Preview
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
CIVIL
TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2022
EVENT DATE: 09/09/2022 EVENT TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT.: 47
JUDICIAL OFFICER:
CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS
CASE TITLE: ZAMAN VS. LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Wrongful Termination
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Continue Trial - PJ Law and Motion
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing will be conducted
remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No in person or Court
Call appearances will be permitted. You must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so
the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. To appear on
ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone
commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your
hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance. Any party
requesting oral arguments must contact all other parties and advise them that appearances will only be
permitted through Zoom.
The motion of Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") to continue trial is DENIED.
Defendants requests a continuance of trial on grounds a series of changes in assigned counsel has
prevented Defendant from completing discovery and preparing for trial. On July 1, 2022, assigned
counsel began a leave of absence two weeks earlier than expected. (Jones Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel that had
been previously designated to take over left the firm a week earlier on June 24, 2022. (Ibid.) Defense
attorney Benjamin Mains was identified as the new "second chair" for trial, but subsequently became
unavailable on August 6, 2022 for medical reasons. (Ibid.) Defendant was able to identify a new second
chair on August 28, 2022. (Ibid.) However, as a result of the above unanticipated events, Defendant
contends it has not had time to complete discovery and for new counsel to prepare for trial. Plaintiff
Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion.
"To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm." (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1332(a).) "Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance
must be considered on its own merits." (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) "The court may grant a continuance only on
an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance." (Ibid.) "The general rule governing
continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that '. . . the necessity
for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference
that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly
provided for other than by granting of a continuance." (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242,
1250 [emphasis added].)
The Court finds Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. This action was
commenced on March 8, 2019 and Defendant filed an answer on May 6, 2019. Notably absent from
Event ID: 2671541 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 1
CASE TITLE: ZAMAN VS. LIQUI-BOX CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS
CORPORATION
Defendant's motion is any explanation of what efforts Defendant took to complete discovery during the
first three years this action was pending. Defendant's staffing issues shortly before the close of discovery
do not explain why Defendant would have been unable to complete discovery through reasonable
diligence throughout the pendency of the entire action. Notably, Plaintiff submits evidence Defendant did
not conduct any affirmative discovery until May 2022. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 3.) In light of Defendant's
failure to demonstrate due diligence in completing discovery, the motion must be denied. Further, as set
forth below, none of the specific discovery disputes identified by Defendant constitute good cause for a
continuance.
Defendant identifies 6 motions that are currently pending for October 20, 2022, well after trial
commences on September 12, 2022. (Jones Decl., ¶¶ 6 and 11.) However, the Court notes that one of
the motions was advanced based on an ex parte application by Defendant and has already been
resolved. (See ROA 207 and 242.) The remaining five hearings involve motions to quash subpoenas to
third parties. (See Jones Decl., ¶ 6.) Reasonably diligent counsel is aware it may be difficult to obtain
discovery from third parties and that motions to quash may be filed. Thus, Defendant could have
anticipated it needed to serve subpoenas with sufficient time to resolve any disputes in advance of the
close of discovery. Here, Defendant provides no information as to when Defendant issued the
subpoenas and why the subpoenas could not have been issued earlier. Moreover, Defendant does not
explain why it did not seek to advance the hearings on the motions to quash at the same time Defendant
requested an order advancing the hearing on the motion to accept designation of experts that was
previously pending for that date.
Defendant also contends Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff") failed to complete her deposition and failed
to produce discoverable records. (Jones Decl., ¶ 9.) Here, the Court previously rejected an ex parte
application to set a hearing on shortened time for a motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition. In declining to
set a hearing on shortened time, the Court found it could not set a hearing on a date before the deadline
to hear non-expert discovery motions and that Defendant had failed to show good cause to set a hearing
passed the said deadline. (ROA 208; Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 11, Exh. B.) Absent a stipulation, a
continuance of trial does not operate to re-open discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020.) As the Court
has already determined there is not good cause for permitting a deposition of Plaintiff passed the
discovery deadline, Defendant will be unable to conduct a second deposition of Plaintiff even if trial is
continued.
