Preview
0/Ef^OORSE[}
1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 AUG 1 8 2022
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 By: E. Macdonald
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 Deou'v Clerk
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
7 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com
8
Attomeys for Plaintiff,
9 SAJIDA ZAMAN
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
13 RESERVATION ID: 2664200
Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
14
vs. TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
15 AS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 SET FIVE, AND MONETARY
16 SANCTIONS
through 20, inclusive.
BY F^X
17 Date: August 25, 2022
Defendants. Time: 1:30pm
18 Dept.: 53
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
19
20 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendant") responses and objections to Plaintifl
21 Sajida Zaman's ("Plaintiff') Special Interrogatories, Set Five were due June 28, 2022. Defendant
22 did not serve any responses or objections at all, and still has not served any responses as of the
23 date of this writing. Plaintiff waited over a month before filing her Motion to Compel on August
24 2, 2022, but even now Defendant claims her motion is in bad faith because she did not meet and
25 confer, despite Plaintiff having no obligation to meet and confer in these circumstances. (Cal
26 Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
27 Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
1 of 3
1 Defendant was provided over a month to get its act together but failed to do so. Instead,
2 Defendant's parade of excuses rears its head once more. Defendant invokes excusable
3 neglect/mistake when it cannot fathomably argue that its over-a-month delay was remotely
4 excusable. Indeed, even if Defendant believed the deadline to respond was July 5, 2022, Plaintiff
5 still received no responses by the time she filed her Motion to Compel on August 2, 2022.
6 Further, Defendant argues Plaintiffs motion is a waste of judicial resources, but Plaintifl
7 had no other option but to file the Motion to Compel if Defendant was not going to provide
8 responses after over a month of delay. Indeed, even if Defendant serves responses after motion
9 practice, it is Defendant creating the waste of judicial resources, as Defendant had no motive to
10 comply if the Motion to Compel was not filed in the first place. This simply goes against the self-
11 executing nature of discovery (Clement v. Alegre (2009), 177 Cal. App. 4*^ 1277, 1281), as
12 Defendant thwarts the purposes of discovery:
13 "(1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the tmth and in checking and
14 preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false,
15 fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenieni
16 and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great
17 difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims
18 and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard
19 against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to
20 expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial."
21 (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376.)
22 For these reasons, any companion motion for relief for waiving objections must likewise
23 be denied by this Court. A day or so delay would make sense for excusable neglect—but here
24 Defendant nor its counsel can plausibly demonstrate its conduct here was excusable.
25 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT her Motion to
26 Compel, and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Special
27 Interrogatories, Set Five, Nos. 43 through 65; (2) compel responses to each; and (3) to pay separate
28 monetary sanctions in an amount of $710.00.
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
2 of 3
Dated: August 16, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2
3
4
Arash S. Khosrowshahi
5 Joshua S. Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
3 of 3
Preview
0/Ef^OORSE[} 1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 AUG 1 8 2022 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 By: E. Macdonald Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 Deou'v Clerk 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 7 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com 8 Attomeys for Plaintiff, 9 SAJIDA ZAMAN 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 13 RESERVATION ID: 2664200 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION 14 vs. TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES 15 AS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 SET FIVE, AND MONETARY 16 SANCTIONS through 20, inclusive. BY F^X 17 Date: August 25, 2022 Defendants. Time: 1:30pm 18 Dept.: 53 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 19 20 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendant") responses and objections to Plaintifl 21 Sajida Zaman's ("Plaintiff') Special Interrogatories, Set Five were due June 28, 2022. Defendant 22 did not serve any responses or objections at all, and still has not served any responses as of the 23 date of this writing. Plaintiff waited over a month before filing her Motion to Compel on August 24 2, 2022, but even now Defendant claims her motion is in bad faith because she did not meet and 25 confer, despite Plaintiff having no obligation to meet and confer in these circumstances. (Cal 26 Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare 27 Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 1 of 3 1 Defendant was provided over a month to get its act together but failed to do so. Instead, 2 Defendant's parade of excuses rears its head once more. Defendant invokes excusable 3 neglect/mistake when it cannot fathomably argue that its over-a-month delay was remotely 4 excusable. Indeed, even if Defendant believed the deadline to respond was July 5, 2022, Plaintiff 5 still received no responses by the time she filed her Motion to Compel on August 2, 2022. 6 Further, Defendant argues Plaintiffs motion is a waste of judicial resources, but Plaintifl 7 had no other option but to file the Motion to Compel if Defendant was not going to provide 8 responses after over a month of delay. Indeed, even if Defendant serves responses after motion 9 practice, it is Defendant creating the waste of judicial resources, as Defendant had no motive to 10 comply if the Motion to Compel was not filed in the first place. This simply goes against the self- 11 executing nature of discovery (Clement v. Alegre (2009), 177 Cal. App. 4*^ 1277, 1281), as 12 Defendant thwarts the purposes of discovery: 13 "(1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the tmth and in checking and 14 preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, 15 fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenieni 16 and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great 17 difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims 18 and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard 19 against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to 20 expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial." 21 (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376.) 22 For these reasons, any companion motion for relief for waiving objections must likewise 23 be denied by this Court. A day or so delay would make sense for excusable neglect—but here 24 Defendant nor its counsel can plausibly demonstrate its conduct here was excusable. 25 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT her Motion to 26 Compel, and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Special 27 Interrogatories, Set Five, Nos. 43 through 65; (2) compel responses to each; and (3) to pay separate 28 monetary sanctions in an amount of $710.00. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 2 of 3 Dated: August 16, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 3 4 Arash S. Khosrowshahi 5 Joshua S. Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 3 of 3