Preview
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967)
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 FlLED/ENDORSED
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
3 Telephone: (916)341-0404
Facsimile: (916)341-0141 AUG 1 5 2022
4 Email: james.jones@iacksonlewis.com
By:. E. Marrinnairi
5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Deputy Clerk
BENJAMIN A. MAINS (SBN 274056)
6 50 Califomia Street, 9"" Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
7 Telephone: (415)394-9400
Facsimile: (415)394-9401
8 Email: beniamin.mains@iacksonlewis.com
9 Attomeys for Defendant
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO. 34-2019-00252121 -CU-WT-GDS
14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JAMES T. JONES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
15 vs. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
16 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES I INTERROGATORIES, SET T H R E E ,
17 through 20, inclusive. AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
18 Defendants. Rescheduled Date: August 25, 2022
Time: 1:30 p.m.
19 Dept: 53
Reservation No.: 2664201
20
Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019
21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 DECLARATION OF JAMES T. JONES
2 I, James T. Jones, declare:
3 1. I am an attomey at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of Califomia and
4 before this Court. I am a principal in the law firm of Jackson Lewis, P.C, attomeys of record for
5 Liqui Box Corporation ("Defendant"). I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if
6 called and swom as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
7 2. On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special
8 Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Four. Six days later, on
9 May 24, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set Four,
10 and Request for Production of Documents, Set Five. A few days later, on May 27, 2022, Plaintiff
11 electronically served Defendant with Form Interrogatories - General, Set Two, Requests for
12 Admissions, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set Five, along with three notices of
13 depositions.
14 3. On June 21, 2022, Defendant electronically served objections to Plaintiffs Special
15 Interrogatories, Set Three. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of
16 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three.
17 4. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs counsel, Arash S. Khosrowshahi, sent a meet and
18 confer letter to defense counsel arguing Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special
19 interrogatories lacked merit. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a tme and correct copy of
20 Plaintiffs June 22, 2022, meet and confer letter.
21 5. On July 1, 2022, Ms. Morris, the Associate Attomey who was primarily
22 responsible for handling discovery issues on the case, unexpectedly began a leave of absence that
23 had been scheduled to begin on July 13. 2022. On June 24, 2022, the Associate Attomey who was
24 to take over the case (when Ms. Morris began leave) left Jackson Lewis to join a firm to do tax
25 law. It was not until approximately the first week of August that I was able to find a replacement
26 to assist with the case.
27 6. Defense counsel engaged in meet and confer efforts with Plaintiffs counsel, and
28 responded to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter on July 8, 2022, informing Plaintiffs counsel he
2
DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAENTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 would prepare and deliver a response that weekend, and again on July 10, 2022, articulating why
2 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special interrogatories numbers 30 through 33 were fair and
3 proper, while also seeking further clarification from Plaintiffs counsel regarding the scope and
4 intended meaning of Plaintiff s special interrogatories. Plaintiffs counsel responded on July 29,
5 2022, by agreeing to limit the scope of Plaintiffs special interrogatory number 30 to "five years
6 prior to Plaintiffs termination of employment to the present," and requesting Defendant provide a
7 deadline for when they could provide further responses to special interrogatories 31 through 33
8 "as represented." Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a tme and correct copy of the emails
9 exchanged by Plaintiff and Defendant on July 8, 2022, July 10, 2022, and July 29, 2022.
10 7. On August 2, 2022, at 11:05 a.m. and 11:18 a.m., I emailed Plaintiffs counsel
11 explaining that Ms. Morris had gone on leave, explaining that I would need until the coming
12 weekend to reply due to other pressing matters. I specifically mentioned that I was preparing the
13 reply brief for the summary judgment motion in this case, and that I had no Associate Attomey at
14 that time. Also, on August 5 (Friday), I attended the Mandatory Settlement Conference in this
15 case. I offered to extend all motion deadlines to allow for further meeting and conferring.
16 Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a tme and correct copy of my August 2, 2022, email.
17 8. Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the relevant "OSHA's Form 300 Log of
18 Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2019. There is no OSHA's Form
19 300 Log for 2020 and 2021 because, as reflected on the summaries for those years, there were no
20 injuries. Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the relevant "OSHA's Form 300A Summary of
21 Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2021. The 2022 Form 300A has
22 not been prepared yet. The name of the person who filled out the OSHA's Form 300A Summary
23 of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses is included on the summary itself. The "OSHA's Form
24 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report" is specific to individual employees. After a diligent
25 search. Defendant has not been able to locate OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident
26 Report for Plaintiff. Defendant believes it was misplaced when its Sacramento facility
27 significantly shut down operations. Defendant is not aware of any logs related to OSHA's Form
28 301 Injury and Illness Incident Reports.
3
DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 9. On August 16,1 am scheduled to meet with a representative from Defendant who
2 is knowledgeable regarding the process for maintaining the Form 301 Incident Report to do a
3 second search for this item. This representative is traveling from out of state and will work with
4 counsel to attempt to locate the item.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration
6 was executed pursuant to the laws of the State of Califomia on August 15, 2022, in Sacramento,
7 Califomia.
' u
9 JAMES T. JONES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAfNTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 PROOF OF S E R V I C E
2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C,
3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814.
4 On August 15, 2022,1 served the within:
5 DECLARATION OF JAMES T. JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
6 INTERROGATORIES, SET T H R E E , AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
7 on all interested parties in said action, through their attomeys of record as listed below, by placing
a true and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means:
8
1^1 PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy
9 thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 1011(a).
10
P~| M A I L - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
11 postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mailbox, at
my business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.'s ordinary business
12 practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which I am readily familiar, and
addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection
13 and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States
Postal Service.
14
n OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed
15 in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by UPS or delivering to an authorized courier or driver
16 authorized by UPS to receive documents, addressed as set forth below.
17 |x] E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on Califomia Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1010.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be
18 sent from e-mail address angie.lombard@iacksonlewis.com to the person(s) at the e-
mail address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
19 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
20
Joshua F. Falakassa (SBN 295045) Arash S. Khosrowshahi (SBN 293246)
21 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 1010 F Street, Suite 300
22 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (818)456-6168 Telephone: (916)573-0469
23 Facsimile: (888) 505-0868 Facsimile: (866)700-0787
Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libertvmanlaw.com
24 —
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on August 15, 2022 at
25 Sacramento, Califomia.
27 Angie Lombard
4864-4847-8509, v. 2
28 "
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT A
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967)
2 KELSEY F. MORRIS (SBN 311117)
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
3 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Telephone: (916)341-0404
4 Facsimile: (916)341-0141
Email: iames.iones@iacksonlewis.com
5 kelsev.morris@iacksonlewis.com
6 Attomeys for Defendant
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 CASE NO. 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS
SAJIDA ZAMAN,
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX
CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO
12 PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
13 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES SET THREE
through 20, inclusive.
14 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019
Defendants. Trial Date: September 12, 2022
15
16
17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff SAJIDA ZAMAN
18 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
19 SET NO.: SET THREE
20 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION ("Defendant" or "Company") submits the following
21 objections and responses to SAJIDA ZAMAN's ("Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set Three as
22 follows:
23 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
24 1. The objections made herein are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each
25 interrogatory is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety,
26 admissibility, and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of
27 any statement if any interrogatory was asked of or any statements contained herein were made
28 ///
1
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three
1 by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and
2 may be interposed at the time of trial.
3 2. The following objections and responses are based upon information presently
4 available to Defendant and, except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied
5 admissions are intended hereby. The fact that Defendant has objected to any interrogatory or part
6 thereof should not be taken as an admission that Defendant accepts or admits the existence of any
7 facts set forth or assumed by any such interrogatory, or that such objections constitute admissible
8 evidence. The fact that Defendant has objected to part or all of any interrogatory is not intended
9 and shall not be constmed to be a waiver by Defendant of any part of any objections to any
10 interrogatory.
11 3. To the extent any or all of the interrogatories call for information which constitutes
12 information or material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, or call for information or
13 material covered by the attomey work-product doctrine or which constitutes information or
14 material that is privileged by virtue of the attomey-client privilege. Defendant objects to each and
15 every interrogatory and will not supply or render any such information or material protected from
16 discovery by virtue of the work product doctrine or the attomey-client privilege.
17 4. Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent the interrogatory
18 calls for Defendant's and/or any third-party's confidential and/or proprietary information and will
19 not supply or render such information on the grounds that it is privileged and protected from
20 discovery.
21 5. Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent it seeks
22 information protected by the right to privacy of Defendant's current and/or former employees
23 and/or other non-parties to this action under Article 1, section 1 of the Califomia Constitution and
24 all other applicable laws. Defendant will not supply or render such information on the grounds
25 that it is privileged and protected from discovery.
26 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs use of form interrogatories in that these
27 interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in
28 this particular action. They are boiler-plate inquiries that are not tailored to the issues presented
2
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three
1 in this case. Because these interrogatories are not drafted with sensitivity to the underlying issues
2 presented herein, they are vague, ambiguous and uncertain.
3 7. Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent they utilize the
4 terms "EMPLOYEE" and/or "EMPLOYER". As defined by Plaintiff these terms are vague,
5 ambiguous, unintelligible and call for speculation. For purposes of responding to these
6 interrogatories. Defendant assumes Plaintiff is referring to LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION.
7 8. Defendant and its attomeys are continuing their investigation of this matter. At
8 this point in time. Defendant's analysis of the information and documents gathered is incomplete.
9 Defendant's present responses, therefore, are based upon the information specifically known to
10 Defendant at this time. Defendant makes these responses without prejudice to its right to
11 introduce and rely upon any information not provided in these objections and responses to
12 interrogatories at trial, or at any other stage of this proceeding, and to modify these responses if
13 necessary.
14 Subject to and without limiting or waiving these objections. Defendant provides the
15 following objections and responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three:
16 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30;
18 Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for
19 drafting OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a. and 301 log) at LIQUI-BOX
20 CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility. (The phrase "Sacramento facility" shall herein mean
21 the business at 5000 Warehouse Way, Sacramento, CA 95826 USA.)
22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30;
23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for
24 drafting" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further
25 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks
26 information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
27 evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
28 protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine.
3
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31;
2 Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for
3 storing OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 logs) at LIQUI-BOX
4 CORPORA TION'S Sacramento facility.
5 RESPONSE TO SPECLAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31;
6 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for
7 storing" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects
8 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks
9 information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
10 evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
11 protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine.
12 SPECLAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32;
13 Please identify, by name, address, and telephone number PERSON(S) with knowledge of
14 LIQUI-BOX CORPORA TION'S procedures relating to the drafting and storing of OSHA logs at
15 LIQUI-BOX CORPORA TION'S Sacramento facility.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
17 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous.
18 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and
19 scope, compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the
20 extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attomey work
21 product doctri ne.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33;
23 Please describe where the OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and
24 301 logs) are stored at LIQUI-BOX CORPORA TION'S Sacramento facility).
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
26 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous.
27 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and
28 scope, compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the
4 •
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three
extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work
2 product doctrine.
3 Dated: June 21, 2022 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
5 B yJAMES
: ^ T. JONES
^
6 KELSEY F. MORRIS
Attomeys for Defendant
-7
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three
1 PROOF OF S E R V I C E
2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C,
3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814.
4 On June 21, 2022,1 served the within:
5 DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SAJIDA
ZAMAN'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET T H R E E
6
on all interested parties in said action, through their attomeys of record as listed below, by placing
7 a true and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means:
8 Q PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy
thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil
9 Procedure section 1011(a).
10 Q M A I L - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mailbox, at
11 my business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.'s ordinary business
practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which I am readily familiar, and
12 addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection
and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States
13 Postal Service.
14 Q OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a tme and correct copy thereof enclosed
in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility
15 regularly maintained by UPS or delivering to an authorized courier or driver
authorized by UPS to receive documents, addressed as set forth below.
16
[X] E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on Califomia Code of Civil
17 Procedure Section I010.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be
sent from e-mail address kellv.asano@jacksonlewis.com to the person(s) at the e-mail
18 address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
19 unsuccessful.
20 Joshua F. Falakassa (SBN 295045) Arash S. Khosrowshahi (SBN 293246)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
21 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 1010 F Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sacramento, CA 95 814
22 Telephone: (818)456-6168 Telephone: (916)573-0469
Facsimile: (888)505-0868 Facsimile: (866)700-0787
23 Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libertvmanlaw.com
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
2^ foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 21, 2022 at
Roseville. California,
26
Kelly Asano
27
28
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three
EXHIBIT B
oM
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
1010 F Street, Ste. 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Tel.: (916) 573-0469
Fax: (866) 700-0787
Email: ash(g)Jibertvmanlaw.com
www.libertvmanlaw.com
June 22, 2022
SENT VIA E M A I L
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Attn: JAMES T. JONES
KELSEY F. MORRIS
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, California 95814
Email: james.jones@jacksonlewis.com
kelsey.morris(^jacksonlewis.com
Re: Zaman v. Liqui-Box Corporation, et al.. Case No.: 34-2019-00252121
Meet and Confer Letter re: Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Objections to Plaintiff Sajida
Zaman's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four and Special Interrogatories, Set Three.
Dear Mr. Jones,
Please allow this letter to serve as an informal effort to meet and confer concerning
Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendanf) boilerplate and meritiess objections to
Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four and Special Interrogatories, Set Three
requesting critical information and documentation related to the OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 Logs.
This letter will highlight the need for Defendant to provide verified supplemental responses
(and responsive documents) in advance of the parties July 1 mediation and July 30 deadline to file
its Opposition to Defendant's MSJ. Unfortunately, we anticipate that Defendant will continue to
impede Plaintiffs critical discovery efforts by objecting to the forthcoming responses to (1)
Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two; (2) Requests for Admissions, Set One; and
(3) Special Interrogatories, Set Five, all of which seeks critical evidence needed in Opposition to
Defendant's MSJ and for mediation.
Let us be clear counsel: if Defendant continues to hide documents and make objections
without providing code-complaint responses, we will cancel the July 1 mediation, file motions to
compel seeking sanctions, and seek ex parte relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(h)-
(i) so that Plaintiff can conduct and complete the required discovery in support her Opposition to
Defendant's MSJ.
We certainly hope this will not be necessary; however. Plaintiffs deadline to file its
Opposition to Defendant's MSJ is quickly approaching. Since time is of the essence, please
of 7
immediately let us know of your position and intent to supplement discovery responses
immediately but before Julyl.
I. Defendant's Objections to Request Nos. 1 through 3 Lack Merit.
As you know. Plaintiff propounded the following Requests for Production of Documents,
which Defendant objected to as follows:
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1;
All DOCUMENTS comprising OSHA 300 logs detailing any injury/illness at YOUR Sacramento
facility. (The phrase "Sacramento facility" shall herein mean the business at 5000 Warehouse Way,
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA.)
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1;
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that "comprising OSHA 300 logs detailing any
injury/illness" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds it
is overbroad. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that
is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the
attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the
grounds that this request seeks records relating to third parties that are protected by therightto
privacy.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2;
All DOCUMENTS comprising OSHA 300a logs detailing any injury/illness at YOUR Sacramento
facility.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2;
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that "comprising OSHA 300a logs detailing any
injury/illness" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds it
is overbroad. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that
is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the
attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the
grounds that this request seeks records relating to third parties that are protected by the right to
privacy.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3;
All DOCUMENTS comprising OSHA 301 logs detailing any injury/illness at YOUR Sacramento
facility.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3;
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that "comprising OSHA 301 logs detailing any
injury/illness" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds it
is overbroad. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that
is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2 of 7
Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the
attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the
grounds that this request seeks records relating to third parties that are protected by the right to
privacy.
None of these objections have merit for the following reasons.
Vague & Ambiguous: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts.
"Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is
apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." {Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) "[CJomprising OSHA 300 logs detailing any injury/illness" (No. I),
"comprising OSHA 300a logs detailing any injury/illness" (No. 2), and "comprising OSHA 301
logs detailing any injury/illness" (No. 3) are not vague and ambiguous clauses, and given
Defendant's own legal requirements to maintain such logs per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2), it knows
precisely what we are asking for, especially having been placed under OSHA's Severe Violator
Program because of its failure to maintain the OSHA logs at issue. Defendant's steadfast refusal
to hide behind this objection, especially after we have met and conferred for the better part of two
months on this issue, is made in bad faith and we will not tolerate it.
Overbroad: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about
requesting Defendant's Sacramento facility OSHA logs, which Defendant by law must maintain
and provide to us per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2). Recall that this regulation represents that "Yes,
your employees, former employees, their personal representatives, and their authorized
employee representatives have the right to access the OSHA injury and illness records...."
(emphasis added) within the next business day. {Id., subd. (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(v)(A).) Defendant's
illegal and unjustified delay in providing us all of its OSHA logs, which it should as a matter of
course be maintaining, is in no way overbroad.
Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence: Defendant
should be aware that Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 states that "any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved
in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter
either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party
seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored
information, tangible thing, or land or other property." (emphasis added.)
Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper mle is declared to be not only one
of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless
statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior
Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(I) to give
greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing
perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and
sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive
way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate
the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby
encouraging settlements: (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to
prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both
preparation and trial. Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game'
3 of 7
element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself"
{Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376)(emphasis added.)
Plaintiff has broadrightsto discovery, which includes obtaining Defendant's OSHA logs
reflecting any injury or illness at the Sacramento facility. Indeed, given Plaintiffs UCL cause of
action that Defendant's Critical Safety Behavior's policy facially violates OSHA reasonable
reporting regulations, and given that her FEHA disability/wrongful termination causes of action
surround her pain and injury incurred at work, it is absurd to suggest these OSHA injury/illness
logs are in no way relevant.
By objecting without responding. Defendant is only preventing ascertainment of the truth
about the merits of her claim; preventing determination of whether Defendant's proffered
"business justification" that Plaintiff was terminated for reporting her pain late is nothing more
than a sham and pretext; preventing convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving forward;
preventing educating the parties on the value of their claims/defenses; and only serves to further
delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial and MSJ hearing are fast
approaching. Plaintiff will not tolerate Defendant's gamesmanship. Defendant must participate in
good faith in the discovery process or face a motion to compel seeking sanctions.
Attomey-Client Privilege/Attomey Work Product: these Requests seek OSHA logs which
Defendant must provide to Plaintiff as a former employee by law per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2).
This in no way implicates any attomey-client privileged documents or work product, and is an
objection made solely in bad faith.
Right to Privacy of Third Parties: this objection is likewise absurd. 29 CFR §
1904.35(b)(2)(iv) provides the general mle: "May I remove the names of the employees or any
other information from the OSHA 300 Log before I give copies to an employee, former employee,
or employee representative? No, you must leave the names on the 300 Log." (emphasis added.)
Insofar as employee names have already been recorded in the requested logs. Defendant must now
provide the logs.
Given the foregoing, Defendant must remove its baseless objections and provide verified
responses per Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220.
II. Defendant's Objections to Special Interrogatories Nos. 30 through 33 Lack Merit.
Similarly, Plaintiff propounded the following Special Interrogatories, which Defendant
objected to as follows:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30;
Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for drafting
OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 log) at LIQUI-BOX
CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility. (The phrase "Sacramento facility" shall herein mean the
business at 5000 Warehouse Way, Sacramento, CA 95826 USA.)
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for drafting" is
vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks information that is
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
4 of 7
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-
client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31;
Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for storing
OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 logs) at LIQUI-BOX
CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility.
RESPONSE TO SPECLAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31;
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for storing" is
vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks information that is
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-
client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32;
Please identify, by name, address, and telephone number PERSON(S) with knowledge of L I Q U I -
BOX CORPORATION'S procedures relating to the drafting and storing of OSHA logs at
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope,
compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent
it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product
doctrine.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
Please describe where the OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301
logs) are stored at LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility).
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33;
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope,
compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent
it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product
doctrine.
None of these objections have merit for the following reasons.
Vague & Ambiguous/Compound: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the
Courts. "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information
sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." {Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) "[RJesponsible for drafting" (No. 30) and "responsible for
storing" (No. 31), are not vague and ambiguous clauses, but carry their plain English meanings
5 of 7
about who is in charge of drafting or storing the OSHA logs in question. Moreover, it is not even
clear what Defendantfindsvague and ambiguous about Nos. 32 and 33. Further, the Requests are
not so compound as to confuse Defendant here. Defendant knows precisely what we are asking
for, especially having been placed under OSHA's Severe Violator Program because of failing to
maintain proper OSHA logs, which necessarily includes information regarding who is responsible
for drafting and storing them, as well as the identification of persons with knowledge of how the
logs are stored, drafted, and where they are stored. Defendant's steadfast refusal to hide behind
this objection, especially after we have met and conferred for the better part of two months, is
made in bad faith and we will not tolerate it.
Calls for Speculation: This is an improper trial objection not applicable at the pretrial
discovery stage. Further, Defendant has already produced some of the Sacramento facility OSHA
logs at issue—therefore it is absurd to claim that these interrogatories speculate when Defendant
has to have designated persons to be in charge of storing and drafting the logs, let alone calling for
speculation as to identifying information of persons with knowledge of how the logs are
stored/drafted, as well as where they are stored.
Overbroad as to Time/Scope: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing
overbroad about requesting identifying information of persons with knowledge surrounding
Defendant's Sacramento facility OSHA logs, as well as where they are located. Defendant by law
must maintain and provide to these logs per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2). This necessarily implicates
the existence of persons responsible for maintaining these logs, and it is not overbroad to request
who was in charge in storing and drafting them, let alone overbroad to request who has knowledge
about such procedures or where the logs are stored.
Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence: Defendant
should be aware that Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 states that "any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved
in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter
either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party
seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document,
electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property." (emphasis
added.)
Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper rule is declared to be not only one
of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless
statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior
Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(1) to give
greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury;
(2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and
defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which
otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance
of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to
expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and
narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Certainly, it
can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation
while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself" {Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at
376)(emphasis added.)
6 of 7
Plaintiff has broad rights to discovery, which includes obtaining identifying information of
persons responsible for drafting and storing Defendant's OSHA logs reflecting any injury or illness
at the Sacramento facility (Nos. 30 and 31). Indeed, given Plaintiffs UCL cause of action that
Defendant's Critical Safety Behavior's policy facially violates OSHA reasonable reporting
regulations, and given that her FEHA disability/wTongful termination causes of action surround
her pain and injury incurred at work, it is absurd to suggest persons with knowledge as to the
drafting and storing of the OSHA injury/illness logs in no way have relevant information to this
case.
By objecting without responding. Defendant is only preventing convenient and
inexpensive discovery from moving forward and only serves to further delay the case and grind
the litigation to a standstill when trial and MSJ hearing are fast approaching. Plaintiff will not
tolerate Defendant's gamesmanship. Defendant must participate in good faith in the discovery
process or face a motion to compel seeking sanctions.
Attomev-Client Privilege/Attomev Work Product: these Requests seek information
regarding persons with knowledge as to who is responsible for drafting/storing Defendant's OSHA
logs, as well as persons with knowledge as to where they are located and the procedures by which
the logs are maintained. This in no way implicates any attomey-client privileged infonnation or
work product as Defendant did not plausibly assign these logs to be drafted or stored by attomeys.
This is an objection made solely in bad faith.
Given the foregoing. Defendant must remove its baseless objections and provide verified
responses per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220.
If Defendant has a genuine desire to resolve this case at mediation, it needs to stop engaging
in gamesmanship and come to the negotiation table in good-faith. As such, please have Defendant
promptly provide verified responses and produce documents to the above Requests for Production
well in advance of mediation.
Regards,
Arash S. Khosrowshahi, Attomey at Law
Cc: Sajida Zaman
Joshua Falakassa
Kasra Torabi
7 of 7
EXHIBIT C
Jones. James T. (Sacramento)
From: Jones, James T. (Sacramento)
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Joshua Falakassa; Arash Khosrowshahi
Cc; Greg Lang; Kasra Torabi
Subject:
Preview
JACKSON LEWIS P.C. JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967) 2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 FlLED/ENDORSED Sacramento, Califomia 95814 3 Telephone: (916)341-0404 Facsimile: (916)341-0141 AUG 1 5 2022 4 Email: james.jones@iacksonlewis.com By:. E. Marrinnairi 5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Deputy Clerk BENJAMIN A. MAINS (SBN 274056) 6 50 Califomia Street, 9"" Floor San Francisco, California 94111 7 Telephone: (415)394-9400 Facsimile: (415)394-9401 8 Email: beniamin.mains@iacksonlewis.com 9 Attomeys for Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO. 34-2019-00252121 -CU-WT-GDS 14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JAMES T. JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S 15 vs. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 16 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES I INTERROGATORIES, SET T H R E E , 17 through 20, inclusive. AND MONETARY SANCTIONS 18 Defendants. Rescheduled Date: August 25, 2022 Time: 1:30 p.m. 19 Dept: 53 Reservation No.: 2664201 20 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019 21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 DECLARATION OF JAMES T. JONES 2 I, James T. Jones, declare: 3 1. I am an attomey at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of Califomia and 4 before this Court. I am a principal in the law firm of Jackson Lewis, P.C, attomeys of record for 5 Liqui Box Corporation ("Defendant"). I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if 6 called and swom as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. 7 2. On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special 8 Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Four. Six days later, on 9 May 24, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set Four, 10 and Request for Production of Documents, Set Five. A few days later, on May 27, 2022, Plaintiff 11 electronically served Defendant with Form Interrogatories - General, Set Two, Requests for 12 Admissions, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set Five, along with three notices of 13 depositions. 14 3. On June 21, 2022, Defendant electronically served objections to Plaintiffs Special 15 Interrogatories, Set Three. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of 16 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three. 17 4. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs counsel, Arash S. Khosrowshahi, sent a meet and 18 confer letter to defense counsel arguing Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special 19 interrogatories lacked merit. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a tme and correct copy of 20 Plaintiffs June 22, 2022, meet and confer letter. 21 5. On July 1, 2022, Ms. Morris, the Associate Attomey who was primarily 22 responsible for handling discovery issues on the case, unexpectedly began a leave of absence that 23 had been scheduled to begin on July 13. 2022. On June 24, 2022, the Associate Attomey who was 24 to take over the case (when Ms. Morris began leave) left Jackson Lewis to join a firm to do tax 25 law. It was not until approximately the first week of August that I was able to find a replacement 26 to assist with the case. 27 6. Defense counsel engaged in meet and confer efforts with Plaintiffs counsel, and 28 responded to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter on July 8, 2022, informing Plaintiffs counsel he 2 DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAENTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 would prepare and deliver a response that weekend, and again on July 10, 2022, articulating why 2 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special interrogatories numbers 30 through 33 were fair and 3 proper, while also seeking further clarification from Plaintiffs counsel regarding the scope and 4 intended meaning of Plaintiff s special interrogatories. Plaintiffs counsel responded on July 29, 5 2022, by agreeing to limit the scope of Plaintiffs special interrogatory number 30 to "five years 6 prior to Plaintiffs termination of employment to the present," and requesting Defendant provide a 7 deadline for when they could provide further responses to special interrogatories 31 through 33 8 "as represented." Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a tme and correct copy of the emails 9 exchanged by Plaintiff and Defendant on July 8, 2022, July 10, 2022, and July 29, 2022. 10 7. On August 2, 2022, at 11:05 a.m. and 11:18 a.m., I emailed Plaintiffs counsel 11 explaining that Ms. Morris had gone on leave, explaining that I would need until the coming 12 weekend to reply due to other pressing matters. I specifically mentioned that I was preparing the 13 reply brief for the summary judgment motion in this case, and that I had no Associate Attomey at 14 that time. Also, on August 5 (Friday), I attended the Mandatory Settlement Conference in this 15 case. I offered to extend all motion deadlines to allow for further meeting and conferring. 16 Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a tme and correct copy of my August 2, 2022, email. 17 8. Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the relevant "OSHA's Form 300 Log of 18 Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2019. There is no OSHA's Form 19 300 Log for 2020 and 2021 because, as reflected on the summaries for those years, there were no 20 injuries. Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the relevant "OSHA's Form 300A Summary of 21 Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2021. The 2022 Form 300A has 22 not been prepared yet. The name of the person who filled out the OSHA's Form 300A Summary 23 of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses is included on the summary itself. The "OSHA's Form 24 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report" is specific to individual employees. After a diligent 25 search. Defendant has not been able to locate OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 26 Report for Plaintiff. Defendant believes it was misplaced when its Sacramento facility 27 significantly shut down operations. Defendant is not aware of any logs related to OSHA's Form 28 301 Injury and Illness Incident Reports. 3 DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 9. On August 16,1 am scheduled to meet with a representative from Defendant who 2 is knowledgeable regarding the process for maintaining the Form 301 Incident Report to do a 3 second search for this item. This representative is traveling from out of state and will work with 4 counsel to attempt to locate the item. 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration 6 was executed pursuant to the laws of the State of Califomia on August 15, 2022, in Sacramento, 7 Califomia. ' u 9 JAMES T. JONES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAfNTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 PROOF OF S E R V I C E 2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C, 3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814. 4 On August 15, 2022,1 served the within: 5 DECLARATION OF JAMES T. JONES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 6 INTERROGATORIES, SET T H R E E , AND MONETARY SANCTIONS 7 on all interested parties in said action, through their attomeys of record as listed below, by placing a true and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means: 8 1^1 PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy 9 thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(a). 10 P~| M A I L - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with 11 postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mailbox, at my business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.'s ordinary business 12 practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which I am readily familiar, and addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection 13 and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 14 n OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed 15 in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS or delivering to an authorized courier or driver 16 authorized by UPS to receive documents, addressed as set forth below. 17 |x] E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on Califomia Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be 18 sent from e-mail address angie.lombard@iacksonlewis.com to the person(s) at the e- mail address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 19 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 Joshua F. Falakassa (SBN 295045) Arash S. Khosrowshahi (SBN 293246) 21 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 1010 F Street, Suite 300 22 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (818)456-6168 Telephone: (916)573-0469 23 Facsimile: (888) 505-0868 Facsimile: (866)700-0787 Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libertvmanlaw.com 24 — I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on August 15, 2022 at 25 Sacramento, Califomia. 27 Angie Lombard 4864-4847-8509, v. 2 28 " PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT A 1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967) 2 KELSEY F. MORRIS (SBN 311117) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 3 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Telephone: (916)341-0404 4 Facsimile: (916)341-0141 Email: iames.iones@iacksonlewis.com 5 kelsev.morris@iacksonlewis.com 6 Attomeys for Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 CASE NO. 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS SAJIDA ZAMAN, 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO 12 PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, 13 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES SET THREE through 20, inclusive. 14 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019 Defendants. Trial Date: September 12, 2022 15 16 17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff SAJIDA ZAMAN 18 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 19 SET NO.: SET THREE 20 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION ("Defendant" or "Company") submits the following 21 objections and responses to SAJIDA ZAMAN's ("Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set Three as 22 follows: 23 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS 24 1. The objections made herein are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each 25 interrogatory is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, 26 admissibility, and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of 27 any statement if any interrogatory was asked of or any statements contained herein were made 28 /// 1 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three 1 by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and 2 may be interposed at the time of trial. 3 2. The following objections and responses are based upon information presently 4 available to Defendant and, except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied 5 admissions are intended hereby. The fact that Defendant has objected to any interrogatory or part 6 thereof should not be taken as an admission that Defendant accepts or admits the existence of any 7 facts set forth or assumed by any such interrogatory, or that such objections constitute admissible 8 evidence. The fact that Defendant has objected to part or all of any interrogatory is not intended 9 and shall not be constmed to be a waiver by Defendant of any part of any objections to any 10 interrogatory. 11 3. To the extent any or all of the interrogatories call for information which constitutes 12 information or material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, or call for information or 13 material covered by the attomey work-product doctrine or which constitutes information or 14 material that is privileged by virtue of the attomey-client privilege. Defendant objects to each and 15 every interrogatory and will not supply or render any such information or material protected from 16 discovery by virtue of the work product doctrine or the attomey-client privilege. 17 4. Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent the interrogatory 18 calls for Defendant's and/or any third-party's confidential and/or proprietary information and will 19 not supply or render such information on the grounds that it is privileged and protected from 20 discovery. 21 5. Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent it seeks 22 information protected by the right to privacy of Defendant's current and/or former employees 23 and/or other non-parties to this action under Article 1, section 1 of the Califomia Constitution and 24 all other applicable laws. Defendant will not supply or render such information on the grounds 25 that it is privileged and protected from discovery. 26 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs use of form interrogatories in that these 27 interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in 28 this particular action. They are boiler-plate inquiries that are not tailored to the issues presented 2 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three 1 in this case. Because these interrogatories are not drafted with sensitivity to the underlying issues 2 presented herein, they are vague, ambiguous and uncertain. 3 7. Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent they utilize the 4 terms "EMPLOYEE" and/or "EMPLOYER". As defined by Plaintiff these terms are vague, 5 ambiguous, unintelligible and call for speculation. For purposes of responding to these 6 interrogatories. Defendant assumes Plaintiff is referring to LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION. 7 8. Defendant and its attomeys are continuing their investigation of this matter. At 8 this point in time. Defendant's analysis of the information and documents gathered is incomplete. 9 Defendant's present responses, therefore, are based upon the information specifically known to 10 Defendant at this time. Defendant makes these responses without prejudice to its right to 11 introduce and rely upon any information not provided in these objections and responses to 12 interrogatories at trial, or at any other stage of this proceeding, and to modify these responses if 13 necessary. 14 Subject to and without limiting or waiving these objections. Defendant provides the 15 following objections and responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three: 16 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30; 18 Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for 19 drafting OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a. and 301 log) at LIQUI-BOX 20 CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility. (The phrase "Sacramento facility" shall herein mean 21 the business at 5000 Warehouse Way, Sacramento, CA 95826 USA.) 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30; 23 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for 24 drafting" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further 25 objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks 26 information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 27 evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information 28 protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine. 3 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31; 2 Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for 3 storing OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 logs) at LIQUI-BOX 4 CORPORA TION'S Sacramento facility. 5 RESPONSE TO SPECLAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31; 6 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for 7 storing" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects 8 to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks 9 information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 10 evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information 11 protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine. 12 SPECLAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32; 13 Please identify, by name, address, and telephone number PERSON(S) with knowledge of 14 LIQUI-BOX CORPORA TION'S procedures relating to the drafting and storing of OSHA logs at 15 LIQUI-BOX CORPORA TION'S Sacramento facility. 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 17 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 18 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and 19 scope, compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the 20 extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attomey work 21 product doctri ne. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33; 23 Please describe where the OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 24 301 logs) are stored at LIQUI-BOX CORPORA TION'S Sacramento facility). 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 26 Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. 27 Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and 28 scope, compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the 4 • Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work 2 product doctrine. 3 Dated: June 21, 2022 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 5 B yJAMES : ^ T. JONES ^ 6 KELSEY F. MORRIS Attomeys for Defendant -7 LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three 1 PROOF OF S E R V I C E 2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C, 3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814. 4 On June 21, 2022,1 served the within: 5 DEFENDANT LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET T H R E E 6 on all interested parties in said action, through their attomeys of record as listed below, by placing 7 a true and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means: 8 Q PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil 9 Procedure section 1011(a). 10 Q M A I L - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mailbox, at 11 my business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.'s ordinary business practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which I am readily familiar, and 12 addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States 13 Postal Service. 14 Q OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a tme and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility 15 regularly maintained by UPS or delivering to an authorized courier or driver authorized by UPS to receive documents, addressed as set forth below. 16 [X] E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on Califomia Code of Civil 17 Procedure Section I010.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be sent from e-mail address kellv.asano@jacksonlewis.com to the person(s) at the e-mail 18 address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was 19 unsuccessful. 20 Joshua F. Falakassa (SBN 295045) Arash S. Khosrowshahi (SBN 293246) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 21 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sacramento, CA 95 814 22 Telephone: (818)456-6168 Telephone: (916)573-0469 Facsimile: (888)505-0868 Facsimile: (866)700-0787 23 Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libertvmanlaw.com 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the 2^ foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 21, 2022 at Roseville. California, 26 Kelly Asano 27 28 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Response To Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Special Interrogatories, Set Three EXHIBIT B oM LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Tel.: (916) 573-0469 Fax: (866) 700-0787 Email: ash(g)Jibertvmanlaw.com www.libertvmanlaw.com June 22, 2022 SENT VIA E M A I L JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Attn: JAMES T. JONES KELSEY F. MORRIS 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, California 95814 Email: james.jones@jacksonlewis.com kelsey.morris(^jacksonlewis.com Re: Zaman v. Liqui-Box Corporation, et al.. Case No.: 34-2019-00252121 Meet and Confer Letter re: Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's Objections to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four and Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Dear Mr. Jones, Please allow this letter to serve as an informal effort to meet and confer concerning Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendanf) boilerplate and meritiess objections to Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four and Special Interrogatories, Set Three requesting critical information and documentation related to the OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 Logs. This letter will highlight the need for Defendant to provide verified supplemental responses (and responsive documents) in advance of the parties July 1 mediation and July 30 deadline to file its Opposition to Defendant's MSJ. Unfortunately, we anticipate that Defendant will continue to impede Plaintiffs critical discovery efforts by objecting to the forthcoming responses to (1) Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two; (2) Requests for Admissions, Set One; and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set Five, all of which seeks critical evidence needed in Opposition to Defendant's MSJ and for mediation. Let us be clear counsel: if Defendant continues to hide documents and make objections without providing code-complaint responses, we will cancel the July 1 mediation, file motions to compel seeking sanctions, and seek ex parte relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(h)- (i) so that Plaintiff can conduct and complete the required discovery in support her Opposition to Defendant's MSJ. We certainly hope this will not be necessary; however. Plaintiffs deadline to file its Opposition to Defendant's MSJ is quickly approaching. Since time is of the essence, please of 7 immediately let us know of your position and intent to supplement discovery responses immediately but before Julyl. I. Defendant's Objections to Request Nos. 1 through 3 Lack Merit. As you know. Plaintiff propounded the following Requests for Production of Documents, which Defendant objected to as follows: REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1; All DOCUMENTS comprising OSHA 300 logs detailing any injury/illness at YOUR Sacramento facility. (The phrase "Sacramento facility" shall herein mean the business at 5000 Warehouse Way, Sacramento, CA 95826 USA.) RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1; Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that "comprising OSHA 300 logs detailing any injury/illness" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks records relating to third parties that are protected by therightto privacy. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2; All DOCUMENTS comprising OSHA 300a logs detailing any injury/illness at YOUR Sacramento facility. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2; Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that "comprising OSHA 300a logs detailing any injury/illness" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks records relating to third parties that are protected by the right to privacy. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3; All DOCUMENTS comprising OSHA 301 logs detailing any injury/illness at YOUR Sacramento facility. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3; Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that "comprising OSHA 301 logs detailing any injury/illness" is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2 of 7 Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or attomey work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request seeks records relating to third parties that are protected by the right to privacy. None of these objections have merit for the following reasons. Vague & Ambiguous: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts. "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." {Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) "[CJomprising OSHA 300 logs detailing any injury/illness" (No. I), "comprising OSHA 300a logs detailing any injury/illness" (No. 2), and "comprising OSHA 301 logs detailing any injury/illness" (No. 3) are not vague and ambiguous clauses, and given Defendant's own legal requirements to maintain such logs per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2), it knows precisely what we are asking for, especially having been placed under OSHA's Severe Violator Program because of its failure to maintain the OSHA logs at issue. Defendant's steadfast refusal to hide behind this objection, especially after we have met and conferred for the better part of two months on this issue, is made in bad faith and we will not tolerate it. Overbroad: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about requesting Defendant's Sacramento facility OSHA logs, which Defendant by law must maintain and provide to us per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2). Recall that this regulation represents that "Yes, your employees, former employees, their personal representatives, and their authorized employee representatives have the right to access the OSHA injury and illness records...." (emphasis added) within the next business day. {Id., subd. (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(v)(A).) Defendant's illegal and unjustified delay in providing us all of its OSHA logs, which it should as a matter of course be maintaining, is in no way overbroad. Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence: Defendant should be aware that Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 states that "any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property." (emphasis added.) Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper mle is declared to be not only one of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(I) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements: (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game' 3 of 7 element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself" {Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376)(emphasis added.) Plaintiff has broadrightsto discovery, which includes obtaining Defendant's OSHA logs reflecting any injury or illness at the Sacramento facility. Indeed, given Plaintiffs UCL cause of action that Defendant's Critical Safety Behavior's policy facially violates OSHA reasonable reporting regulations, and given that her FEHA disability/wrongful termination causes of action surround her pain and injury incurred at work, it is absurd to suggest these OSHA injury/illness logs are in no way relevant. By objecting without responding. Defendant is only preventing ascertainment of the truth about the merits of her claim; preventing determination of whether Defendant's proffered "business justification" that Plaintiff was terminated for reporting her pain late is nothing more than a sham and pretext; preventing convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving forward; preventing educating the parties on the value of their claims/defenses; and only serves to further delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial and MSJ hearing are fast approaching. Plaintiff will not tolerate Defendant's gamesmanship. Defendant must participate in good faith in the discovery process or face a motion to compel seeking sanctions. Attomey-Client Privilege/Attomey Work Product: these Requests seek OSHA logs which Defendant must provide to Plaintiff as a former employee by law per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2). This in no way implicates any attomey-client privileged documents or work product, and is an objection made solely in bad faith. Right to Privacy of Third Parties: this objection is likewise absurd. 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2)(iv) provides the general mle: "May I remove the names of the employees or any other information from the OSHA 300 Log before I give copies to an employee, former employee, or employee representative? No, you must leave the names on the 300 Log." (emphasis added.) Insofar as employee names have already been recorded in the requested logs. Defendant must now provide the logs. Given the foregoing, Defendant must remove its baseless objections and provide verified responses per Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220. II. Defendant's Objections to Special Interrogatories Nos. 30 through 33 Lack Merit. Similarly, Plaintiff propounded the following Special Interrogatories, which Defendant objected to as follows: SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30; Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for drafting OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 log) at LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility. (The phrase "Sacramento facility" shall herein mean the business at 5000 Warehouse Way, Sacramento, CA 95826 USA.) RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for drafting" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant 4 of 7 further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey- client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31; Please identify, by name, address and telephone number the PERSON(S) responsible for storing OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 logs) at LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility. RESPONSE TO SPECLAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31; Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "responsible for storing" is vague, ambiguous and compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope and seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey- client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32; Please identify, by name, address, and telephone number PERSON(S) with knowledge of L I Q U I - BOX CORPORATION'S procedures relating to the drafting and storing of OSHA logs at LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope, compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Please describe where the OSHA logs (including but not limited to OSHA 300, 300a, and 301 logs) are stored at LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION'S Sacramento facility). RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33; Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time and scope, compound, and calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attomey work product doctrine. None of these objections have merit for the following reasons. Vague & Ambiguous/Compound: this is a nuisance objection which is disfavored by the Courts. "Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." {Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.) "[RJesponsible for drafting" (No. 30) and "responsible for storing" (No. 31), are not vague and ambiguous clauses, but carry their plain English meanings 5 of 7 about who is in charge of drafting or storing the OSHA logs in question. Moreover, it is not even clear what Defendantfindsvague and ambiguous about Nos. 32 and 33. Further, the Requests are not so compound as to confuse Defendant here. Defendant knows precisely what we are asking for, especially having been placed under OSHA's Severe Violator Program because of failing to maintain proper OSHA logs, which necessarily includes information regarding who is responsible for drafting and storing them, as well as the identification of persons with knowledge of how the logs are stored, drafted, and where they are stored. Defendant's steadfast refusal to hide behind this objection, especially after we have met and conferred for the better part of two months, is made in bad faith and we will not tolerate it. Calls for Speculation: This is an improper trial objection not applicable at the pretrial discovery stage. Further, Defendant has already produced some of the Sacramento facility OSHA logs at issue—therefore it is absurd to claim that these interrogatories speculate when Defendant has to have designated persons to be in charge of storing and drafting the logs, let alone calling for speculation as to identifying information of persons with knowledge of how the logs are stored/drafted, as well as where they are stored. Overbroad as to Time/Scope: This objection is also without merit. There is nothing overbroad about requesting identifying information of persons with knowledge surrounding Defendant's Sacramento facility OSHA logs, as well as where they are located. Defendant by law must maintain and provide to these logs per 29 CFR § 1904.35(b)(2). This necessarily implicates the existence of persons responsible for maintaining these logs, and it is not overbroad to request who was in charge in storing and drafting them, let alone overbroad to request who has knowledge about such procedures or where the logs are stored. Relevance/Not Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence: Defendant should be aware that Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 states that "any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property." (emphasis added.) Indeed, "For the guidance of the trial courts the proper rule is declared to be not only one of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." {Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378)(emphasis added.) The purposes of discovery are "(1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself" {Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal. 2d at 376)(emphasis added.) 6 of 7 Plaintiff has broad rights to discovery, which includes obtaining identifying information of persons responsible for drafting and storing Defendant's OSHA logs reflecting any injury or illness at the Sacramento facility (Nos. 30 and 31). Indeed, given Plaintiffs UCL cause of action that Defendant's Critical Safety Behavior's policy facially violates OSHA reasonable reporting regulations, and given that her FEHA disability/wTongful termination causes of action surround her pain and injury incurred at work, it is absurd to suggest persons with knowledge as to the drafting and storing of the OSHA injury/illness logs in no way have relevant information to this case. By objecting without responding. Defendant is only preventing convenient and inexpensive discovery from moving forward and only serves to further delay the case and grind the litigation to a standstill when trial and MSJ hearing are fast approaching. Plaintiff will not tolerate Defendant's gamesmanship. Defendant must participate in good faith in the discovery process or face a motion to compel seeking sanctions. Attomev-Client Privilege/Attomev Work Product: these Requests seek information regarding persons with knowledge as to who is responsible for drafting/storing Defendant's OSHA logs, as well as persons with knowledge as to where they are located and the procedures by which the logs are maintained. This in no way implicates any attomey-client privileged infonnation or work product as Defendant did not plausibly assign these logs to be drafted or stored by attomeys. This is an objection made solely in bad faith. Given the foregoing. Defendant must remove its baseless objections and provide verified responses per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220. If Defendant has a genuine desire to resolve this case at mediation, it needs to stop engaging in gamesmanship and come to the negotiation table in good-faith. As such, please have Defendant promptly provide verified responses and produce documents to the above Requests for Production well in advance of mediation. Regards, Arash S. Khosrowshahi, Attomey at Law Cc: Sajida Zaman Joshua Falakassa Kasra Torabi 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C Jones. James T. (Sacramento) From: Jones, James T. (Sacramento) Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 4:37 PM To: Joshua Falakassa; Arash Khosrowshahi Cc; Greg Lang; Kasra Torabi Subject: