Preview
IJOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com FSLEO/EiOOBSEO
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
AUG - 3 2022
6 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
lOlOFStteet, Ste. 300 H. PEMEI TON
By:.
7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Deputy Clerk
Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com
9
Attomeys for Plaintiff,
10 SAHDA ZAMAN
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
RESERVATION ID: 2664199
15 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
16 vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF SAJIDA
17 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 ZAMAN'S SPECIAL
through 20, inclusive. INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, AND
18 MONETARY SANCTIONS
Defendants.
19 BY FAX
Date: October 18, 2022
20 Time: 1:30pm
Dept.: 53
21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22 I. INTRODUCTION
23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') brings this instant Motion to Compel seeking discovery
24 sanctions after having attempted to meet and confer as to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's
25 ("Defendant") objections without responses with no luck.
26 Plaintiff alleges she was terminated after reporting her work-related injury in violation o
27 the FEHA, public policy, and the UCL. Importantly, Plaintiff alleges that her supposed violation
28 of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which requires employees to
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 of 10
1 immediately report all incidences, including work-related injuries, or else face immediate
2 termination, was used pretextually against her to terminate her for her disabilities and work-related
3 injury.
4 Plaintiff propounded her Special Interrogatories, Set Four on May 24, 2022, asking in sum
5 for Defendant to identify all facts/witnesses/and documents in support of terminating oi
6 reprimanding other employees for violating the CSB policy. Rather than respond. Defendant
7 provided only objections. When Plaintiffs counsel sent a detailed meet and confer letter on July
8 12, 2022 to informally resolve the issues. Defendant's counsel refiised to meet and confer on the
9 merits in good faith.
10 Defendant's objections are without merit and/or too general to allow refusal to respond to
11 the interrogatories. Given Defendant's history of misuse of the discovery process and failure to
12 meet and confer in good faith, monetary sanctions are also warranted.
13 With the motion to compel deadline and discovery cutoff fast approaching. Plaintiff files
14 the instant Motion and respectfully requests that this Court GRANT her Motion in its entirety.
15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
16 A. Plaintiff Sustained Work-Related Injuries and Disabilities to her Knee While
17 on the Job but was Terminated for Allegedly Not Reporting Immediately.
18 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
19 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was originally hired as a "Packer" at Defendant's
20 liquid bad manufacturing center in Sacramento in December 2003, and was eventually promoted
21 to "Inspector-Packer" (FAC, 16.) Plaintiff s job duties included packing and inspecting bags and
22 other labor-intensive tasks, requiring her to stand for long periods of time and lift/haul heavy loads
23 over 16 years of employment. (Id.)
24 On or about December 3, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to her left knee while working
25 for Defendants, and over time her knee stiffness tumed into consistent and considerable pain. (Id.,
26 I 7.) Plaintiff first became aware her pain was a work-related knee injury on or about January 3,
27 2019, which was when she reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and begin her worker's
28 compensation claim. (Id.) Defendant's human resources department sent Plaintiff for medical
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 10
1 examination to the workers compensation medical provider and monitored the examination
2 without Plaintiffs consent. (Id., f 8.)
3 Thereafter, Plaintiff was instmcted by Defendant to go home untilfiirthernotice but was
4 then summoned back for a work meeting on January 10, 2019. (Id., ^ 9.) At the meeting Plaintiffs
5 16 years of employment was terminated because she allegedly "neglected to report [her] injury
6 timely" in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which states in
7 relevant part, "Immediately report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no
8 matter how minor or without exception," and that "[a]ny violation of these Critical Safety
9 Behaviors will resuh in immediate termination of employment." (Id.)
10 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her work-related
11 injuries and disabilities, with the CSB policy used as pretext. (Id., 110.) Plaintiff brings causes of
12 action for (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of
13 Public Policy; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Engage in the
14 Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation in
15 Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Unfair Competition
16 Law.(M,^1I 19-64.)
17 B. Plaintiff Requested Supporting Facts/Witnesses/Documents Regarding "Me
18 Too" Evidence on Other Employees Reprimanded/Terminated for Violating
19 the CSB Policy.
20 On or about May 24, 2022, Plaintiff propounded her fourth set of Special Interrogatories
21 to Defendant. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Deck"], 13; attached as
22 Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories to
23 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set Four).)
24 The referenced Special Interrogatories in sum ask for the following information: (I) the
25 identifying information of employees who worked at Defendant's Sacramento facility who (a)
26 Defendant contends violated the CSB Policy in the last 10 years (Special Interrogatory, Set 4, No
27 34); (b) Defendant reprimanded for violating the CSB policy in the last 10 years (Id., No. 35); (c)
28 Defendant terminated for violating the CSB policy in the last 10 years (Id., No. 36); (2)(a)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 10
1 identifying information of each person with knowledge of each reprimand (Id., No. 37); (b) all
2 facts which supported each reprimand (Id., No. 38); (c) all documents containing information
3 Defendant relied on in the decision to reprimand (Id., No. 39); (3)(a) identifying information of
4 each person with knowledge of each termination (Id., No. 40); (b) all facts which supported each
5 termination (Id., No. 41); (c) all documents containing information Defendant relied on in the
6 decision to termination (Id., No. 42). (Khos. Deck, f 4; see Exhibit A.)
7 C. Defendant Responded by Only Providing Objections and Did not Respond to
8 Efforts by Plaintiffs Counsel to Meet and Confer.
9 Rather than respond, on or about June 27, 2022 Defendant provided only objections to the
10 interrogatories. (Khos. Deck, ^ 5; attached as Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of Defendant
11 Liqui-Box Corporation's Response to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Four.)
12 Defendant objected that the interrogatories were: (1) vague and ambiguous (Response to Special
13 Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 34-42); (2) compound (Id.); (3) calling for speculation (Id.); (4)
14 overbroad (Id?); (5) relevance/not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (Id.);
15 (6)rightto privacy (Id.); and (7) attomey-client privilege/attomey work product. (Id., Nos. 37-42.)
16 (Khos. Deck, 1 5; see Exhibit B.)
17 Plaintiffs counsel sent a meet and confer letter on or about July 12, 2022, detailing the
18 deficiencies of the objections (Khos. Deck, | 6; attached as Exhibit C is a tme and correct copy
19 of Plaintiffs July 12, 2022 meet and confer letter)—but to date. Defendant's counsel never
20 responded as to the merits of the objections made, nor provided responses as he represented would
21 be provided. Rather, Defendant's counsel engaged in gamesmanship, bickering about Plaintiffs
22 discovery responses without ever meeting and conferring as to Plaintiffs responses at all. (Khos
23 Deck, ^ 6; attached as Exhibit D is a tme and correct copy of the response email.)
24 With the motion to compel and discovery cutoff dates fast approaching, and having
25 exhausted her meet and confer obligations. Plaintiff brings this Motion seeking sanctions,
26 ni. ARGUMENT
27 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a)(3), a party may move for an order
28 compelling fiirther response to interrogatories if a "An objection in the response is without merit
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 of 10
1 or too general." Such a motion must show specific facts showing good cause justifying the
2 discovery sought by the demand and include a meet and confer declaration. (Id., subd. (b)(l)-(2).)
3 A. Defendant's Objections are Without Merit/Too General.
4 Here, Defendant's objections are without merit or too general for the following reasons:
5 1. As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 34-42.
6 Vague & Ambiguous: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts.
7 "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is
8 apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
9 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) The phrases "Sacramento facility" and "reprimand" are well-defined, and
10 the Critical Safety Behavior's policy ("CSB") is well-known to the litigants after over three years
11 of litigation.
12 Compound: Nothing about these requests are compound, as they are asking for
13 straightforward information about all of Defendant's Sacramento employees who violated the CSB
14 in the last 10 years; who Defendant reprimanded/terminated for the purported violations; and all
15 supporting witnesses and documents for each violation.
16 Calls for Speculation: this evidentiary objection does not apply during pretrial discovery
17 Further, at least Defendant contends that Plaintiff Sajida Zaman and another plaintiff, Mr. Lich Le
18 violated the CSB in the last ten years and were allegedly terminated because of it, so this objection
19 is wholly without merit. Plaintiff therefore needs all the supporting witness/document for each
20 reprimanded/terminated employee as well.
21 Overbroad: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about
22 requesting the information of employees at Defendant's Sacramento facility who Defendant
23 contends violated the CSB in the last 10 years, let alone who was reprimanded/terminated for it
24 Plaintiff even offered to compromise and limit the time to when the CSB has been in effect, which
25 was less than 10 years. However, Defendant failed to respond to this offer of compromise.
26 Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discoverv of Admissible Evidence: Defendant
27 should be aware that Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 states that "any party may obtain
28 discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5 of 10
1 in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter
2 either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
3 discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party
4 seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity
5 and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the
6 existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document.
7 electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property."(emphasis
8 added.)
9 Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper mle is declared to be not only one
10 of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless
11 statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior
12 Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(1) to give
13 greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the tmth and in checking and preventing perjury;
14 (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false,fraudulentand sham claims and
15 defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which
16 otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of
17 ttial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to
18 expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and
19 narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and ttial. Certainly, it can be
20 said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation while yet
21 retaining the adversary nature of the ttial itself" (Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376.)
22 Plaintiff has broad rights to discovery, which includes obtaining the identifying
23 information of the employees Defendant contends violated the CSB at the Sacramento facility in
24 the last 10 years; identity of reprimanded/terminated employees; and all supporting
25 facts/witnesses/documents for each violation. By objecting without responding. Defendant
26 prevents determination of whether Defendant's proffered "business justification" that Plaintiff was
27 terminated for reportmg her pain late is nothing more than a sham and pretext given how
28 selectively the CSB is applied; prevents convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
6 of 10
1 forward; prevents educating the parties on the value of their claims/defenses; and only serves to
2 further delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial is fast approaching.
3 Rieht to Privacy of Third Parties: "[N]ot every assertion of a privacy interest under article
4 1, section I must be overcome by a 'compelling interest.'" (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3
5 Cal.5th 531, 556 [citations omitted].) "In evaluating privacy claims, considerations which, among
6 others, will affect the exercise of the ttial court's discretion include the purpose of the
7 information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the
8 nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and ability ofthe court to
9 make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure, disclosure in another form
10 or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain
11 specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances." (Alch v. Superior Court (2008)
12 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425-26 [emphasis added][citations omitted].) Plaintiffhas only asked for
13 the identifying information of other employees, supporting witnesses, and documents for each
14 employee Defendant contends violated the CSB in Sacramento in the last 10 years, leading to theii
15 reprimand or termination. (See Williams, 3 Cal. 5'*' at 544 ["Indeed, our discovery system is
16 founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and contact information
17 for possible witnesses as the starting point for further investigations..."])
18 2. As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 37-42
19 Attorney-Client Privilege/Attorney Work Product: nothing about identifying supporting
20 witnesses or documents is plausibly protected by attomey-client privilege or work product
21 Defendant cannot plausibly claim every single person who witnesses an employee
22 reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB, let alone every document in support of such
23 contention, was drafted or consulted with by any attomey, who Defendant has never even
24 identified. This objection is simply being made in bad faith to prevent Plaintifffromobtaining
25 critical information before trial.
26 B. Plaintiff Adequately Met and Conferred Before Filing the Motion.
27 Plaintiffs counsel's meet and confer declaration is attached to this Motion, and Plaintiffs
28 efforts to resolve these issues informally was discussed in Section II.C. supra. Plaintiff exhausted
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
7 of 10
1 her meet and confer obligations and had no choice but to file this Motion. (See also Section III.C
2 infra.)
3 C. Defendant is Subject to Monetary Sanctions for Misuse of the Discoverv
4 Process by Providing Meritless Objections and Failing to Meet and Confer in
5 Good Faith.
6 Discovery is meant to be a self-executing process. (Clement v. Alegre (2009), 177 Cal
7 App. 4* 1277, 1281.) Misuse of the discovery process includes (I) making without substantial
8 justification an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and (2) failing to confer with an opposing
9 party in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute conceming
10 discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(e), (i).) Such misuse is subject to monetary sanctions in
11 the form of reasonable attomey's fees. (Id. §§ 2023.020,2023.030(a), 2030.300(d).)
12 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.) In discussing the sufficiency of the meet and confer efforts, the court in
16 Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4tii 1006, 1016 held:
17 "A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate ... involves the
18 exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the
19 'reasonable and good faith attempt' standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger,
20 more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted
21 In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The
22 history of the litigation, the nature ofthe interaction between counsel, the nature ol
23 the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and
24 other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibility to
25 determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances."
26 (emphasis added.) Indeed, the burden to meet and confer reasonably and in good-faith is not taken
27 lightly. (Manzetti v. Superior Court, (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 379-80 [Counsels are obligated
28
MEMORANDUM OF POBSITS AND AUTHORITIES
8 of 10
1 to engage in this process in good faith and cannot reject reasonable proposals without suffering
2 the consequences].)
3 Defendant should be sanctioned for its gamesmanship and misuse of the discovery process
4 here. Defendant simply objected to the interrogatories, and completely failed to respond in good
5 faith to the merits of Plaintiffs July 12, 2022 meet and confer letter. Defendant and its counsel
6 seem to think it is appropriate to hold discovery hostage until they get the discoveryfromPlaintifi
7 that they want, rather than engage in the meet and confer process in good faith. In so doing
8 Defendant has averted the self-executing purposes of discovery in (1) failing to make information
9 available which cannot otherwise be provided except with great difficulty (i.e. forcing Plaintiff to
10 file this Motion and incurring expense); and (2) delaying the litigation and preparation for trial
11 Plaintiff only requires her sttaightforward interrogatories be responded to under oath. But the
12 history of the litigation and interactions between counsel show that Defendant would rather waste
13 time, obstmct as a matter of course, and never meet and confer in good faith, leading to an inference
14 of bad faith on Defendant's part. Indeed, the fact that Plaintiff has already filed two separate
15 discovery motions seeking sanctions in this matter (to be heard September 1, 2022), should clearly
16 reveal Defendant's modus operandi of obstmction.'
17 Given that Plaintiffs counsel has expended considerable hours in researching and drafting
18 the instant motion, as well as Plaintiff incurring costs for courtfiling,monetary sanctions should
19 be issued in die amount of $3,160.00. (Khos. Decl. tt 7-8.)
20 IV. CONCLUSION
21 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion
22 and ORDER Defendant (1) be compelled to provide further response to Special Interrogatories,
23 Set 4, and (2) to pay separate monetary sanctions in an amount of $3,160.00.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
' This would be PlaintifTs (1) Motion for Requests for Admissions, Set One (1) Be Deemed Admitted, and Monetary
28 Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two (2), and
Monetary Sanctions.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
9 of 10
1 Dated: August 2, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2
3
By:
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
lOof 10
Preview
IJOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com FSLEO/EiOOBSEO 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) AUG - 3 2022 6 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. lOlOFStteet, Ste. 300 H. PEMEI TON By:. 7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Deputy Clerk Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff, 10 SAHDA ZAMAN 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 14 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 RESERVATION ID: 2664199 15 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 16 vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF SAJIDA 17 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 ZAMAN'S SPECIAL through 20, inclusive. INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, AND 18 MONETARY SANCTIONS Defendants. 19 BY FAX Date: October 18, 2022 20 Time: 1:30pm Dept.: 53 21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') brings this instant Motion to Compel seeking discovery 24 sanctions after having attempted to meet and confer as to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's 25 ("Defendant") objections without responses with no luck. 26 Plaintiff alleges she was terminated after reporting her work-related injury in violation o 27 the FEHA, public policy, and the UCL. Importantly, Plaintiff alleges that her supposed violation 28 of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which requires employees to MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 of 10 1 immediately report all incidences, including work-related injuries, or else face immediate 2 termination, was used pretextually against her to terminate her for her disabilities and work-related 3 injury. 4 Plaintiff propounded her Special Interrogatories, Set Four on May 24, 2022, asking in sum 5 for Defendant to identify all facts/witnesses/and documents in support of terminating oi 6 reprimanding other employees for violating the CSB policy. Rather than respond. Defendant 7 provided only objections. When Plaintiffs counsel sent a detailed meet and confer letter on July 8 12, 2022 to informally resolve the issues. Defendant's counsel refiised to meet and confer on the 9 merits in good faith. 10 Defendant's objections are without merit and/or too general to allow refusal to respond to 11 the interrogatories. Given Defendant's history of misuse of the discovery process and failure to 12 meet and confer in good faith, monetary sanctions are also warranted. 13 With the motion to compel deadline and discovery cutoff fast approaching. Plaintiff files 14 the instant Motion and respectfully requests that this Court GRANT her Motion in its entirety. 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 A. Plaintiff Sustained Work-Related Injuries and Disabilities to her Knee While 17 on the Job but was Terminated for Allegedly Not Reporting Immediately. 18 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 19 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was originally hired as a "Packer" at Defendant's 20 liquid bad manufacturing center in Sacramento in December 2003, and was eventually promoted 21 to "Inspector-Packer" (FAC, 16.) Plaintiff s job duties included packing and inspecting bags and 22 other labor-intensive tasks, requiring her to stand for long periods of time and lift/haul heavy loads 23 over 16 years of employment. (Id.) 24 On or about December 3, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to her left knee while working 25 for Defendants, and over time her knee stiffness tumed into consistent and considerable pain. (Id., 26 I 7.) Plaintiff first became aware her pain was a work-related knee injury on or about January 3, 27 2019, which was when she reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and begin her worker's 28 compensation claim. (Id.) Defendant's human resources department sent Plaintiff for medical MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 10 1 examination to the workers compensation medical provider and monitored the examination 2 without Plaintiffs consent. (Id., f 8.) 3 Thereafter, Plaintiff was instmcted by Defendant to go home untilfiirthernotice but was 4 then summoned back for a work meeting on January 10, 2019. (Id., ^ 9.) At the meeting Plaintiffs 5 16 years of employment was terminated because she allegedly "neglected to report [her] injury 6 timely" in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which states in 7 relevant part, "Immediately report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no 8 matter how minor or without exception," and that "[a]ny violation of these Critical Safety 9 Behaviors will resuh in immediate termination of employment." (Id.) 10 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her work-related 11 injuries and disabilities, with the CSB policy used as pretext. (Id., 110.) Plaintiff brings causes of 12 action for (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of 13 Public Policy; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Engage in the 14 Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation in 15 Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Unfair Competition 16 Law.(M,^1I 19-64.) 17 B. Plaintiff Requested Supporting Facts/Witnesses/Documents Regarding "Me 18 Too" Evidence on Other Employees Reprimanded/Terminated for Violating 19 the CSB Policy. 20 On or about May 24, 2022, Plaintiff propounded her fourth set of Special Interrogatories 21 to Defendant. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Deck"], 13; attached as 22 Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories to 23 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set Four).) 24 The referenced Special Interrogatories in sum ask for the following information: (I) the 25 identifying information of employees who worked at Defendant's Sacramento facility who (a) 26 Defendant contends violated the CSB Policy in the last 10 years (Special Interrogatory, Set 4, No 27 34); (b) Defendant reprimanded for violating the CSB policy in the last 10 years (Id., No. 35); (c) 28 Defendant terminated for violating the CSB policy in the last 10 years (Id., No. 36); (2)(a) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 10 1 identifying information of each person with knowledge of each reprimand (Id., No. 37); (b) all 2 facts which supported each reprimand (Id., No. 38); (c) all documents containing information 3 Defendant relied on in the decision to reprimand (Id., No. 39); (3)(a) identifying information of 4 each person with knowledge of each termination (Id., No. 40); (b) all facts which supported each 5 termination (Id., No. 41); (c) all documents containing information Defendant relied on in the 6 decision to termination (Id., No. 42). (Khos. Deck, f 4; see Exhibit A.) 7 C. Defendant Responded by Only Providing Objections and Did not Respond to 8 Efforts by Plaintiffs Counsel to Meet and Confer. 9 Rather than respond, on or about June 27, 2022 Defendant provided only objections to the 10 interrogatories. (Khos. Deck, ^ 5; attached as Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of Defendant 11 Liqui-Box Corporation's Response to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Four.) 12 Defendant objected that the interrogatories were: (1) vague and ambiguous (Response to Special 13 Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 34-42); (2) compound (Id.); (3) calling for speculation (Id.); (4) 14 overbroad (Id?); (5) relevance/not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (Id.); 15 (6)rightto privacy (Id.); and (7) attomey-client privilege/attomey work product. (Id., Nos. 37-42.) 16 (Khos. Deck, 1 5; see Exhibit B.) 17 Plaintiffs counsel sent a meet and confer letter on or about July 12, 2022, detailing the 18 deficiencies of the objections (Khos. Deck, | 6; attached as Exhibit C is a tme and correct copy 19 of Plaintiffs July 12, 2022 meet and confer letter)—but to date. Defendant's counsel never 20 responded as to the merits of the objections made, nor provided responses as he represented would 21 be provided. Rather, Defendant's counsel engaged in gamesmanship, bickering about Plaintiffs 22 discovery responses without ever meeting and conferring as to Plaintiffs responses at all. (Khos 23 Deck, ^ 6; attached as Exhibit D is a tme and correct copy of the response email.) 24 With the motion to compel and discovery cutoff dates fast approaching, and having 25 exhausted her meet and confer obligations. Plaintiff brings this Motion seeking sanctions, 26 ni. ARGUMENT 27 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a)(3), a party may move for an order 28 compelling fiirther response to interrogatories if a "An objection in the response is without merit MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 of 10 1 or too general." Such a motion must show specific facts showing good cause justifying the 2 discovery sought by the demand and include a meet and confer declaration. (Id., subd. (b)(l)-(2).) 3 A. Defendant's Objections are Without Merit/Too General. 4 Here, Defendant's objections are without merit or too general for the following reasons: 5 1. As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 34-42. 6 Vague & Ambiguous: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts. 7 "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is 8 apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 9 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) The phrases "Sacramento facility" and "reprimand" are well-defined, and 10 the Critical Safety Behavior's policy ("CSB") is well-known to the litigants after over three years 11 of litigation. 12 Compound: Nothing about these requests are compound, as they are asking for 13 straightforward information about all of Defendant's Sacramento employees who violated the CSB 14 in the last 10 years; who Defendant reprimanded/terminated for the purported violations; and all 15 supporting witnesses and documents for each violation. 16 Calls for Speculation: this evidentiary objection does not apply during pretrial discovery 17 Further, at least Defendant contends that Plaintiff Sajida Zaman and another plaintiff, Mr. Lich Le 18 violated the CSB in the last ten years and were allegedly terminated because of it, so this objection 19 is wholly without merit. Plaintiff therefore needs all the supporting witness/document for each 20 reprimanded/terminated employee as well. 21 Overbroad: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about 22 requesting the information of employees at Defendant's Sacramento facility who Defendant 23 contends violated the CSB in the last 10 years, let alone who was reprimanded/terminated for it 24 Plaintiff even offered to compromise and limit the time to when the CSB has been in effect, which 25 was less than 10 years. However, Defendant failed to respond to this offer of compromise. 26 Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discoverv of Admissible Evidence: Defendant 27 should be aware that Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 states that "any party may obtain 28 discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 of 10 1 in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter 2 either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 3 discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party 4 seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity 5 and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the 6 existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document. 7 electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property."(emphasis 8 added.) 9 Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper mle is declared to be not only one 10 of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless 11 statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior 12 Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(1) to give 13 greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the tmth and in checking and preventing perjury; 14 (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false,fraudulentand sham claims and 15 defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which 16 otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of 17 ttial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to 18 expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and 19 narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and ttial. Certainly, it can be 20 said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation while yet 21 retaining the adversary nature of the ttial itself" (Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376.) 22 Plaintiff has broad rights to discovery, which includes obtaining the identifying 23 information of the employees Defendant contends violated the CSB at the Sacramento facility in 24 the last 10 years; identity of reprimanded/terminated employees; and all supporting 25 facts/witnesses/documents for each violation. By objecting without responding. Defendant 26 prevents determination of whether Defendant's proffered "business justification" that Plaintiff was 27 terminated for reportmg her pain late is nothing more than a sham and pretext given how 28 selectively the CSB is applied; prevents convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 6 of 10 1 forward; prevents educating the parties on the value of their claims/defenses; and only serves to 2 further delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial is fast approaching. 3 Rieht to Privacy of Third Parties: "[N]ot every assertion of a privacy interest under article 4 1, section I must be overcome by a 'compelling interest.'" (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 5 Cal.5th 531, 556 [citations omitted].) "In evaluating privacy claims, considerations which, among 6 others, will affect the exercise of the ttial court's discretion include the purpose of the 7 information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the 8 nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and ability ofthe court to 9 make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure, disclosure in another form 10 or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain 11 specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances." (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 12 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425-26 [emphasis added][citations omitted].) Plaintiffhas only asked for 13 the identifying information of other employees, supporting witnesses, and documents for each 14 employee Defendant contends violated the CSB in Sacramento in the last 10 years, leading to theii 15 reprimand or termination. (See Williams, 3 Cal. 5'*' at 544 ["Indeed, our discovery system is 16 founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and contact information 17 for possible witnesses as the starting point for further investigations..."]) 18 2. As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 37-42 19 Attorney-Client Privilege/Attorney Work Product: nothing about identifying supporting 20 witnesses or documents is plausibly protected by attomey-client privilege or work product 21 Defendant cannot plausibly claim every single person who witnesses an employee 22 reprimanded/terminated for violating the CSB, let alone every document in support of such 23 contention, was drafted or consulted with by any attomey, who Defendant has never even 24 identified. This objection is simply being made in bad faith to prevent Plaintifffromobtaining 25 critical information before trial. 26 B. Plaintiff Adequately Met and Conferred Before Filing the Motion. 27 Plaintiffs counsel's meet and confer declaration is attached to this Motion, and Plaintiffs 28 efforts to resolve these issues informally was discussed in Section II.C. supra. Plaintiff exhausted MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7 of 10 1 her meet and confer obligations and had no choice but to file this Motion. (See also Section III.C 2 infra.) 3 C. Defendant is Subject to Monetary Sanctions for Misuse of the Discoverv 4 Process by Providing Meritless Objections and Failing to Meet and Confer in 5 Good Faith. 6 Discovery is meant to be a self-executing process. (Clement v. Alegre (2009), 177 Cal 7 App. 4* 1277, 1281.) Misuse of the discovery process includes (I) making without substantial 8 justification an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and (2) failing to confer with an opposing 9 party in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute conceming 10 discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(e), (i).) Such misuse is subject to monetary sanctions in 11 the form of reasonable attomey's fees. (Id. §§ 2023.020,2023.030(a), 2030.300(d).) 12 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.) In discussing the sufficiency of the meet and confer efforts, the court in 16 Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4tii 1006, 1016 held: 17 "A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate ... involves the 18 exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the 19 'reasonable and good faith attempt' standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, 20 more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted 21 In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The 22 history of the litigation, the nature ofthe interaction between counsel, the nature ol 23 the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and 24 other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibility to 25 determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances." 26 (emphasis added.) Indeed, the burden to meet and confer reasonably and in good-faith is not taken 27 lightly. (Manzetti v. Superior Court, (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 379-80 [Counsels are obligated 28 MEMORANDUM OF POBSITS AND AUTHORITIES 8 of 10 1 to engage in this process in good faith and cannot reject reasonable proposals without suffering 2 the consequences].) 3 Defendant should be sanctioned for its gamesmanship and misuse of the discovery process 4 here. Defendant simply objected to the interrogatories, and completely failed to respond in good 5 faith to the merits of Plaintiffs July 12, 2022 meet and confer letter. Defendant and its counsel 6 seem to think it is appropriate to hold discovery hostage until they get the discoveryfromPlaintifi 7 that they want, rather than engage in the meet and confer process in good faith. In so doing 8 Defendant has averted the self-executing purposes of discovery in (1) failing to make information 9 available which cannot otherwise be provided except with great difficulty (i.e. forcing Plaintiff to 10 file this Motion and incurring expense); and (2) delaying the litigation and preparation for trial 11 Plaintiff only requires her sttaightforward interrogatories be responded to under oath. But the 12 history of the litigation and interactions between counsel show that Defendant would rather waste 13 time, obstmct as a matter of course, and never meet and confer in good faith, leading to an inference 14 of bad faith on Defendant's part. Indeed, the fact that Plaintiff has already filed two separate 15 discovery motions seeking sanctions in this matter (to be heard September 1, 2022), should clearly 16 reveal Defendant's modus operandi of obstmction.' 17 Given that Plaintiffs counsel has expended considerable hours in researching and drafting 18 the instant motion, as well as Plaintiff incurring costs for courtfiling,monetary sanctions should 19 be issued in die amount of $3,160.00. (Khos. Decl. tt 7-8.) 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion 22 and ORDER Defendant (1) be compelled to provide further response to Special Interrogatories, 23 Set 4, and (2) to pay separate monetary sanctions in an amount of $3,160.00. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 ' This would be PlaintifTs (1) Motion for Requests for Admissions, Set One (1) Be Deemed Admitted, and Monetary 28 Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two (2), and Monetary Sanctions. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 9 of 10 1 Dated: August 2, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 3 By: 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 lOof 10