Defendant also contends Plaintiff failed to honor an agreement to produce a key Plaintiff's witness,
Angela Beard ("Ms. Beard"), for a second day of deposition and interfered with Defendant's efforts to
obtain Ms. Beard's appearance. (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) Defendant indicates Ms. Beard appeared for an
initial deposition based on a subpoena issued by Plaintiff and agreed to return for a second deposition
subject to that subpoena. (Ibid.) Defendant subsequently had difficulty contacting Ms. Beard to schedule
the deposition and received no assistance from Plaintiff to do so. (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) Ultimately,
Defendant indicates it successfully "served an additional subpoena on Ms. Beard for an August 12
appearance, so that the deposition would occur by the close of discovery and to ensure there was no
gamesmanship." (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) The deposition was ultimately rescheduled for August 18, 2022
and then, on the even of the deposition, after speaking with Plaintiff's counsel, Ms. Beard indicated she
would not appear for another deposition. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. C.) In opposition, however, Plaintiff submits a
declaration from Ms. Beard that clarifies the subpoena was served on August 11, 2022 and that
Plaintiff's alleged interference was merely to advise Ms. Beard that Defendant failed to comply with the
requirements to provide 10-days' notice before a deposition could commence to timely schedule the
deposition before the close of discovery. (Beard Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) It was Ms. Beard's decision, after being
informed of her rights, to refuse to attend the deposition, not undue influence from Plaintiff. To the extent
Ms. Beard may have agreed to appear at a second deposition based on Plaintiff's initial subpoena,
Defendant was still required to take reasonable efforts to obtain her appearance before the close of
discovery and to bring a timely motion to compel attendance where such efforts failed. Here, Defendant
failed to provide any information regarding when it began efforts to locate Ms. Beard, how long it took
Defendant to do so, and why Defendant did not bring an earlier motion to compel Ms. Beard's
attendance . (See Jones Decl., ¶ 10.)
Event ID: 2671541 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 2
CASE TITLE: ZAMAN VS. LIQUI-BOX CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS
CORPORATION
Finally, Defendant contends Plaintiff's expert failed to appear for deposition as scheduled on August 24,
2022 and Plaintiff failed to produce the entire expert's file. Although the deposition was re-scheduled for
September 6, 2022, Defendant argues it is prejudiced by the late deposition and should be afforded
more time to conduct the deposition and incorporate the testimony into its trial plan. The Court is not
persuaded that the taking of a single expert deposition after the ordinary close of expert discovery is so
prejudicial to Defendant's ability to prepare for trial as to constitute good cause for a continuance.
Indeed, an order compelling an expert deposition be taken after the close of discovery and shortly before
trial is an alternative remedy available to avoid the need for a trial continuance. Here, any difficulties
Defendant may have in preparing for trial appear to be related to Defendant's failure to exercise due
diligence in completing discovery throughout this action, rather than a short delay in the production of
Plaintiff's sole expert witness.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for a
continuance of trial. The motion is denied.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a
hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument
must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on
the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the
Court.
Effective March 28, 2022, official reporters will not be available in Department 47, with exceptions listed
in the Court's Policy Regarding Availability and Unavailability of Official Court Reporters. Additional
information regarding this policy and the Policy for Official Court Reporter's Pro Tempore in Department
47 can be found on the Court's website at
https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/court-reporters.aspx.
Event ID: 2671541 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 3
Preview
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CIVIL TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2022 EVENT DATE: 09/09/2022 EVENT TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT.: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS CASE TITLE: ZAMAN VS. LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Wrongful Termination EVENT TYPE: Motion to Continue Trial - PJ Law and Motion CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing will be conducted remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No in person or Court Call appearances will be permitted. You must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance. Any party requesting oral arguments must contact all other parties and advise them that appearances will only be permitted through Zoom. The motion of Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") to continue trial is DENIED. Defendants requests a continuance of trial on grounds a series of changes in assigned counsel has prevented Defendant from completing discovery and preparing for trial. On July 1, 2022, assigned counsel began a leave of absence two weeks earlier than expected. (Jones Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel that had been previously designated to take over left the firm a week earlier on June 24, 2022. (Ibid.) Defense attorney Benjamin Mains was identified as the new "second chair" for trial, but subsequently became unavailable on August 6, 2022 for medical reasons. (Ibid.) Defendant was able to identify a new second chair on August 28, 2022. (Ibid.) However, as a result of the above unanticipated events, Defendant contends it has not had time to complete discovery and for new counsel to prepare for trial. Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion. "To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) "Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits." (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) "The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance." (Ibid.) "The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that '. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance." (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].) The Court finds Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. This action was commenced on March 8, 2019 and Defendant filed an answer on May 6, 2019. Notably absent from Event ID: 2671541 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 1 CASE TITLE: ZAMAN VS. LIQUI-BOX CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS CORPORATION Defendant's motion is any explanation of what efforts Defendant took to complete discovery during the first three years this action was pending. Defendant's staffing issues shortly before the close of discovery do not explain why Defendant would have been unable to complete discovery through reasonable diligence throughout the pendency of the entire action. Notably, Plaintiff submits evidence Defendant did not conduct any affirmative discovery until May 2022. (Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 3.) In light of Defendant's failure to demonstrate due diligence in completing discovery, the motion must be denied. Further, as set forth below, none of the specific discovery disputes identified by Defendant constitute good cause for a continuance. Defendant identifies 6 motions that are currently pending for October 20, 2022, well after trial commences on September 12, 2022. (Jones Decl., ¶¶ 6 and 11.) However, the Court notes that one of the motions was advanced based on an ex parte application by Defendant and has already been resolved. (See ROA 207 and 242.) The remaining five hearings involve motions to quash subpoenas to third parties. (See Jones Decl., ¶ 6.) Reasonably diligent counsel is aware it may be difficult to obtain discovery from third parties and that motions to quash may be filed. Thus, Defendant could have anticipated it needed to serve subpoenas with sufficient time to resolve any disputes in advance of the close of discovery. Here, Defendant provides no information as to when Defendant issued the subpoenas and why the subpoenas could not have been issued earlier. Moreover, Defendant does not explain why it did not seek to advance the hearings on the motions to quash at the same time Defendant requested an order advancing the hearing on the motion to accept designation of experts that was previously pending for that date. Defendant also contends Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff") failed to complete her deposition and failed to produce discoverable records. (Jones Decl., ¶ 9.) Here, the Court previously rejected an ex parte application to set a hearing on shortened time for a motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition. In declining to set a hearing on shortened time, the Court found it could not set a hearing on a date before the deadline to hear non-expert discovery motions and that Defendant had failed to show good cause to set a hearing passed the said deadline. (ROA 208; Khosrowshahi Decl., ¶ 11, Exh. B.) Absent a stipulation, a continuance of trial does not operate to re-open discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020.) As the Court has already determined there is not good cause for permitting a deposition of Plaintiff passed the discovery deadline, Defendant will be unable to conduct a second deposition of Plaintiff even if trial is continued. Defendant also contends Plaintiff failed to honor an agreement to produce a key Plaintiff's witness, Angela Beard ("Ms. Beard"), for a second day of deposition and interfered with Defendant's efforts to obtain Ms. Beard's appearance. (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) Defendant indicates Ms. Beard appeared for an initial deposition based on a subpoena issued by Plaintiff and agreed to return for a second deposition subject to that subpoena. (Ibid.) Defendant subsequently had difficulty contacting Ms. Beard to schedule the deposition and received no assistance from Plaintiff to do so. (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) Ultimately, Defendant indicates it successfully "served an additional subpoena on Ms. Beard for an August 12 appearance, so that the deposition would occur by the close of discovery and to ensure there was no gamesmanship." (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) The deposition was ultimately rescheduled for August 18, 2022 and then, on the even of the deposition, after speaking with Plaintiff's counsel, Ms. Beard indicated she would not appear for another deposition. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. C.) In opposition, however, Plaintiff submits a declaration from Ms. Beard that clarifies the subpoena was served on August 11, 2022 and that Plaintiff's alleged interference was merely to advise Ms. Beard that Defendant failed to comply with the requirements to provide 10-days' notice before a deposition could commence to timely schedule the deposition before the close of discovery. (Beard Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) It was Ms. Beard's decision, after being informed of her rights, to refuse to attend the deposition, not undue influence from Plaintiff. To the extent Ms. Beard may have agreed to appear at a second deposition based on Plaintiff's initial subpoena, Defendant was still required to take reasonable efforts to obtain her appearance before the close of discovery and to bring a timely motion to compel attendance where such efforts failed. Here, Defendant failed to provide any information regarding when it began efforts to locate Ms. Beard, how long it took Defendant to do so, and why Defendant did not bring an earlier motion to compel Ms. Beard's attendance . (See Jones Decl., ¶ 10.) Event ID: 2671541 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 2 CASE TITLE: ZAMAN VS. LIQUI-BOX CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121-CU-WT-GDS CORPORATION Finally, Defendant contends Plaintiff's expert failed to appear for deposition as scheduled on August 24, 2022 and Plaintiff failed to produce the entire expert's file. Although the deposition was re-scheduled for September 6, 2022, Defendant argues it is prejudiced by the late deposition and should be afforded more time to conduct the deposition and incorporate the testimony into its trial plan. The Court is not persuaded that the taking of a single expert deposition after the ordinary close of expert discovery is so prejudicial to Defendant's ability to prepare for trial as to constitute good cause for a continuance. Indeed, an order compelling an expert deposition be taken after the close of discovery and shortly before trial is an alternative remedy available to avoid the need for a trial continuance. Here, any difficulties Defendant may have in preparing for trial appear to be related to Defendant's failure to exercise due diligence in completing discovery throughout this action, rather than a short delay in the production of Plaintiff's sole expert witness. For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance of trial. The motion is denied. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court. Effective March 28, 2022, official reporters will not be available in Department 47, with exceptions listed in the Court's Policy Regarding Availability and Unavailability of Official Court Reporters. Additional information regarding this policy and the Policy for Official Court Reporter's Pro Tempore in Department 47 can be found on the Court's website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/court-reporters.aspx. Event ID: 2671541 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 3