Preview
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967)
2 400 Capitol Mail, Suite 1600
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
3 Telephone: (916) 341-0404 FILIB/BIOORSEO
Facsimile: (916) 341-0141
4 Email: iames.jones@iacksonlewis.com
5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
BENJAMIN A. MAINS (SBN 274056) By;
6 50 Califomia Street, 9'*' Floor
San Francisco, Califomia 94111
7 Telephone: (415)394-9400
Facsimile: (415)394-9401
8 Email: beniamin.mains@iacksonlewis.com
9 Attomeys for Defendant
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO. 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS
14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX
CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF
15 vs. ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
16 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST
17 through 20, inclusive. FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE, AND
MONETARY SANCTIONS
18 Defendants.
Rescheduled Date August 25, 2022
19 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept:
20 Reservation No.: 2664198 gY FAX
21 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
23 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, mle 3.1345, Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation
24 ("Defendant") submits its Opposition to Plaintiffs Statement of Items in Dispute filed in support
25 of its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production,
26 Set Five, and Monetary Sanctions, as follows:
27 ///
28 ///
1
DBF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE EN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET F I V E , NO. 1;
2 All documents YOU identified in YOUR responses to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special
3 Interrogatories to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation Set Four (4)."
4 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because
5 Defendant has not yet identified any such documents. Defendant further objects to this request to
6 the extent it calls for production of records that is overbroad in time and scope because they are
7 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, would
8 violate the right to privacy of the persons involved, and seeks information protected by the
9 attorney-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine.
10 FACTUAL AND L E G A L REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE AND
11 DOCUMENTS.
12 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240 provides in relevant part:
13 "(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand...is objectionable, the response
14 shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with
15 respect to the remainder of that item or category.
16 (b) I f the responding party objects to the demand ... of an item or category of item, the
17 response shall do both of the following:
18 (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically
19 stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an
20 objection is being made...
21 (c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is
22 protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other
23 parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log." Here,
24 Defendant's objections are without merit or too general for the following reasons: Vague &
25 AmbisMous: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts.
26 "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information
27 sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." {Deyo v. Kilbourne
28 (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) Plaintiff already discussed the definitions of key terms with
2
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
1 Defendant in the July 12, 2022 meet and confer letter: indeed, "Sacramento facility" and
2 "reprimand" were well-defined in Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and the CSB policy is well-
3 known to the litigants after over three years of litigation.
4 Overbroad: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about
5 Defendant producing the supporting documents for each Sacramento employee
6 reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB in the last 10 years. Plaintiff even tried to
7 compromise in the July 12, 2022 letter and limit the time to when the CSB has been in effect,
8 which was less than 10 years, but Defendant never responded to this offer of compromise.
9 Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence: Code of Civil
10 Procedure § 2017.010 states in pertinent part that "any party may obtain discovery regarding any
11 matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to
12 the determination of any motion made in that action, i f the matter either is itself admissible in
13 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
14 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party
15 to the action. Discovery may be obtained... of the existence, description, nature, custody,
16 condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing,
17 or land or other property." (emphasis added.)
18 Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper rule is declared to be not only one of
19 liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory
20 or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56
21 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(1) to give greater assistance to
22 the parties in ascertaining the tmth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an
23 effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to
24 make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be
25 proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value
26 of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to
27 safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to
28 expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature
3
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature
2 of the trial itself" {Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376)
3 Plaintiff has broad rights to discovery, which includes obtaining the supporting documents
4 for each Sacramento employee reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB in the last 10 years.
5 By objecting without responding, Defendant prevents ascertainment of the truth in being able to
6 review the documents; prevents determination of whether Defendant's proffered "business
7 justification" that Plaintiff was terminated for reporting her pain late is nothing more than a sham
8 and pretext given how selectively the CSB is applied, which these documents would tend to show
9 one way or the other; prevents convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving forward;
10 prevents educating the parties on the value of their claims/defenses; and only serves to further
11 delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial is fast approaching.
