Preview
FILED/ENDOFSED
1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 AUG 3 0 2022
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 By G. Galaviz, Deputy Jlerk
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
6
1010 F Street, Ste. 300
7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com
9 Attomeys for Plaintiff,
SAJIDA ZAMAN
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
14 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
15 PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
16 vs. AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX
17 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 CORPORATION'S EX PARTE
through 20, inclusive, MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
18
DATE.
Defendants.
19
Date: TBD BYFAX
20 Time: TBD
Dept.: 47
21
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
23 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
24 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("PlaintifF') has diligently conducted discovery and
25 depositions in her FEHA disability/wrongful termination case after nearly 3 Vi years of
26
litigation and is prepared to go to trial.
27
///
28
///
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 of 6
1 A. Plaintiff Sustained Work-Related Injuries and Disabilities to her Knee While
2 on the Job but was Terminated for Allegedly Not Reporting Immediately.
3 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
4 ("FAC")filedon January 24,2020, that she was originally hired as a "Packer" at Defendant Liqui-
5 Box Corporation's ("Defendant") liquid bad manufacturing center in Sacramento in December
6 2003, and was eventually promoted to "Inspector-Packer" (FAC, ^ 6.) PiaintifPs job duties
7 included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive tasks, requiring her to stand foi
8 long periods of time and lift/haul heavy loads over 16 years of employment. (Id.)
9 On or about December 3, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to her left knee while working
10 for Defendants, and over time her knee stiffness tumed into consistent and considerable pain. (Id.
11 T[ 7.) Plaintifffirstbecame aware her pain was a work-related knee injury on or about January 3
12 2019, which was when she reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and begin her worker's
13 compensation claim. (Id.) Defendant's human resources department sent Plaintiff for medica!
14 examination to the workers compensation medical provider and monitored the examination
15 without PlaintifTs consent. (Id., f 8.)
16 Thereafter, Plaintiff was instmcted by Defendant to go home until further notice but was
17 then summoned back for a work meeting on January 10, 2019. (Id., ^ 9.) At the meeting Plaintiffs
18 16 years of employment was terminated because she allegedly "neglected to report [her] injury
19 timely" in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which states ir
20 relevant part, "Immediately report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member nc
21 matter how minor or without exception," and that "[a]ny violation of these Critical Safety
22 Behaviors will result in immediate termination of employment." (Id.)
23 Based on these allegations. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her work-relatec
24 injuries and disabilities, with the CSB policy used as pretext. (Id., ^ 10.) Plaintiff brings causes ol
25 action for (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation ol
26 Public Policy; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Engage in the
27 Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation ir
28
MEMORANDtIM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 6
1 Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Unfair Competitior
2 Law. (/J.,1[t 19-64.)
3 B. Plaintiff is Prepared to Go to Trial While Defendant Lacked Diligence in this
4 Case after 3 '/2 Years of Litigation.
5 Plaintiff has already served trial appearance notices and trial subpoenas in this matter
6 (Declaration of Arash Khosrowshahi in Opposition ["Khos. Decl."], ^ 3; attached as Exhibit A
7 therein are tme and correct copies of the trial appearance notices and trial subpoenas), and is
8 preparing her motions in limine, exhibit binder, proposed jury instmctions, trial brief, statement
9 of the case, and witness list per Local Rules 2.95-2.99.04. (Khos. Deck, f 3.) Plaintiffs counsel
10 has reached out to Defendant's counsel Mr. James T. Jones to meet and confer in preparation for
11 trial. Indeed, Mr. Jones himself represented he would have motions in limine in the matter
12 prepared for Plaintiffs counsels' review by September 5, 2022. (Id., | 4; attached as Exhibit B
13 are tioie and correct copies of counsels' meet and confer correspondence on trial matters.)
14 By contrast, Defendant did not conduct anv affirmative discovery in this case from
15 when it was filed in March 2019 until Mav 2022. (Khos. Decl., ^5.) Further, Defendant
16 further has been sanctioned $12,250.00 for its abuse of the discovery process in withholding
17 documents, facts, and witness information by failing to respond to discovery or by making
18 meritless objections without response and must produce the discovery by September 1,2022. (Id.,
19 I 6; attached as Exhibit C are tme and correct copies of the Court's minute orders on Plaintiffs
20 discovery motions seeking sanctions.) Moreover, Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff, third-
21 party witnesses, and several expert witnesses in this matter (Khos. Decl., ^ 7), and when
22 Defendant attempted to depose Plaintiff a second time via ex parte application. Judge Richard
23 Sueyoshi in Department 53 denied their requested relief. (Id., ^ 8; attached as Exhibit D is a tme
24 and correct copies of the Court's order denying Defendant's ex parte application to depose
25 Plaintiff a second time.)
26 Defendant further served written discovery requests upon Plaintiff in June 2022, to which
27 Plaintiff served responses, but Defendant did not meet and confer on any of Plaintiff s responses
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 6
1 and did not timely file motions to compel by the August 12, 2022, nonexpert discovery cutoff.
2 (Khos. Deck, ^ 9.)
3 II. ARGUMENT.
4 First, Good Cause is Lacking. At no point did Defendant bother to file a noticed motion
5 seeking a trial continuance or extensions on the discovery cutoffs in this case, and only does so
6 on the eve of trial by way of ex parte relief. This is due to Defendant's sheer lack of diligence in
7 this matter, not Plaintiffs. Defendant did request Plaintiff stipulate to a continuance on July 21,
8 2022, but Plaintiff, after waiting for her day in court for 3 V2 years while her counsels diligently
9 litigated the matter, refused as she is ready to put her case to thejury. (Khos. Deck, \ 10.) Further,
10 any trial continuance does not become automatically followed by a continuance on the discovery
11 cutoff dates (see Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b) ["a continuance or postponement of the trial date
12 does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings"]), and even if the Court was to grant such a
13 request. Defendant's motion must contain a meet and confer declaration (Id. § 2024.050(a)),
14 which it cannot because Defendant never met and conferred with Plaintiff before seeking such
15 relief. (Khos. Deck, ^ 11.)
16 Among the factors the Court must consider in exercising its discretion to reopen the
17 discovery cutoff dates are:
18 "(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
19 (2) The diligence or lack of diligence ofthe party seeking the discovery or the hearing of
20 a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the
21 discovery motion was not heard earlier.
22 (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will
23 prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial
24 calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party."
25 (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(b).) Here, Defendant cannot establish what facts it needs to prepare
26 for trial given that it already deposed Plaintiff, multiple third-party witnesses, and multiple expert
27 witnesses. Further, Plaintiff has been diligent, but Defendant has not when it had 3 I/2 years to
28 obtain the information it claims it still needs but did not do so until Summer of this year, so
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 of 6
1 Defendant cannot provide any reason why discovery was not completed earlier, let alone why it
2 did not timely file any motions to compel if Defendant saw fit to do so prior to the August 12,
3 2022, cutoff. Moreover, any discovery continuance would necessarily delay trial in this case,
4 resulting in prejudice to Plaintiff, who has already patiently waited 3 14 years to have her day in
5 court.
6 Second, anv Irreparable Harm was Caused Solely bv Defendant's Own Lack ofDiligence.
7 The fact that Defendant may not be ready for trial is not because Defendant diligently conducted
8 discovery and depositions in the last 3 Vi years but still needs more time to prepare. Simply put.
9 Defendant and its counsel sat on their handsfromMarch 2019 to May 2022, not conducting any
10 written discovery, serving depositions or subpoenas. Any irreparable harm is caused solely by
11 Defendant's lack of diligence and cannot fathomably be used as a basis to continue the trial or
12 discovery cutoff dates. In tandem with the history of discovery abuse leading to five-figure
13 monetary sanctions leveled against Defendant, this Court must also consider that this last-minute
14 request for trial/cutoff continuances is being made simply to engage in further gamesmanship
15 against Plaintiff.
16 Further, trial cannot continue in any capacity because Plaintiffs counsel already has
17 multiple trials scheduled nearly the entirety of 2023. (Khos. Deck, f 12.) If this Court grants
18 Defendant's requested relief it would prejudice Plaintiff, vvho has waited 3 V2 years to have her
19 day in court and who was the responsible party here in her counsel dutifully conducting discovery
20 and depositions in the matter. Trial should not be continued, depriving Plaintiff of her day in court
21 potentially up to another year, because of Defendant's self-created "emergency" in not being
22 diligent in the litigation.
23 Finally, sanctions should be ordered against Defendant for requesting to continue the
24 cutoff without substantial justification. Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050(c) state that "The
25 court shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attomey who
26 unsuccessfully makes...a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless itfindsthat the one
27 subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
28 imposition of the sanction unjust." Here Defendant cannot possibly argue it has acted with
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5 of 6
1 substantial justification here, given the history of its discovery abuse and lack of diligence in the
2 litigation. Plaintiff therefore requests $1,060 in monetary sanctions. (Khos. Deck, 13-14.)
3 IV. CONCLUSION.
4 Given the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court DENY Defendant's instant
5 motion for ex parte relief in its entirety.
6 Dated: August 29, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
7
8
By:
9 Arash S. Khosrowshahi
Joshua S. Falakassa
10 Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
6 of 6
Preview
FILED/ENDOFSED 1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 AUG 3 0 2022 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 By G. Galaviz, Deputy Jlerk 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff, SAJIDA ZAMAN 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 14 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 15 PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 vs. AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX 17 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 CORPORATION'S EX PARTE through 20, inclusive, MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 18 DATE. Defendants. 19 Date: TBD BYFAX 20 Time: TBD Dept.: 47 21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 23 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 24 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("PlaintifF') has diligently conducted discovery and 25 depositions in her FEHA disability/wrongful termination case after nearly 3 Vi years of 26 litigation and is prepared to go to trial. 27 /// 28 /// MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 of 6 1 A. Plaintiff Sustained Work-Related Injuries and Disabilities to her Knee While 2 on the Job but was Terminated for Allegedly Not Reporting Immediately. 3 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 4 ("FAC")filedon January 24,2020, that she was originally hired as a "Packer" at Defendant Liqui- 5 Box Corporation's ("Defendant") liquid bad manufacturing center in Sacramento in December 6 2003, and was eventually promoted to "Inspector-Packer" (FAC, ^ 6.) PiaintifPs job duties 7 included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive tasks, requiring her to stand foi 8 long periods of time and lift/haul heavy loads over 16 years of employment. (Id.) 9 On or about December 3, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to her left knee while working 10 for Defendants, and over time her knee stiffness tumed into consistent and considerable pain. (Id. 11 T[ 7.) Plaintifffirstbecame aware her pain was a work-related knee injury on or about January 3 12 2019, which was when she reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and begin her worker's 13 compensation claim. (Id.) Defendant's human resources department sent Plaintiff for medica! 14 examination to the workers compensation medical provider and monitored the examination 15 without PlaintifTs consent. (Id., f 8.) 16 Thereafter, Plaintiff was instmcted by Defendant to go home until further notice but was 17 then summoned back for a work meeting on January 10, 2019. (Id., ^ 9.) At the meeting Plaintiffs 18 16 years of employment was terminated because she allegedly "neglected to report [her] injury 19 timely" in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which states ir 20 relevant part, "Immediately report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member nc 21 matter how minor or without exception," and that "[a]ny violation of these Critical Safety 22 Behaviors will result in immediate termination of employment." (Id.) 23 Based on these allegations. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her work-relatec 24 injuries and disabilities, with the CSB policy used as pretext. (Id., ^ 10.) Plaintiff brings causes ol 25 action for (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation ol 26 Public Policy; (3) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Engage in the 27 Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation ir 28 MEMORANDtIM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 6 1 Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Unfair Competitior 2 Law. (/J.,1[t 19-64.) 3 B. Plaintiff is Prepared to Go to Trial While Defendant Lacked Diligence in this 4 Case after 3 '/2 Years of Litigation. 5 Plaintiff has already served trial appearance notices and trial subpoenas in this matter 6 (Declaration of Arash Khosrowshahi in Opposition ["Khos. Decl."], ^ 3; attached as Exhibit A 7 therein are tme and correct copies of the trial appearance notices and trial subpoenas), and is 8 preparing her motions in limine, exhibit binder, proposed jury instmctions, trial brief, statement 9 of the case, and witness list per Local Rules 2.95-2.99.04. (Khos. Deck, f 3.) Plaintiffs counsel 10 has reached out to Defendant's counsel Mr. James T. Jones to meet and confer in preparation for 11 trial. Indeed, Mr. Jones himself represented he would have motions in limine in the matter 12 prepared for Plaintiffs counsels' review by September 5, 2022. (Id., | 4; attached as Exhibit B 13 are tioie and correct copies of counsels' meet and confer correspondence on trial matters.) 14 By contrast, Defendant did not conduct anv affirmative discovery in this case from 15 when it was filed in March 2019 until Mav 2022. (Khos. Decl., ^5.) Further, Defendant 16 further has been sanctioned $12,250.00 for its abuse of the discovery process in withholding 17 documents, facts, and witness information by failing to respond to discovery or by making 18 meritless objections without response and must produce the discovery by September 1,2022. (Id., 19 I 6; attached as Exhibit C are tme and correct copies of the Court's minute orders on Plaintiffs 20 discovery motions seeking sanctions.) Moreover, Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff, third- 21 party witnesses, and several expert witnesses in this matter (Khos. Decl., ^ 7), and when 22 Defendant attempted to depose Plaintiff a second time via ex parte application. Judge Richard 23 Sueyoshi in Department 53 denied their requested relief. (Id., ^ 8; attached as Exhibit D is a tme 24 and correct copies of the Court's order denying Defendant's ex parte application to depose 25 Plaintiff a second time.) 26 Defendant further served written discovery requests upon Plaintiff in June 2022, to which 27 Plaintiff served responses, but Defendant did not meet and confer on any of Plaintiff s responses 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 6 1 and did not timely file motions to compel by the August 12, 2022, nonexpert discovery cutoff. 2 (Khos. Deck, ^ 9.) 3 II. ARGUMENT. 4 First, Good Cause is Lacking. At no point did Defendant bother to file a noticed motion 5 seeking a trial continuance or extensions on the discovery cutoffs in this case, and only does so 6 on the eve of trial by way of ex parte relief. This is due to Defendant's sheer lack of diligence in 7 this matter, not Plaintiffs. Defendant did request Plaintiff stipulate to a continuance on July 21, 8 2022, but Plaintiff, after waiting for her day in court for 3 V2 years while her counsels diligently 9 litigated the matter, refused as she is ready to put her case to thejury. (Khos. Deck, \ 10.) Further, 10 any trial continuance does not become automatically followed by a continuance on the discovery 11 cutoff dates (see Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b) ["a continuance or postponement of the trial date 12 does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings"]), and even if the Court was to grant such a 13 request. Defendant's motion must contain a meet and confer declaration (Id. § 2024.050(a)), 14 which it cannot because Defendant never met and conferred with Plaintiff before seeking such 15 relief. (Khos. Deck, ^ 11.) 16 Among the factors the Court must consider in exercising its discretion to reopen the 17 discovery cutoff dates are: 18 "(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. 19 (2) The diligence or lack of diligence ofthe party seeking the discovery or the hearing of 20 a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the 21 discovery motion was not heard earlier. 22 (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will 23 prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial 24 calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party." 25 (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(b).) Here, Defendant cannot establish what facts it needs to prepare 26 for trial given that it already deposed Plaintiff, multiple third-party witnesses, and multiple expert 27 witnesses. Further, Plaintiff has been diligent, but Defendant has not when it had 3 I/2 years to 28 obtain the information it claims it still needs but did not do so until Summer of this year, so MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 of 6 1 Defendant cannot provide any reason why discovery was not completed earlier, let alone why it 2 did not timely file any motions to compel if Defendant saw fit to do so prior to the August 12, 3 2022, cutoff. Moreover, any discovery continuance would necessarily delay trial in this case, 4 resulting in prejudice to Plaintiff, who has already patiently waited 3 14 years to have her day in 5 court. 6 Second, anv Irreparable Harm was Caused Solely bv Defendant's Own Lack ofDiligence. 7 The fact that Defendant may not be ready for trial is not because Defendant diligently conducted 8 discovery and depositions in the last 3 Vi years but still needs more time to prepare. Simply put. 9 Defendant and its counsel sat on their handsfromMarch 2019 to May 2022, not conducting any 10 written discovery, serving depositions or subpoenas. Any irreparable harm is caused solely by 11 Defendant's lack of diligence and cannot fathomably be used as a basis to continue the trial or 12 discovery cutoff dates. In tandem with the history of discovery abuse leading to five-figure 13 monetary sanctions leveled against Defendant, this Court must also consider that this last-minute 14 request for trial/cutoff continuances is being made simply to engage in further gamesmanship 15 against Plaintiff. 16 Further, trial cannot continue in any capacity because Plaintiffs counsel already has 17 multiple trials scheduled nearly the entirety of 2023. (Khos. Deck, f 12.) If this Court grants 18 Defendant's requested relief it would prejudice Plaintiff, vvho has waited 3 V2 years to have her 19 day in court and who was the responsible party here in her counsel dutifully conducting discovery 20 and depositions in the matter. Trial should not be continued, depriving Plaintiff of her day in court 21 potentially up to another year, because of Defendant's self-created "emergency" in not being 22 diligent in the litigation. 23 Finally, sanctions should be ordered against Defendant for requesting to continue the 24 cutoff without substantial justification. Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050(c) state that "The 25 court shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attomey who 26 unsuccessfully makes...a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless itfindsthat the one 27 subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the 28 imposition of the sanction unjust." Here Defendant cannot possibly argue it has acted with MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 of 6 1 substantial justification here, given the history of its discovery abuse and lack of diligence in the 2 litigation. Plaintiff therefore requests $1,060 in monetary sanctions. (Khos. Deck, 13-14.) 3 IV. CONCLUSION. 4 Given the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court DENY Defendant's instant 5 motion for ex parte relief in its entirety. 6 Dated: August 29, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 7 8 By: 9 Arash S. Khosrowshahi Joshua S. Falakassa 10 Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 6 of 6