Preview
w
awww‘
Kevin S. Wattles, Esq. SBN 170274
Steven S. Nimoy, Esq. SBN 172310 F LE
l D
SOLTMAN, LEVITT, FLAHERTY & WATTLES LLP SUPERIOR coum 0F CALnFoaNuA
coumv 0F SAN BERNARDINO
9O E. Thousand Oaks B1Vd., Ste. 300 SAN BERNAHDINO DISTRICT
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Telephone: (805) 497—7706
JUN 2 6 2323
Facsimile: (805) 497-1 147'
Attorneys for Defendant,
ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC. BY: ggergio Vlflanuevéa. 05pm);
x
‘5
m“
~
"man
335i?”
y“-
‘
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Em;
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ll MIGUEL GOMEZ, an individual, CASE NO: CIVSB2208957
12 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: April 29, 2022
l3 vs.
DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. NIMOY IN
l4 ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC., a SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS TO COMPEL
California Corporation; HANKOOK_TIRE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
15 AMERICA CORPORATION, a Tennessee VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Date: August 9, 2023
l6 inclusive, Time: 8:30 am.
Dept: 526
17 Defendants.
l8
l9
20 I, Steven S. Nimoy, declare as follows:
21 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed t0 practice before all the courts of the State of California,
22 and an associate ofthe law firm of Soltman, Levitt, Flaherty & Wattles LLP, attorneys for Defendant ILink
23 Business Management, Inc. (“ILink”) herein. Ihave personal knowledge of the matters contained in this
24 declaration and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would do so in a competent fashion.
25 2. This is an action for wrongful termination filed by Plaintiff Miguel Gomez (“Plaintiff”) against
26 Defendants Ilink Business Management, Inc.(“ILink”) and Hankook Tire America Corporation (‘Hankook”)
27 On November 9, 2022, counsel for Defendant served Plaintiff with a set of Form Interrogatories -
28 DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS;
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORISTIES; AND DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. NIMOY IN
UPPORT
l
H:\P2l—2080\Discovery\Motions to Compel Further Responses\Dec of SSN ISO of motions to compel.wpd
General and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law. Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 and
incorporated herein by this feference are true and correct copies of ILink’s Form Interrogatories - General,
and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law, respectively.
3. On December 7, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff requested an extension to respond to the discovery
through December 27, 2022. By January 3, 2022, counsel for Plaintifffailed t0 respond to the discovery and
thus all objections were waived. Counsel claimed that he did not respond to the discovery because he did
not think it was ‘rational’ since he was aware of an arbitration agreement. Counsel for Plaintiff then
indicated he would serve responses to discovery by January 20, 2023. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and
incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy of the email chain regarding Plaintiff’s
10 requests for extensions.
ll 4. On January 13, 2023, counsel for ilink granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension to respond t0
12 discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy
l3 of the confirmation of extension of time.
14 5. On February 13, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff served Responses containing all obj ections to Form
15 Interrogatories - General and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and
l6 6, and incorporated herein by this reference, are true and correct copies of Plaintiff objections t0 Form
l7 Interrogatories - General and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law, respectively.
18 6. On February 14, 2023, counsel for Ilink sent a meet and confer advising that objections to the
l9 discovery were waived since no responses were received pursuant to the original extension through
20 December 27, 2022. Between that date and mid-April counsel for Ilink was required to send numerous
21 email to opposing counsel inquiring as to when he would serve substantive responses to the outstanding
22 discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy
23 of the email chain between counsel requesting substantive responses.
24 7. On April 28, 2023, counsel finally served Responses to Form Interrogatories - General and
25 Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment Law. Attached hereto as Exhibits 8 and 9 and
26 incorporated herein by this reference are true and correct copies of Plaintiff’s Responses t0 Form
27 Interrogatories - General, and Responses to Form Interrogatories -
Employment Law, respectively.
28 DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS;
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORg‘JEgaAND DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. NIMOY IN
RT
2
H:\P2l—2080\Discovery\Motions to Compel Further Responses\Dec of SSN ISO of motions to compel.wpd
Preview
w awww‘ Kevin S. Wattles, Esq. SBN 170274 Steven S. Nimoy, Esq. SBN 172310 F LE l D SOLTMAN, LEVITT, FLAHERTY & WATTLES LLP SUPERIOR coum 0F CALnFoaNuA coumv 0F SAN BERNARDINO 9O E. Thousand Oaks B1Vd., Ste. 300 SAN BERNAHDINO DISTRICT Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Telephone: (805) 497—7706 JUN 2 6 2323 Facsimile: (805) 497-1 147' Attorneys for Defendant, ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC. BY: ggergio Vlflanuevéa. 05pm); x ‘5 m“ ~ "man 335i?” y“- ‘ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Em; FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ll MIGUEL GOMEZ, an individual, CASE NO: CIVSB2208957 12 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: April 29, 2022 l3 vs. DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. NIMOY IN l4 ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC., a SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS TO COMPEL California Corporation; HANKOOK_TIRE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 15 AMERICA CORPORATION, a Tennessee VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Date: August 9, 2023 l6 inclusive, Time: 8:30 am. Dept: 526 17 Defendants. l8 l9 20 I, Steven S. Nimoy, declare as follows: 21 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed t0 practice before all the courts of the State of California, 22 and an associate ofthe law firm of Soltman, Levitt, Flaherty & Wattles LLP, attorneys for Defendant ILink 23 Business Management, Inc. (“ILink”) herein. Ihave personal knowledge of the matters contained in this 24 declaration and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would do so in a competent fashion. 25 2. This is an action for wrongful termination filed by Plaintiff Miguel Gomez (“Plaintiff”) against 26 Defendants Ilink Business Management, Inc.(“ILink”) and Hankook Tire America Corporation (‘Hankook”) 27 On November 9, 2022, counsel for Defendant served Plaintiff with a set of Form Interrogatories - 28 DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORISTIES; AND DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. NIMOY IN UPPORT l H:\P2l—2080\Discovery\Motions to Compel Further Responses\Dec of SSN ISO of motions to compel.wpd General and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law. Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 and incorporated herein by this feference are true and correct copies of ILink’s Form Interrogatories - General, and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law, respectively. 3. On December 7, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff requested an extension to respond to the discovery through December 27, 2022. By January 3, 2022, counsel for Plaintifffailed t0 respond to the discovery and thus all objections were waived. Counsel claimed that he did not respond to the discovery because he did not think it was ‘rational’ since he was aware of an arbitration agreement. Counsel for Plaintiff then indicated he would serve responses to discovery by January 20, 2023. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy of the email chain regarding Plaintiff’s 10 requests for extensions. ll 4. On January 13, 2023, counsel for ilink granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension to respond t0 12 discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy l3 of the confirmation of extension of time. 14 5. On February 13, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff served Responses containing all obj ections to Form 15 Interrogatories - General and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and l6 6, and incorporated herein by this reference, are true and correct copies of Plaintiff objections t0 Form l7 Interrogatories - General and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law, respectively. 18 6. On February 14, 2023, counsel for Ilink sent a meet and confer advising that objections to the l9 discovery were waived since no responses were received pursuant to the original extension through 20 December 27, 2022. Between that date and mid-April counsel for Ilink was required to send numerous 21 email to opposing counsel inquiring as to when he would serve substantive responses to the outstanding 22 discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by this reference is a true and correct copy 23 of the email chain between counsel requesting substantive responses. 24 7. On April 28, 2023, counsel finally served Responses to Form Interrogatories - General and 25 Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment Law. Attached hereto as Exhibits 8 and 9 and 26 incorporated herein by this reference are true and correct copies of Plaintiff’s Responses t0 Form 27 Interrogatories - General, and Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment Law, respectively. 28 DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORg‘JEgaAND DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. NIMOY IN RT 2 H:\P2l—2080\Discovery\Motions to Compel Further Responses\Dec of SSN ISO of motions to compel.wpd