12 Right to Privacy of Third Parties: "[N]ot every assertion of a privacy interest under article 1,
13 section 1 must be overcome by a 'compelling interest.'" {Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th
14 531, 556 [citations omitted].) "In evaluating privacy claims, considerations which, among others, will
15 affect the exercise of the trial court's discretion include the purpose of the information sought, the
16 effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the nature of the objections urged by the
17 party resisting disclosure, and ability of the court to make an altemative order which may grant partial
18 disclosure, disclosure in another form, or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the
19 infonnation undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances." {Alch v.
20 Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425-26 [emphasis added][citations omitted].) Plaintiff
21 is only asking for the supporting documents as to employees who Defendant contends were
22 reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB in Sacramento in the last 10 years, which cannot
23 implicate any privacy concerns meriting the level of a strict disclosure.
24 Attorney-Client Privilege/Attorney Work Product: nothing about producing supporting
25 documents the requested reprimanded/terminated employees are plausibly protected by attomey-
26 client privilege or work product. Defendant cannot plausibly claim every single document in
27 support of reprimanding/terminating an employee for violating the CSB, was drafted or consulted
28 ///
4
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
1 with by any attomey, which Defendant has never even identified in a privilege log. This objection is
2 simply being made in bad faith to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining critical information prior to trial.
3 Good cause exists for Plaintiff to be requesting documents regarding Defendant
4 addressing any defects in machinery Plaintiff worked with and altered Defendant to from
5 Febmary to August 2019. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that from Febmary to August 2019,
6 he alerted Defendant to the defective coil in the machine he operated to manufacture plastic bags,
7 but that Defendant did nothing to repair or address the defect. As a result. Plaintiff incurred
8 work-related injuries and disabilities in repairing the machine himself to meet production quotas.
9 But because Plaintiff did not report these cumulative trauma injuries "immediately" per
10 Defendant's CSB policy. Defendant terminated his nearly 20 years of employment. Plaintiff is
11 naturally entitled to any responsive documents regarding the defects in machinery he reported
12 during the relevant time period, which will go to show that Defendant's proffered business
13 justification for terminating his employment was pretextual per the McDonnell Douglas test
14 under Plaintiffs FEHA causes of action. (See generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
15 (1973) 411 U.S. 792.) In other words. Plaintiff reported defects in machinery to Defendant
16 immediately and repeatedly per the CSB policy, which Defendant ignored—but Defendant
17 selectively enforced the policy to discriminate and terminate Plaintiff for his disabilities and
18 work-related injuries. (See also Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376 [Purposes of discovery are
19 "to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and
20 defenses" and "to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and
21 defenses[.]")
22 Generally, the Civil Discovery Act provides broad rights to discoverable infonnation, i.e.
23 if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
24 discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; see also Greyhound Corp., 56
25 Cal.2d at 382 [A party is entitled to disclosure in discovery as "a matter of right unless statutory or
26 public policy considerations clearly prohibit it."])
27 Good cause exists for Plaintiff to be requesting documents regarding Sacramento
28 employees who violated Defendant's CSB policy in the last 10 years, leading to their reprimand
5
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
1 or termination of employment. Plaintiff alleges in her FAC that she incurred work-related injuries
2 and disabilities while working back on December 3, 2018 but was not aware it was an injury until
3 January 3, 2019, when she reported to Defendant. But because Plaintiff did not report her injury
4 "immediately" per Defendant's CSB policy, i.e. December 3, 2018, Defendant terminated her 16
5 years of employment, giving no credence to Plaintiffs own lack of knowledge of her injury on
6 December 3, 2018.
7 Plaintiff is therefore naturally entitled to any responsive documents regarding whether
8 other employees have been targeted for reprimand, discipline, and/or termination for reporting
9 work-related injuries "late" regardless of when the employee learned that they had a work-related
10 injury. This would tend to show that Defendant's proffered business justification for terminating
11 Plaintiffs employment, and any other employee with repetitive strain/cumulative trauma injuries
12 who were not immediately aware they had an injury to know to report it to Defendant, was
13 pretextual per the McDonnell Douglas test under Plaintiffs FEHA causes of action. (See
14 generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792; Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d
15 at 376 [Purposes of discovery are "to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false,
16 fraudulent and sham claims and defenses" and "to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the
17 real value of their claims and defenses[.]")
18 As such, good cause exists for Plaintiff to request these documents.
19 Defendant's Response
20 As set forth the accompanying Declaration of James T. Jones, Plaintiff has failed to
21 adequately meet and confer in good faith prior to filing this Motion. Defendant explained the
22 need for additional time to meet and confer and was willing to extend Plaintiffs deadline to file
23 her Motion in order for Defendant to provide further responses. However, Plaintiff rebuffed this
24 offer to meet and confer over this discovery dispute in good faith. Instead, Plaintiff proceeded
25 with an unnecessary motion and forced Defendant to divert its attention to opposing numerous
26 motions for no legitimate reason.
27 Critically, Defendant raised meritorious objections because this document demand relates
28 to interrogatories that are themselves objectionable. As to the interrogatories, Plaintiffs
6
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
1 suggested "compromise" belies the defects in the interrogatory, as Plaintiff obviously intended for
2 Defendant to evaluate events dating as far back as 10 years to now comment on whether they
3 would have violated the CSB issued on May 31, 2018, and to describe discipline that was
4 implemented as far back as six years before the policy was issued. Plaintiffs corresponding
5 document request is therefore similarly problematic.
6 This Court should ignore Plaintiffs baseless factual and legal reasons for compelling
7 further responses because (1) Defendant already agreed to provide a response to Plaintiffs meet
8 and confer letter and demand for further responses on July 12, 2022, and (2) Plaintiffs suggestion
9 that because her interrogatory "only" asks for identifying information of other employees for each
10 employee Defendant contends violated the safety policy in the last 10 years, therefore she does
11 not need a compelling interest to overcome those employees' privacy claims, are not based in fact
12 or law. Any documents referenced in interrogatory responses would, ostensibly relate to this
13 information.
14 However, Plaintiffs suggested "compromise" belies the defects in the interrogatory, as
15 Plaintiff obviously intended for Defendant to evaluate events dating as far back as 10 years to
16 now comment on whether they would have violated the CSB issued on May 31, 2018, and to
17 describe discipline that was implemented as far back as six years before the policy was issued.
18 Defendant is willing to provide the information requested from the date the CSB was issued until
19 the present. (However, there is no way for Defendant to know the identity of every person who
20 became knowledgeable of discipline imposed related to the CSB. Defendant proposes that this be
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
7
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
limited to the names of individuals who issued any such discipline or who provided information
2
leading to it.) Once interrogatory responses are provided. Defendant will have no objection to
3
producing records it identifies in those responses, but doing so now is premature, as Defendant
4
has not yet provided interrogatory responses.
5 Dated: August 15, 2022 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
6
7 By:
JAMES T. JONES
8 BENJAMIN A. MAINS
9 Attomeys for Defendant
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
10 "
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS EN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE
1 PROOF OF S E R V I C E
2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C,
3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814.
4 On August 15, 2022,1 served the within:
5 DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
6 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET F I V E ,
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
7
on all interested parties in said action, through their attomeys of record as listed below, by placing
8 a tme and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means:
9 Q PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy
thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil
10 Procedure section 1011 (a).
11 Q M A I L - by placing a tme and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mailbox, at
12 my business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.'s ordinary business
practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which 1 am readily familiar, and
13 addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection
and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States
14 Postal Service.
15 Q OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a tme and correct copy thereof enclosed
in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility
16 regularly maintained by UPS or delivering to an authorized courier or driver
authorized by UPS to receive documents, addressed as set forth below.
17
[X] E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on Califomia Code of Civil
18 Procedure Section 1010.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be
sent from e-mail address kellv.asano@jacksonlewis.com to the person(s) at the e-mail
19 address(es) listed below. 1 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
20 unsuccessful.
21 Joshua F. Falakassa (SBN 295045) Arash S. Khosrowshahi (SBN 293246)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
22 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 lOlO F Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sacramento, CA 95814
23 Telephone: (818)456-6168 Telephone: (916) 573-0469
Facsimile: (888)505-0868 Facsimile: (866) 700-0787
24 Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libert^manlaw.com
2^ 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
2g foregoing is tme and correct, and that this declaration was executed on August 15, 2022 at
Sacrame„,o,Califon,ia. l ^ ^ M ^ f
Kelly Asano
28 4877-9733-2782, v. 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967) 2 400 Capitol Mail, Suite 1600 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 3 Telephone: (916) 341-0404 FILIB/BIOORSEO Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 4 Email: iames.jones@iacksonlewis.com 5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. BENJAMIN A. MAINS (SBN 274056) By; 6 50 Califomia Street, 9'*' Floor San Francisco, Califomia 94111 7 Telephone: (415)394-9400 Facsimile: (415)394-9401 8 Email: beniamin.mains@iacksonlewis.com 9 Attomeys for Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO. 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF 15 vs. ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO 16 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST 17 through 20, inclusive. FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS 18 Defendants. Rescheduled Date August 25, 2022 19 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 20 Reservation No.: 2664198 gY FAX 21 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 23 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court, mle 3.1345, Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation 24 ("Defendant") submits its Opposition to Plaintiffs Statement of Items in Dispute filed in support 25 of its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, 26 Set Five, and Monetary Sanctions, as follows: 27 /// 28 /// 1 DBF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE EN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET F I V E , NO. 1; 2 All documents YOU identified in YOUR responses to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special 3 Interrogatories to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation Set Four (4)." 4 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because 5 Defendant has not yet identified any such documents. Defendant further objects to this request to 6 the extent it calls for production of records that is overbroad in time and scope because they are 7 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, would 8 violate the right to privacy of the persons involved, and seeks information protected by the 9 attorney-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. 10 FACTUAL AND L E G A L REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE AND 11 DOCUMENTS. 12 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240 provides in relevant part: 13 "(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand...is objectionable, the response 14 shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with 15 respect to the remainder of that item or category. 16 (b) I f the responding party objects to the demand ... of an item or category of item, the 17 response shall do both of the following: 18 (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically 19 stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an 20 objection is being made... 21 (c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is 22 protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other 23 parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log." Here, 24 Defendant's objections are without merit or too general for the following reasons: Vague & 25 AmbisMous: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts. 26 "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information 27 sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." {Deyo v. Kilbourne 28 (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) Plaintiff already discussed the definitions of key terms with 2 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE 1 Defendant in the July 12, 2022 meet and confer letter: indeed, "Sacramento facility" and 2 "reprimand" were well-defined in Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and the CSB policy is well- 3 known to the litigants after over three years of litigation. 4 Overbroad: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about 5 Defendant producing the supporting documents for each Sacramento employee 6 reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB in the last 10 years. Plaintiff even tried to 7 compromise in the July 12, 2022 letter and limit the time to when the CSB has been in effect, 8 which was less than 10 years, but Defendant never responded to this offer of compromise. 9 Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence: Code of Civil 10 Procedure § 2017.010 states in pertinent part that "any party may obtain discovery regarding any 11 matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to 12 the determination of any motion made in that action, i f the matter either is itself admissible in 13 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party 15 to the action. Discovery may be obtained... of the existence, description, nature, custody, 16 condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, 17 or land or other property." (emphasis added.) 18 Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper rule is declared to be not only one of 19 liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory 20 or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 21 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(1) to give greater assistance to 22 the parties in ascertaining the tmth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an 23 effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to 24 make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be 25 proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value 26 of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to 27 safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to 28 expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature 3 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature 2 of the trial itself" {Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376) 3 Plaintiff has broad rights to discovery, which includes obtaining the supporting documents 4 for each Sacramento employee reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB in the last 10 years. 5 By objecting without responding, Defendant prevents ascertainment of the truth in being able to 6 review the documents; prevents determination of whether Defendant's proffered "business 7 justification" that Plaintiff was terminated for reporting her pain late is nothing more than a sham 8 and pretext given how selectively the CSB is applied, which these documents would tend to show 9 one way or the other; prevents convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving forward; 10 prevents educating the parties on the value of their claims/defenses; and only serves to further 11 delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial is fast approaching. 12 Right to Privacy of Third Parties: "[N]ot every assertion of a privacy interest under article 1, 13 section 1 must be overcome by a 'compelling interest.'" {Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 14 531, 556 [citations omitted].) "In evaluating privacy claims, considerations which, among others, will 15 affect the exercise of the trial court's discretion include the purpose of the information sought, the 16 effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the nature of the objections urged by the 17 party resisting disclosure, and ability of the court to make an altemative order which may grant partial 18 disclosure, disclosure in another form, or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the 19 infonnation undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances." {Alch v. 20 Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425-26 [emphasis added][citations omitted].) Plaintiff 21 is only asking for the supporting documents as to employees who Defendant contends were 22 reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB in Sacramento in the last 10 years, which cannot 23 implicate any privacy concerns meriting the level of a strict disclosure. 24 Attorney-Client Privilege/Attorney Work Product: nothing about producing supporting 25 documents the requested reprimanded/terminated employees are plausibly protected by attomey- 26 client privilege or work product. Defendant cannot plausibly claim every single document in 27 support of reprimanding/terminating an employee for violating the CSB, was drafted or consulted 28 /// 4 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE 1 with by any attomey, which Defendant has never even identified in a privilege log. This objection is 2 simply being made in bad faith to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining critical information prior to trial. 3 Good cause exists for Plaintiff to be requesting documents regarding Defendant 4 addressing any defects in machinery Plaintiff worked with and altered Defendant to from 5 Febmary to August 2019. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that from Febmary to August 2019, 6 he alerted Defendant to the defective coil in the machine he operated to manufacture plastic bags, 7 but that Defendant did nothing to repair or address the defect. As a result. Plaintiff incurred 8 work-related injuries and disabilities in repairing the machine himself to meet production quotas. 9 But because Plaintiff did not report these cumulative trauma injuries "immediately" per 10 Defendant's CSB policy. Defendant terminated his nearly 20 years of employment. Plaintiff is 11 naturally entitled to any responsive documents regarding the defects in machinery he reported 12 during the relevant time period, which will go to show that Defendant's proffered business 13 justification for terminating his employment was pretextual per the McDonnell Douglas test 14 under Plaintiffs FEHA causes of action. (See generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green 15 (1973) 411 U.S. 792.) In other words. Plaintiff reported defects in machinery to Defendant 16 immediately and repeatedly per the CSB policy, which Defendant ignored—but Defendant 17 selectively enforced the policy to discriminate and terminate Plaintiff for his disabilities and 18 work-related injuries. (See also Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376 [Purposes of discovery are 19 "to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and 20 defenses" and "to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and 21 defenses[.]") 22 Generally, the Civil Discovery Act provides broad rights to discoverable infonnation, i.e. 23 if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 24 discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; see also Greyhound Corp., 56 25 Cal.2d at 382 [A party is entitled to disclosure in discovery as "a matter of right unless statutory or 26 public policy considerations clearly prohibit it."]) 27 Good cause exists for Plaintiff to be requesting documents regarding Sacramento 28 employees who violated Defendant's CSB policy in the last 10 years, leading to their reprimand 5 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE 1 or termination of employment. Plaintiff alleges in her FAC that she incurred work-related injuries 2 and disabilities while working back on December 3, 2018 but was not aware it was an injury until 3 January 3, 2019, when she reported to Defendant. But because Plaintiff did not report her injury 4 "immediately" per Defendant's CSB policy, i.e. December 3, 2018, Defendant terminated her 16 5 years of employment, giving no credence to Plaintiffs own lack of knowledge of her injury on 6 December 3, 2018. 7 Plaintiff is therefore naturally entitled to any responsive documents regarding whether 8 other employees have been targeted for reprimand, discipline, and/or termination for reporting 9 work-related injuries "late" regardless of when the employee learned that they had a work-related 10 injury. This would tend to show that Defendant's proffered business justification for terminating 11 Plaintiffs employment, and any other employee with repetitive strain/cumulative trauma injuries 12 who were not immediately aware they had an injury to know to report it to Defendant, was 13 pretextual per the McDonnell Douglas test under Plaintiffs FEHA causes of action. (See 14 generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792; Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d 15 at 376 [Purposes of discovery are "to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, 16 fraudulent and sham claims and defenses" and "to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the 17 real value of their claims and defenses[.]") 18 As such, good cause exists for Plaintiff to request these documents. 19 Defendant's Response 20 As set forth the accompanying Declaration of James T. Jones, Plaintiff has failed to 21 adequately meet and confer in good faith prior to filing this Motion. Defendant explained the 22 need for additional time to meet and confer and was willing to extend Plaintiffs deadline to file 23 her Motion in order for Defendant to provide further responses. However, Plaintiff rebuffed this 24 offer to meet and confer over this discovery dispute in good faith. Instead, Plaintiff proceeded 25 with an unnecessary motion and forced Defendant to divert its attention to opposing numerous 26 motions for no legitimate reason. 27 Critically, Defendant raised meritorious objections because this document demand relates 28 to interrogatories that are themselves objectionable. As to the interrogatories, Plaintiffs 6 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE 1 suggested "compromise" belies the defects in the interrogatory, as Plaintiff obviously intended for 2 Defendant to evaluate events dating as far back as 10 years to now comment on whether they 3 would have violated the CSB issued on May 31, 2018, and to describe discipline that was 4 implemented as far back as six years before the policy was issued. Plaintiffs corresponding 5 document request is therefore similarly problematic. 6 This Court should ignore Plaintiffs baseless factual and legal reasons for compelling 7 further responses because (1) Defendant already agreed to provide a response to Plaintiffs meet 8 and confer letter and demand for further responses on July 12, 2022, and (2) Plaintiffs suggestion 9 that because her interrogatory "only" asks for identifying information of other employees for each 10 employee Defendant contends violated the safety policy in the last 10 years, therefore she does 11 not need a compelling interest to overcome those employees' privacy claims, are not based in fact 12 or law. Any documents referenced in interrogatory responses would, ostensibly relate to this 13 information. 14 However, Plaintiffs suggested "compromise" belies the defects in the interrogatory, as 15 Plaintiff obviously intended for Defendant to evaluate events dating as far back as 10 years to 16 now comment on whether they would have violated the CSB issued on May 31, 2018, and to 17 describe discipline that was implemented as far back as six years before the policy was issued. 18 Defendant is willing to provide the information requested from the date the CSB was issued until 19 the present. (However, there is no way for Defendant to know the identity of every person who 20 became knowledgeable of discipline imposed related to the CSB. Defendant proposes that this be 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 7 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE limited to the names of individuals who issued any such discipline or who provided information 2 leading to it.) Once interrogatory responses are provided. Defendant will have no objection to 3 producing records it identifies in those responses, but doing so now is premature, as Defendant 4 has not yet provided interrogatory responses. 5 Dated: August 15, 2022 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 6 7 By: JAMES T. JONES 8 BENJAMIN A. MAINS 9 Attomeys for Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 10 " 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEF'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS EN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET FIVE 1 PROOF OF S E R V I C E 2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C, 3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814. 4 On August 15, 2022,1 served the within: 5 DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 6 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET F I V E , AND MONETARY SANCTIONS 7 on all interested parties in said action, through their attomeys of record as listed below, by placing 8 a tme and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means: 9 Q PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil 10 Procedure section 1011 (a). 11 Q M A I L - by placing a tme and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mailbox, at 12 my business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.'s ordinary business practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which 1 am readily familiar, and 13 addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States 14 Postal Service. 15 Q OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a tme and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility 16 regularly maintained by UPS or delivering to an authorized courier or driver authorized by UPS to receive documents, addressed as set forth below. 17 [X] E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on Califomia Code of Civil 18 Procedure Section 1010.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be sent from e-mail address kellv.asano@jacksonlewis.com to the person(s) at the e-mail 19 address(es) listed below. 1 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was 20 unsuccessful. 21 Joshua F. Falakassa (SBN 295045) Arash S. Khosrowshahi (SBN 293246) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 22 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 lOlO F Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sacramento, CA 95814 23 Telephone: (818)456-6168 Telephone: (916) 573-0469 Facsimile: (888)505-0868 Facsimile: (866) 700-0787 24 Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libert^manlaw.com 2^ 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the 2g foregoing is tme and correct, and that this declaration was executed on August 15, 2022 at Sacrame„,o,Califon,ia. l ^ ^ M ^ f Kelly Asano 28 4877-9733-2782, v. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE