Preview
1 JOSHUA 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 Fi LED/EMOOBSEO
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) AUG - 3 2022
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 By:. H. PEMFl TON
Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Deputy Clerk
7 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
Email: ash@Iibertymanlaw.com
8
Attomeys for Plaintiff,
9 SAJIDA ZAMAN
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNL\
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.; 34-2019-00252121
13 RESERVATION ID; 2664200
14 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
15 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES AS TO SPECIAL
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 INTERROGATORIES, SET FIVE, AND
16 through 20, inclusive. MONETARY SANCTIONS
17 Defendants. Date: October 18, 2022
18 Time: 1:30pm BY -AX
Dept.: 53
19 Trial Date: September 12, 2022
20
21
22 I. INTRODUCTION.
Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') served her fifth set of Special Interrogatories on
23
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") via email on May 27,2022. However, Defendant
24
failed to serve objections or responses by the June 28, 2022 deadline.
25
Plaintiff therefore moves this Court for an order compelling Defendant to respond to
26
Special Interrogatories, Set Five therein, with Defendant having waived its right to object and
27
Defendant being monetarily sanctioned in the amount of $710.00.
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 of 5
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 A. Plaintiff Alleges in her Operative Complaint She was Terminated in Violation
3 of FEHA for Her Disabilities and Work-Related Injuries.
4 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
5 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was an Inspector-Packer employee of Defendant, a
6 liquid bag manufacturing company, from December 2003 until January 2019. (FAC, 3, 6, 9.)
7 Plaintiff alleges that her job duties included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive
8 tasks, requiring standing for long periods and lifting/hauling heavy loads {Id., f 6.)
9 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2018, she suffered an injuty to her left knee
10 while working for Defendant, and that over time the injury gradually turned from stiffness to
11 consistent and considerable pain. {Id., ^ 7.) About a month later on Januaty 3, 2019, Plaintifi
12 became aware her pain was a work-related injury, and reported it to Defendant to seek treatment
13 and begin a workers' compensation claim, as the knee injuty caused chronic pain and interfered
14 with Plaintiffs ability to walk, move, and work. {Id.)
15 After being seen by the workers compensation medical provider. Plaintiff was instructed
16 to go home until further notice. {Id., ^| 8-9.) One week later, on or about January 10, 2019
17 Defendant called Plaintiff into a meeting, and terminated her 16 years of employment because she
18 allegedly neglected to report her injury timely in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety
19 Behavior's ("CSB") policy. {Id., 19.) This policy in sum states that employees are to "Immediately
20 report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no matter how minor or without
21 exception," and that "any violation of these Critical Safety Behaviors will result in immediate
22 termination of employment." {Id.)
23 Plaintiff alleges that her injury required that she take time off work or receive other
24 modified work duties or other accommodations—however, upon learning of Plaintiffs injury,
25 Defendant immediately terminated her employment. {Id., \ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that but for her
26 injury and workers compensation claim, she would not have been terminated, with the CSB policy
27 used as pretext, itself facially in violation of OSHA regulations. {Id.)
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 5
1 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination
2 in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Disability
3 Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (4) Failure to
4 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable
5 Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7)
6 Unfair Competition Law. {Id., 12-64.)
7 B. Plaintiff Served Her Special Interrogatories. Set Five, to Defendant via Email
8 on May 27, 2022, but Defendant Failed to Timely Respond or Object bv the
9 June 28. 2022 Deadline.
10 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her fifth set of Special Interrogatories propounded
11 against Defendant via email. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Decl."],
12 I 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special
13 Interrogatories to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set Five).) The Special Interrogatories were
14 concunently served with Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions (Set One) ("RFAs") and Form
15 Interrogatories—General, Set Two ("FROGs") (Khos. Decl., ^ 3), and contained 22 separate
16 interrogatories in sum asking for:
17 (1) Defendant's insurance retention (Special Interrogatories, Set Five, No. 43);
18 (2) when the insurer was first notified of this case {Id., No. 44);
19 (3) safety trainings Defendant contends it provided Plaintiff and when they occurred {Id.
20 Nos. 45-46);
21 (4) whether Defendant informed Plaintiff it was under OSHA's "Severe Violator
22 Enforcement Program" when it conductedfrainings{Id., No. 47);
23 (5) all steps Defendant took to evaluate modified work duties to accommodate Plaintifi
24 {Id., No. 48);
25 (6) the date Plaintiffs injuty was first identified {Id., No. 49);
26 (7) the percentage of employees who missed work due to cumulative trauma injuries or not
27 in the last five years {Id., Nos. 50-51.);
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 5
1 (8) all facts/witnesses/documents in support of Defendant's contention that defective
2 trolleys Plaintiff worked on were repaired {Id., No. 52-54);
3 (9) whether Defendant notified Plaintiff when she signed the CSB policy that OSHA cited
4 and convicted them for machine safety procedure violations {Id., No. 55);
5 (10) all facts/documents in support of the contention that Defendant trained employees to
6 identify disease, condition or injuty from their signs and symptoms {Id., Nos. 56-57);
7 (11) all facts/witnesses/document in support of the contention that Plaintiff was diagnosed
8 with a left knee and hamstring pain in relation to her 4 Panel EHS Disciplinary Review. {Id. Nos
9 58-59);
10 (12) whether Defendant contends Plaintiff injuries were caused by her failure to follow
11 Defendant's instructions provided in her training on proper operation of mega tote carts, and all
12 supporting facts {Id., Nos. 60-61);
13 (13) whether attendance for such mega tote cart trainings were mandatoty {Id., No. 62);
14 (14) the identities of all persons present for mega tote cart trainings, as well as all
15 documents reflecting the matters presented at the trainings {Id., Nos. 63-64); and
16 (15) all facts supporting Defendant's contention that Plaintiffs actions leading to her
17 injuries were inconsistent with any trainings provided. {Id., No. 65.)
18 (Khos. Decl., 14(1)-(15); see Exhibit A).
19 Given that the intenogatories were served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to
20 serve responses was June 28, 2022, constituting 30 calendar days plus two additional court days
21 from May 27, 2022. However, as of this writing Defendant did not serve any objections or
22 responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Khos. Decl., ^5.)
23 m. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT MEETINg
24 OR CONFERRING AND WITHOUT A SEPARATE STATEMENT. WHILE
25 DEFENDANT MUST BE SANCTIONED WHILE WAIVING ITS RIGHT TC
26 OBJECT.
27 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290, when a party fails to timely serve responses to
28 interrogatoty discovety requests, they waive any objection to the requests. {Id., subd. (a).) Further,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 of 5
1 the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. {Id., subd. (b).) Failure to
2 respond to discovety is grounds for monetary sanctions. {Id., subd. (c); § 2023.010(d); Sinaiko
3 Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411-
4 12 [sanctions may be issued without meeting and conferring].) Finally, no meet and confer
5 declaration or separate statement is required when the responding party fails to timely respond
6 (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th at
7 404.)
8 Here, Plaintiff served via email her Special Intenogatories, Set Five, on May 27, 2022.
9 Thirty days from that date was June 26, 2022, and adding two court days for electronic service
10 made Defendant's deadline to object and respond June 28, 2022. {Id., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)
11 However, at no point during June 28,2022 did Defendant serve objections or responses.
12 As such. Defendant has now waived all objections it could otherwise make to the
13 interrogatories. Plaintiff is further entitled to move to compel responsesfromDefendant as to each
14 of Interrogatories Nos. 43 to 65. Defendant must also be sanctioned monetarily in the amount ol
15 $710.00. (Khos. Decl., *^ 5-6.) Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer or provide a separate
16 statement under these circumstances.
17 IV. CONCLUSION
18 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion
19 and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Special Interrogatories,
20 Set Five, Nos. 43 through 65; (2) compel responses to each; and (3) to pay separate monetary
21 sanctions in an amount of $710.00.
22 Dated: August 2, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
23 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
24
25 By: v ^ ; : ^ ^ rr^ ^
Arash S. Khosrowshahi
26 Joshua S. Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5 of 5
Preview
1 JOSHUA 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 Fi LED/EMOOBSEO 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) AUG - 3 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 By:. H. PEMFl TON Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Deputy Clerk 7 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 Email: ash@Iibertymanlaw.com 8 Attomeys for Plaintiff, 9 SAJIDA ZAMAN 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNL\ 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.; 34-2019-00252121 13 RESERVATION ID; 2664200 14 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 15 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AS TO SPECIAL LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 INTERROGATORIES, SET FIVE, AND 16 through 20, inclusive. MONETARY SANCTIONS 17 Defendants. Date: October 18, 2022 18 Time: 1:30pm BY -AX Dept.: 53 19 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 20 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') served her fifth set of Special Interrogatories on 23 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") via email on May 27,2022. However, Defendant 24 failed to serve objections or responses by the June 28, 2022 deadline. 25 Plaintiff therefore moves this Court for an order compelling Defendant to respond to 26 Special Interrogatories, Set Five therein, with Defendant having waived its right to object and 27 Defendant being monetarily sanctioned in the amount of $710.00. 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 of 5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 A. Plaintiff Alleges in her Operative Complaint She was Terminated in Violation 3 of FEHA for Her Disabilities and Work-Related Injuries. 4 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 5 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was an Inspector-Packer employee of Defendant, a 6 liquid bag manufacturing company, from December 2003 until January 2019. (FAC, 3, 6, 9.) 7 Plaintiff alleges that her job duties included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive 8 tasks, requiring standing for long periods and lifting/hauling heavy loads {Id., f 6.) 9 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2018, she suffered an injuty to her left knee 10 while working for Defendant, and that over time the injury gradually turned from stiffness to 11 consistent and considerable pain. {Id., ^ 7.) About a month later on Januaty 3, 2019, Plaintifi 12 became aware her pain was a work-related injury, and reported it to Defendant to seek treatment 13 and begin a workers' compensation claim, as the knee injuty caused chronic pain and interfered 14 with Plaintiffs ability to walk, move, and work. {Id.) 15 After being seen by the workers compensation medical provider. Plaintiff was instructed 16 to go home until further notice. {Id., ^| 8-9.) One week later, on or about January 10, 2019 17 Defendant called Plaintiff into a meeting, and terminated her 16 years of employment because she 18 allegedly neglected to report her injury timely in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety 19 Behavior's ("CSB") policy. {Id., 19.) This policy in sum states that employees are to "Immediately 20 report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no matter how minor or without 21 exception," and that "any violation of these Critical Safety Behaviors will result in immediate 22 termination of employment." {Id.) 23 Plaintiff alleges that her injury required that she take time off work or receive other 24 modified work duties or other accommodations—however, upon learning of Plaintiffs injury, 25 Defendant immediately terminated her employment. {Id., \ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that but for her 26 injury and workers compensation claim, she would not have been terminated, with the CSB policy 27 used as pretext, itself facially in violation of OSHA regulations. {Id.) 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 5 1 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination 2 in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Disability 3 Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (4) Failure to 4 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable 5 Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) 6 Unfair Competition Law. {Id., 12-64.) 7 B. Plaintiff Served Her Special Interrogatories. Set Five, to Defendant via Email 8 on May 27, 2022, but Defendant Failed to Timely Respond or Object bv the 9 June 28. 2022 Deadline. 10 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her fifth set of Special Interrogatories propounded 11 against Defendant via email. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Decl."], 12 I 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special 13 Interrogatories to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set Five).) The Special Interrogatories were 14 concunently served with Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions (Set One) ("RFAs") and Form 15 Interrogatories—General, Set Two ("FROGs") (Khos. Decl., ^ 3), and contained 22 separate 16 interrogatories in sum asking for: 17 (1) Defendant's insurance retention (Special Interrogatories, Set Five, No. 43); 18 (2) when the insurer was first notified of this case {Id., No. 44); 19 (3) safety trainings Defendant contends it provided Plaintiff and when they occurred {Id. 20 Nos. 45-46); 21 (4) whether Defendant informed Plaintiff it was under OSHA's "Severe Violator 22 Enforcement Program" when it conductedfrainings{Id., No. 47); 23 (5) all steps Defendant took to evaluate modified work duties to accommodate Plaintifi 24 {Id., No. 48); 25 (6) the date Plaintiffs injuty was first identified {Id., No. 49); 26 (7) the percentage of employees who missed work due to cumulative trauma injuries or not 27 in the last five years {Id., Nos. 50-51.); 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 5 1 (8) all facts/witnesses/documents in support of Defendant's contention that defective 2 trolleys Plaintiff worked on were repaired {Id., No. 52-54); 3 (9) whether Defendant notified Plaintiff when she signed the CSB policy that OSHA cited 4 and convicted them for machine safety procedure violations {Id., No. 55); 5 (10) all facts/documents in support of the contention that Defendant trained employees to 6 identify disease, condition or injuty from their signs and symptoms {Id., Nos. 56-57); 7 (11) all facts/witnesses/document in support of the contention that Plaintiff was diagnosed 8 with a left knee and hamstring pain in relation to her 4 Panel EHS Disciplinary Review. {Id. Nos 9 58-59); 10 (12) whether Defendant contends Plaintiff injuries were caused by her failure to follow 11 Defendant's instructions provided in her training on proper operation of mega tote carts, and all 12 supporting facts {Id., Nos. 60-61); 13 (13) whether attendance for such mega tote cart trainings were mandatoty {Id., No. 62); 14 (14) the identities of all persons present for mega tote cart trainings, as well as all 15 documents reflecting the matters presented at the trainings {Id., Nos. 63-64); and 16 (15) all facts supporting Defendant's contention that Plaintiffs actions leading to her 17 injuries were inconsistent with any trainings provided. {Id., No. 65.) 18 (Khos. Decl., 14(1)-(15); see Exhibit A). 19 Given that the intenogatories were served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to 20 serve responses was June 28, 2022, constituting 30 calendar days plus two additional court days 21 from May 27, 2022. However, as of this writing Defendant did not serve any objections or 22 responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Khos. Decl., ^5.) 23 m. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT MEETINg 24 OR CONFERRING AND WITHOUT A SEPARATE STATEMENT. WHILE 25 DEFENDANT MUST BE SANCTIONED WHILE WAIVING ITS RIGHT TC 26 OBJECT. 27 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290, when a party fails to timely serve responses to 28 interrogatoty discovety requests, they waive any objection to the requests. {Id., subd. (a).) Further, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 of 5 1 the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. {Id., subd. (b).) Failure to 2 respond to discovety is grounds for monetary sanctions. {Id., subd. (c); § 2023.010(d); Sinaiko 3 Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411- 4 12 [sanctions may be issued without meeting and conferring].) Finally, no meet and confer 5 declaration or separate statement is required when the responding party fails to timely respond 6 (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th at 7 404.) 8 Here, Plaintiff served via email her Special Intenogatories, Set Five, on May 27, 2022. 9 Thirty days from that date was June 26, 2022, and adding two court days for electronic service 10 made Defendant's deadline to object and respond June 28, 2022. {Id., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) 11 However, at no point during June 28,2022 did Defendant serve objections or responses. 12 As such. Defendant has now waived all objections it could otherwise make to the 13 interrogatories. Plaintiff is further entitled to move to compel responsesfromDefendant as to each 14 of Interrogatories Nos. 43 to 65. Defendant must also be sanctioned monetarily in the amount ol 15 $710.00. (Khos. Decl., *^ 5-6.) Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer or provide a separate 16 statement under these circumstances. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion 19 and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Special Interrogatories, 20 Set Five, Nos. 43 through 65; (2) compel responses to each; and (3) to pay separate monetary 21 sanctions in an amount of $710.00. 22 Dated: August 2, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 23 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 24 25 By: v ^ ; : ^ ^ rr^ ^ Arash S. Khosrowshahi 26 Joshua S. Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 of 5