On April 29, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gomez, Miguel,
and
Does 1-50,
Hankook Tire America Corporation,
Ilink Business Management, Inc.,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
- V \y
Armond M. Jackson. SBN 281 547 smachgula‘rggufmmA
ajacksonm'iacksonapc.c0m COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JACKSON LAW SAN senmnnmn msmvCT
A Professional Law Corporation
240
2 Vcnturc Plaza. Ste. AUG 0 2 2023
Irvinc‘ CA
92618
Phonc: (949) 281-6857
Facsimile: (949) 777-62 8 1
BY
AL cenvm'res. oePUTY
Attomcys for PlaintiffMigucl Gomez
SUPERIOR COURT ()F STATE ()F CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BI-IRNARDINO
CASE No.2 CIVSB 2208957
MIGUEL GOMEZ‘ as an indiVidual‘ As‘signcd/br all purposes m the Hon. David
Calm Depurrmenl S26
Plaintiff, ,.
PLAIN IP‘P’S MEMORANDUM OF
‘
l
VS.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT ILINK
ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. INC. a VvVVVVVVVVVVVVVUVVVVV
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT} INC.
California corporation. HANKOOK TIRF, MOTION COMPEL
'l‘()
AMERICA CORPORATION. a California SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS
corporation, zmd DOES l-SO. inclusive.
Hearing Date: August 10, 2023
15 Defendant.
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S26
l6
l7 Case filed: April 29. 2022
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM ()F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC. MOTION TO COMPEL
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS
l. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffopposcs Defendant‘s motion as mom. On July IO, 2023. Plaintiff served
supplemental responses. Given thc supplemental responses. Defendant‘s motion is moot. The
only remaining issue involves sanctions.
ll. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
As for Defendant‘s requests for supplemental responses. thcrc was an inadx'crtcnl error
regarding thc scrvicc oflhcsc supplemental responses. Bctwccn Junc 25. 2023 t0 July 3. 2023.
lead counsels for Plaintif‘t'werc 0n vacation. (Declaration ofArmond M. Jackson in Support of
Plaintiff‘s Opposition t0 Defendant ILINK Business Management. Inc’s Motion 10 Compcl
Supplemental Discovery Responses and for Sanctinns. ("Jackson Dccl.") [r 3, ExA A.) Despite thc
vacation. the supplemental responses wcrc approvcd Io bc scrvcd but my legal secretary
inadvertently did not scrvc the supplemental responses before Defendant filed its motion. (ld.)
()n July ll. 2023. Plaintit‘t‘scrvcd its supplemental responses. (I(l.) ()n Junc 26. 2023. Plaintiff‘s
counsel informed counsel for Defendant ofthc inadvertent crrur 21nd was told that "lfyou want tn
try t0 work thcsc issues out. cithcr by providing further supplemental responses 0r a stipulation.
then I would consider withdrawing Ihc motion." (I(l.) Plaintiffresponded. “our firm policy is Io
work all ()fthcsc discovery issues out in a coopcrulivc fashion and wc arc open t0 providing you
with a supplemental discovery." (I(l.) Plaintiff further rcqucstcd that “a call would bc helpful“
but to date counsel for Defendant has ycI t0 respond. (I(I.)
Ill. ARGUMENT
16 A. Sanctions Are Not Warrantcd.
“It is well established ‘thc purpose ofdiscovcry sanctions ‘is not “t0 provide a weapon
l7
for punishment. forfeiture and the avoidance 0le trial on Ihc mcritsf"... but t0 prevent abuse 0f
l8 Ihc discovery process and correct Ihc problem prcscntcd[.] (Parker v. Walters Kluwer United
Stunts; Inca. 14‘) Cal.App. 4th 285, (2007).)
19
Herc. Plaintiff‘s office inadvertently did not scrvc thc supplemental responses before
20
Defendant‘s motion t0 compel and represented 10 Defendant that supplcmcnlal responses would
21 bc scrvcd. (Jackson Dccl. 1'"
3. lix. A) On July I l. 2023. Plaintifl‘rcwlvcd Ihc discovery issues
and scrvcd a supplemental response. (I(l.) Thcrc has hccn no abuse ofdiscovcry and thc
22
Defendant has the information it rcqucstcd. (1d,) Thus. sanctions arc not warranted as Plaintiff
23
substantially complied with its discovery obligations. (ld.)
24
PLAIN'I‘IFF’S MEMORANDUM ()F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
25
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. INC.
MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR
SANCTIONS
Document Filed Date
August 02, 2023
Case Filing Date
April 29, 2022
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
- V \y Armond M. Jackson. SBN 281 547 smachgula‘rggufmmA ajacksonm'iacksonapc.c0m COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO JACKSON LAW SAN senmnnmn msmvCT A Professional Law Corporation 240 2 Vcnturc Plaza. Ste. AUG 0 2 2023 Irvinc‘ CA 92618 Phonc: (949) 281-6857 Facsimile: (949) 777-62 8 1 BY AL cenvm'res. oePUTY Attomcys for PlaintiffMigucl Gomez SUPERIOR COURT ()F STATE ()F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BI-IRNARDINO CASE No.2 CIVSB 2208957 MIGUEL GOMEZ‘ as an indiVidual‘ As‘signcd/br all purposes m the Hon. David Calm Depurrmenl S26 Plaintiff, ,. PLAIN IP‘P’S MEMORANDUM OF ‘ l VS. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT ILINK ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. INC. a VvVVVVVVVVVVVVVUVVVVV BUSINESS MANAGEMENT} INC. California corporation. HANKOOK TIRF, MOTION COMPEL 'l‘() AMERICA CORPORATION. a California SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS corporation, zmd DOES l-SO. inclusive. Hearing Date: August 10, 2023 15 Defendant. Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Department: S26 l6 l7 Case filed: April 29. 2022 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM ()F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC. MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS l. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffopposcs Defendant‘s motion as mom. On July IO, 2023. Plaintiff served supplemental responses. Given thc supplemental responses. Defendant‘s motion is moot. The only remaining issue involves sanctions. ll. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. As for Defendant‘s requests for supplemental responses. thcrc was an inadx'crtcnl error regarding thc scrvicc oflhcsc supplemental responses. Bctwccn Junc 25. 2023 t0 July 3. 2023. lead counsels for Plaintif‘t'werc 0n vacation. (Declaration ofArmond M. Jackson in Support of Plaintiff‘s Opposition t0 Defendant ILINK Business Management. Inc’s Motion 10 Compcl Supplemental Discovery Responses and for Sanctinns. ("Jackson Dccl.") [r 3, ExA A.) Despite thc vacation. the supplemental responses wcrc approvcd Io bc scrvcd but my legal secretary inadvertently did not scrvc the supplemental responses before Defendant filed its motion. (ld.) ()n July ll. 2023. Plaintit‘t‘scrvcd its supplemental responses. (I(l.) ()n Junc 26. 2023. Plaintiff‘s counsel informed counsel for Defendant ofthc inadvertent crrur 21nd was told that "lfyou want tn try t0 work thcsc issues out. cithcr by providing further supplemental responses 0r a stipulation. then I would consider withdrawing Ihc motion." (I(l.) Plaintiffresponded. “our firm policy is Io work all ()fthcsc discovery issues out in a coopcrulivc fashion and wc arc open t0 providing you with a supplemental discovery." (I(l.) Plaintiff further rcqucstcd that “a call would bc helpful“ but to date counsel for Defendant has ycI t0 respond. (I(I.) Ill. ARGUMENT 16 A. Sanctions Are Not Warrantcd. “It is well established ‘thc purpose ofdiscovcry sanctions ‘is not “t0 provide a weapon l7 for punishment. forfeiture and the avoidance 0le trial on Ihc mcritsf"... but t0 prevent abuse 0f l8 Ihc discovery process and correct Ihc problem prcscntcd[.] (Parker v. Walters Kluwer United Stunts; Inca. 14‘) Cal.App. 4th 285, (2007).) 19 Herc. Plaintiff‘s office inadvertently did not scrvc thc supplemental responses before 20 Defendant‘s motion t0 compel and represented 10 Defendant that supplcmcnlal responses would 21 bc scrvcd. (Jackson Dccl. 1'" 3. lix. A) On July I l. 2023. Plaintifl‘rcwlvcd Ihc discovery issues and scrvcd a supplemental response. (I(l.) Thcrc has hccn no abuse ofdiscovcry and thc 22 Defendant has the information it rcqucstcd. (1d,) Thus. sanctions arc not warranted as Plaintiff 23 substantially complied with its discovery obligations. (ld.) 24 PLAIN'I‘IFF’S MEMORANDUM ()F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 25 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. INC. MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS