthei
23 Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Monetary Sanctions ("Opposition") suggests
24 that it is actually Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') who failed to adequately meet and confer to
25 better define the terms and scope of her interrogatories before filing the Motion to Compel. But al
26 the same time. Defendant's counsel also makes several representations under oath that:
27
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
1 of 3
1 (1) Defendant provided OSHA Form 300 Logs of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses
2 from 2017 to 2019 (Opposition, p. 2, lines 25-27);
3 (2) There were no OSHA Form 300 Logs for 2020 and 2021 because there were no injuries
4 those years (Id., p. 2, lines 27-28; p. 3, line 1);
5 (3) Defendant provided OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and
6 Illnesses from 2017 to 2021 (Id., p. 3, lines 1-2);
7 (4) Form 300A for 2022 has not been prepared yet (Id., p. 3, lines 2-3);
8 (5) After a diligent search, Defendant cannot locate OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness
9 Incident Report for Plaintiff because it was misplaced (Id., p. 3, lines 4-6); and
10 (6) Defendant's counsel is scheduled to meet with Defendant's representative
11 knowledgeable regarding the process for maintain Form 301 Incident Report to do a
12 second search. (Id., p. 3, lines 6-10.)
13 These representations clearly betray Defendant's understanding of what Plaintiffs interrogatories
14 were asking for, i.e. identifying information of persons responsible for/knowledgeable ol
15 drafting/storing the OSHA logs in question, and where they were stored. Therefore, Defendant
16 could have provided code-compliant responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220,
17 rather than providing boilerplate meritless objections without responding at all. Indeed, Deyo v.
18 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783 makes perfectly clear that "where the question is
19 somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper
20 solution is to provide an appropriate response." (emphasis added.) Defendant knew what
21 Plaintiff was asking for and simply chose not to respond.
22 Separately, Defendant makes much hay that Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer,
23 while omitting the obvious context that the discovery cutoff in this case was August 12, 2022
24 Plaintiff tried to meet and confer before the cutoff approached, as Mr. Khosrowshahi's Declaration
25 in Support of the Motion to Compel shows. But Defendant instead engaged in its bad-faith
26 objections that it did not know what Plaintiff was asking for when Plaintiff used plain English
27 terms, i.e. "responsible for drafting" and "responsible for storing", which is absurd on its face.
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
2 of 3
1 In short. Defendant's arguments that its boilerplate objections have merit have been
2 adequately addressed in the Motion to Compel, as they were in the meet and confer process. If
3 Defendant wanted to explain the merits of its objections in greater (but still unsatisfactory) detail
4 as it has in its Opposition, it should have done so during the meet and confer process. Further,
5 Plaintiff would have been open to compromises to informally resolve the issues, but Defendant
6 did not use the meet and confer period to do so.
7 As such. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT her Motion to Compel, and
8 ORDER Defendant (1) be compelled to provide further response to Special Interrogatories, Set 3,
9 and (2) to pay separate monetary sanctions in an amount of $4,910.00
10 Dated: August 18, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
11 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
12
13 By:
Arash S. Khosrowshahi
14 Joshua S. Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
3 of 3
Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FILED/Ef^OORSED 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 DepLi:v (^lerk 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 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: 2664201 15 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION vs. TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 16 TO PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 17 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 THREE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS through 20, inclusive. 18 Date: August 25, 2022 Defendants. B FAX 19 Time: 1:30pm Dept.: 53 20 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 21 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendanf) Memorandum of Points and 22 Authorities in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Furthei 23 Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Monetary Sanctions ("Opposition") suggests 24 that it is actually Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') who failed to adequately meet and confer to 25 better define the terms and scope of her interrogatories before filing the Motion to Compel. But al 26 the same time. Defendant's counsel also makes several representations under oath that: 27 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 1 of 3 1 (1) Defendant provided OSHA Form 300 Logs of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses 2 from 2017 to 2019 (Opposition, p. 2, lines 25-27); 3 (2) There were no OSHA Form 300 Logs for 2020 and 2021 because there were no injuries 4 those years (Id., p. 2, lines 27-28; p. 3, line 1); 5 (3) Defendant provided OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and 6 Illnesses from 2017 to 2021 (Id., p. 3, lines 1-2); 7 (4) Form 300A for 2022 has not been prepared yet (Id., p. 3, lines 2-3); 8 (5) After a diligent search, Defendant cannot locate OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness 9 Incident Report for Plaintiff because it was misplaced (Id., p. 3, lines 4-6); and 10 (6) Defendant's counsel is scheduled to meet with Defendant's representative 11 knowledgeable regarding the process for maintain Form 301 Incident Report to do a 12 second search. (Id., p. 3, lines 6-10.) 13 These representations clearly betray Defendant's understanding of what Plaintiffs interrogatories 14 were asking for, i.e. identifying information of persons responsible for/knowledgeable ol 15 drafting/storing the OSHA logs in question, and where they were stored. Therefore, Defendant 16 could have provided code-compliant responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220, 17 rather than providing boilerplate meritless objections without responding at all. Indeed, Deyo v. 18 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783 makes perfectly clear that "where the question is 19 somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper 20 solution is to provide an appropriate response." (emphasis added.) Defendant knew what 21 Plaintiff was asking for and simply chose not to respond. 22 Separately, Defendant makes much hay that Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer, 23 while omitting the obvious context that the discovery cutoff in this case was August 12, 2022 24 Plaintiff tried to meet and confer before the cutoff approached, as Mr. Khosrowshahi's Declaration 25 in Support of the Motion to Compel shows. But Defendant instead engaged in its bad-faith 26 objections that it did not know what Plaintiff was asking for when Plaintiff used plain English 27 terms, i.e. "responsible for drafting" and "responsible for storing", which is absurd on its face. 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 2 of 3 1 In short. Defendant's arguments that its boilerplate objections have merit have been 2 adequately addressed in the Motion to Compel, as they were in the meet and confer process. If 3 Defendant wanted to explain the merits of its objections in greater (but still unsatisfactory) detail 4 as it has in its Opposition, it should have done so during the meet and confer process. Further, 5 Plaintiff would have been open to compromises to informally resolve the issues, but Defendant 6 did not use the meet and confer period to do so. 7 As such. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT her Motion to Compel, and 8 ORDER Defendant (1) be compelled to provide further response to Special Interrogatories, Set 3, 9 and (2) to pay separate monetary sanctions in an amount of $4,910.00 10 Dated: August 18, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 11 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 12 13 By: Arash S. Khosrowshahi 14 Joshua S. Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 3 of 3