Preview
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or
Alternatively Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DATE/TIME : August 11, 2022 DEPT. NO : 53
JUDGE : Richard K. Sueyoshi CLERK : J. Servantez
REPORTER : None BAILIFF : None
SAJIDA ZAMAN,
Case No.: 34-2019-00252121
Plaintiffs,
v.
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order (1) Specially Setting Hearings on
Discovery Motions; or Alternatively (2) Seeking Hearings on
Discovery Motions on Shortened Time
The Court rules on this matter without hearing. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 166(a)(1); Sac. Sup. Ct. Local Rule
2.235(A); see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111. The Court has reviewed
the ex parte application and its supporting papers. No opposition was filed.
Plaintiff brings an ex parte application seeking the following: (1) to specially set hearings on two motions to
compel (presently noticed for hearing on September 1, 2022) for a new hearing date of August 25, or 26, 2022;
or (2) in the altemative, set new hearings for such motions on shortened time. The two motions at issue are
Plaintiffs Motion for Requests for Admissions, Set One, Be Deemed Admitted, and Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (General), Set Two, both of which appear to have been filed on June
29, 2022, and set for hearing on September 1, 2022, presumably based upon the next regularly-available date
provided by Court staff.
The Court sees no material difference in the "alternative" relief that Plaintiff seeks. The Court construes
Plaintiffs application as a single request to advance the hearings and thereby shorten time for briefing on
Plaintiffs motions.
While not cited by Plaintiff, California Rule of Court 3.1300(b) provides that an order shortening time for
hearing on a noticed motion may issue only if "supported by a declaration showing good cause." The reason for
the "good cause" requirement is obvious in that shortening time inherently causes prejudice to a degree which
does not exist for statutorily-noticed motions —• e.g., to opposing parties due to shortened time to file any
opposition papers, and to the Court due to substantially less time to prepare rulings given its already impacted
1
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or
Alternatively Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time
calendars. Good cause must be established to overcome such prejudice. Importantly, good cause requires that
the applicant demonstrate its own diligence.
Here, Plaintiffs application and supporting declaration is devoid of any explanation for why Plaintiff waited
until now to seek to shorten time for briefing and hearing on their motions. As this Court previously indicated,
a September 1, 2022 hearing date is not 15 days prior to the September 12, 2022 trial date and thus, not in
compliance with CCP 2024.020(a). Plaintiffs application does not explain why it waited nearly a month and
half to seek this relief Further, inexplicably, although Plaintiff brought an ex parte application on August 5,
2022 to advance hearings on five other motions (which the Court granted). Plaintiff did not include any request
for these two motions. This alone constitutes a lack of diligence. Indeed, given Plaintiffs passage of these
additional days, the briefing schedule imposed by the Court in its August 5, 2022 order would not be feasible for
these two motions. Finally, Plaintiff cites Local Rule 2.35(B) in support of its proposed briefing schedule.
However, Local Rule 2.35(B) does not vitiate CRC 3.1300(b)'s requirement of good cause for any order
shortening time.
Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the Court, in its discretion, GRANTS Plaintiffs application on the sole
ground that given the original filing date ofthe motions on June 29, 2022, an order shortening time would not
have been necessary but for the unavailability of earlier hearing dates at that time. Had this not been the case,
the Court would have denied this application given the circumstances described above.
Therefore, the hearing on Plaintiffs two motions shall be advanced to August 25, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., in
Department 53. Any opposition papers shall be served and filed by August 16, 2022. No reply briefing will
be permitted. Filings shall be made directly in Department 53. Service shall be by hand or electronically.
Plaintiff is ordered to give immediate amended notice of his motions and this order.
Certificate of Service by Mailing attached.
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or
Alternatively Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING
I, the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, certify that I am not a party to
this cause, and on the date shown below I served the foregoing MINUTE ORDER by sending true copies
thereof, addressed respectively to the persons and email addresses shown below:
Arash S. Khosrowshahi James T. Jones
Liberty Man Law, P.C. Jackson Lewis, P.C.
1010 F Street, Suite 300 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: ash(S),libertvmanlaw.com Email: James.Jonesfa),iacksonlewis.com
1, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cortect.
Dated: August I I , 2022
J. Servantez, Deputy Clerk
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
Preview
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or Alternatively Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME : August 11, 2022 DEPT. NO : 53 JUDGE : Richard K. Sueyoshi CLERK : J. Servantez REPORTER : None BAILIFF : None SAJIDA ZAMAN, Case No.: 34-2019-00252121 Plaintiffs, v. LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order (1) Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or Alternatively (2) Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time The Court rules on this matter without hearing. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 166(a)(1); Sac. Sup. Ct. Local Rule 2.235(A); see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111. The Court has reviewed the ex parte application and its supporting papers. No opposition was filed. Plaintiff brings an ex parte application seeking the following: (1) to specially set hearings on two motions to compel (presently noticed for hearing on September 1, 2022) for a new hearing date of August 25, or 26, 2022; or (2) in the altemative, set new hearings for such motions on shortened time. The two motions at issue are Plaintiffs Motion for Requests for Admissions, Set One, Be Deemed Admitted, and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (General), Set Two, both of which appear to have been filed on June 29, 2022, and set for hearing on September 1, 2022, presumably based upon the next regularly-available date provided by Court staff. The Court sees no material difference in the "alternative" relief that Plaintiff seeks. The Court construes Plaintiffs application as a single request to advance the hearings and thereby shorten time for briefing on Plaintiffs motions. While not cited by Plaintiff, California Rule of Court 3.1300(b) provides that an order shortening time for hearing on a noticed motion may issue only if "supported by a declaration showing good cause." The reason for the "good cause" requirement is obvious in that shortening time inherently causes prejudice to a degree which does not exist for statutorily-noticed motions —• e.g., to opposing parties due to shortened time to file any opposition papers, and to the Court due to substantially less time to prepare rulings given its already impacted 1 CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or Alternatively Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time calendars. Good cause must be established to overcome such prejudice. Importantly, good cause requires that the applicant demonstrate its own diligence. Here, Plaintiffs application and supporting declaration is devoid of any explanation for why Plaintiff waited until now to seek to shorten time for briefing and hearing on their motions. As this Court previously indicated, a September 1, 2022 hearing date is not 15 days prior to the September 12, 2022 trial date and thus, not in compliance with CCP 2024.020(a). Plaintiffs application does not explain why it waited nearly a month and half to seek this relief Further, inexplicably, although Plaintiff brought an ex parte application on August 5, 2022 to advance hearings on five other motions (which the Court granted). Plaintiff did not include any request for these two motions. This alone constitutes a lack of diligence. Indeed, given Plaintiffs passage of these additional days, the briefing schedule imposed by the Court in its August 5, 2022 order would not be feasible for these two motions. Finally, Plaintiff cites Local Rule 2.35(B) in support of its proposed briefing schedule. However, Local Rule 2.35(B) does not vitiate CRC 3.1300(b)'s requirement of good cause for any order shortening time. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the Court, in its discretion, GRANTS Plaintiffs application on the sole ground that given the original filing date ofthe motions on June 29, 2022, an order shortening time would not have been necessary but for the unavailability of earlier hearing dates at that time. Had this not been the case, the Court would have denied this application given the circumstances described above. Therefore, the hearing on Plaintiffs two motions shall be advanced to August 25, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53. Any opposition papers shall be served and filed by August 16, 2022. No reply briefing will be permitted. Filings shall be made directly in Department 53. Service shall be by hand or electronically. Plaintiff is ordered to give immediate amended notice of his motions and this order. Certificate of Service by Mailing attached. CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Specially Setting Hearings on Discovery Motions; or Alternatively Seeking Hearings on Discovery Motions on Shortened Time CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING I, the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, certify that I am not a party to this cause, and on the date shown below I served the foregoing MINUTE ORDER by sending true copies thereof, addressed respectively to the persons and email addresses shown below: Arash S. Khosrowshahi James T. Jones Liberty Man Law, P.C. Jackson Lewis, P.C. 1010 F Street, Suite 300 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: ash(S),libertvmanlaw.com Email: James.Jonesfa),iacksonlewis.com 1, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cortect. Dated: August I I , 2022 J. Servantez, Deputy Clerk Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento