Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
ORDER DETERMINING DISPOSITION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
Case Name: ^ . , Case Number:
fype of Application:
Type Application: ' By: A Application Date:
io lh,\/eflf- CoMplfi/e
"yonDmnh Jl
Representing:
AUG 2 .S 202?
Names of Appearing Part^: ^
J-UcjUi-Booc Corp. fl^-JKt50^0
The Court, having considered the above entitled ex parte application ^fi^^i^hout a hearing • after hearing
with appearance as noted above, rules as follows:
• The application is granted.
jSfThe application is denied on the merits of the papers presented to the Court.
• The application is denied without prejudice to its resubmission for the following reason(s):
• The moving party may not proceed except by noticed motion.
• Other
• Counsel for the is ordered to prepare formal order.
AUG 2 5 2022
DATE JUDGE OF THE SUPEI ^CbUR^^^^
JUDGE RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request
for Production of Documents at Deposition
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DATE/TIME : August 25, 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 Shortening Time to Hear
Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition
and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for
Production of Documents at Deposition
The Court rules on this matter without hearing. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 166(a)(1); Sac.Sup. Ct. Local Rule
2.23S(A); see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cai.App.3d 1107, 1111. The Court has reviewed
the ex parte application and its supporting papers. No opposition papers were timely filed.
Defendant has filed an ex parte application titled as follows: "Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Notice of
Hearing, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of James T. Jones; and [Proposed] Order in
Support of Ex Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for Production of
Documents at Deposition." It appears that Defendant filed two separate versions of this document, the second
version which apparently attached a hand-written note stating "corrected docs with exhibits." From the Court's
review of these filings, it appears that while the pleading is unchanged, Defendant's counsel failed to include a
complete set of the intended exhibits in the first filing which has been changed in the second filing.
Defendant's application is DENIED. The application refers to the Defendant's desire to conduct a continued
deposition of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman. Based upon the information supplied to the Court and that contained in
Defendant's filing, there is no evidence that Ms. Zaman has been designated by Plaintiff (or any other party) as
an expert witness. Yet, in what appears to be an effort to convince this Court that there is still time for
Defendant's proposed motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Zaman, Defendant cites CCP 2024.030 for the
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request
for Production of Documents at Deposition
proposition that Defendant's proposed motion must be "heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially
set for trial of the action." (Def App. at 4:11-15.) As plainly evident from both the title of CCP 2024.030 as
well as the prefatory text which Defendant also quotes, CCP 2024.030 sets for the discovery cutoff (and
discovery motion cutoff) for expert witnesses. It does not apply to a motion to compel the deposition of Ms.
Zaman if she is not being deposed as an expert pursuant to CCP 2034.410, et seq. Again, Defendant presents no
evidence that she is being deposed as an expert witness. Based upon the information supplied to the Court, the
applicable discovery cut off is CCP 2024.020(a), which required that all non-expert discovery be completed "on
or before the 30th day" before trial and that "motions concerning [non-expert] discovery [be] heard on or before
the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action." Trial is set for September 12, 2022.
Defendant's request to have its motion heard "on or before September 2, 2022," is denied as such timeframe is
beyond the deadline.
At this point, there is no justified or feasible order shortening time that can be imposed to set a hearing prior to
the imminent non-expert motion deadline. Nor has Defendant demonstrate any good cause otherwise.
Defendant counsel's declaration which appears to discuss its failure to adequately staff this matter in the
timeframe leading up to trial which should be expected to require substantial work does not constitute good
cause. The fact that, as Defendant counsel declares, "'[a]s of this time, no [associate attorney] has been
assigned" by Defendant counsel's firm to assist in this matter provides no excuse to alter the non-expert
discovery cutoffs. Finally, the Court will note that no timely motion was made pursuant to CCP 2024.050(a).
Defendant's assertions of irreparable harm merely highlight the necessity to have brought this matter before the
Court earlier.
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 Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request
for Production of Documents at Deposition
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING
1, the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, certify that 1 am not a party to
this cause, and on the date shown below 1 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(a),libertvmanlaw.com Email: James.Jones{a),iacksonlewis.com
1, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: August 25, 2022
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ORDER DETERMINING DISPOSITION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION Case Name: ^ . , Case Number: fype of Application: Type Application: ' By: A Application Date: io lh,\/eflf- CoMplfi/e "yonDmnh Jl Representing: AUG 2 .S 202? Names of Appearing Part^: ^ J-UcjUi-Booc Corp. fl^-JKt50^0 The Court, having considered the above entitled ex parte application ^fi^^i^hout a hearing • after hearing with appearance as noted above, rules as follows: • The application is granted. jSfThe application is denied on the merits of the papers presented to the Court. • The application is denied without prejudice to its resubmission for the following reason(s): • The moving party may not proceed except by noticed motion. • Other • Counsel for the is ordered to prepare formal order. AUG 2 5 2022 DATE JUDGE OF THE SUPEI ^CbUR^^^^ JUDGE RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents at Deposition SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME : August 25, 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 Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents at Deposition The Court rules on this matter without hearing. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 166(a)(1); Sac.Sup. Ct. Local Rule 2.23S(A); see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cai.App.3d 1107, 1111. The Court has reviewed the ex parte application and its supporting papers. No opposition papers were timely filed. Defendant has filed an ex parte application titled as follows: "Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Notice of Hearing, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of James T. Jones; and [Proposed] Order in Support of Ex Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents at Deposition." It appears that Defendant filed two separate versions of this document, the second version which apparently attached a hand-written note stating "corrected docs with exhibits." From the Court's review of these filings, it appears that while the pleading is unchanged, Defendant's counsel failed to include a complete set of the intended exhibits in the first filing which has been changed in the second filing. Defendant's application is DENIED. The application refers to the Defendant's desire to conduct a continued deposition of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman. Based upon the information supplied to the Court and that contained in Defendant's filing, there is no evidence that Ms. Zaman has been designated by Plaintiff (or any other party) as an expert witness. Yet, in what appears to be an effort to convince this Court that there is still time for Defendant's proposed motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Zaman, Defendant cites CCP 2024.030 for the CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents at Deposition proposition that Defendant's proposed motion must be "heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action." (Def App. at 4:11-15.) As plainly evident from both the title of CCP 2024.030 as well as the prefatory text which Defendant also quotes, CCP 2024.030 sets for the discovery cutoff (and discovery motion cutoff) for expert witnesses. It does not apply to a motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Zaman if she is not being deposed as an expert pursuant to CCP 2034.410, et seq. Again, Defendant presents no evidence that she is being deposed as an expert witness. Based upon the information supplied to the Court, the applicable discovery cut off is CCP 2024.020(a), which required that all non-expert discovery be completed "on or before the 30th day" before trial and that "motions concerning [non-expert] discovery [be] heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action." Trial is set for September 12, 2022. Defendant's request to have its motion heard "on or before September 2, 2022," is denied as such timeframe is beyond the deadline. At this point, there is no justified or feasible order shortening time that can be imposed to set a hearing prior to the imminent non-expert motion deadline. Nor has Defendant demonstrate any good cause otherwise. Defendant counsel's declaration which appears to discuss its failure to adequately staff this matter in the timeframe leading up to trial which should be expected to require substantial work does not constitute good cause. The fact that, as Defendant counsel declares, "'[a]s of this time, no [associate attorney] has been assigned" by Defendant counsel's firm to assist in this matter provides no excuse to alter the non-expert discovery cutoffs. Finally, the Court will note that no timely motion was made pursuant to CCP 2024.050(a). Defendant's assertions of irreparable harm merely highlight the necessity to have brought this matter before the Court earlier. 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 Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Responsive Documents to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents at Deposition CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING 1, the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, certify that 1 am not a party to this cause, and on the date shown below 1 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(a),libertvmanlaw.com Email: James.Jones{a),iacksonlewis.com 1, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: August 25, 2022 Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento