Preview
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967) FlLED/Ef^OORSED
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, Califomia 95814 AUG 1 5 2022
3 Telephone: (916)341-0404
Facsimile: (916)341-0141 E. Marrlnnald
4 Email: james.iones@iacksonlewis.com Bv: Deputy Clerk
5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
BENJAMIN A. MAINS (SBN 274056)
6 50 Califomia Street, 9"^ Floor
San Francisco, Califomia 94111
7 Telephone: (415)394-9400
Facsimile: (415)394-9401
8 Email: beniamin.mains(5),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, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
15 vs. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
16 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
17 through 20, inclusive. INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE,
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
18 Defendants.
Rescheduled Date: August 25, 2022
19 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept: 53
20 Reservation No.: 2664201
21 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF
2 RECORD:
3 Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION ("Defendant") hereby submits the following
4 Opposition to Plaintiff SAJIDA ZAMAN's ("Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Responses to
5 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Sanctions.
6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
7 I. INTRODUCTION
8 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set
9 Three, and Request for Sanctions ("Motion") is premature, improper, unnecessary, and a further
10 example of Plaintiff s counsel's misuse of the discovery process. Because Defendant's objections
11 are meritorious, because Defendant already agreed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs
12 requests, and because Plaintiff has filed her Motion to Compel in bad faith. Plaintiffs Motion to
13 Compel must be denied and this Court should award sanctions to Defendant.
14 First, Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three,
15 ("Interrogatories") were proper. After meeting and conferring over the scope and meaning of
16 Plaintiffs requests. Defendant agreed to provide further responses. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs
17 counsel unnecessarily rushed to file this Motion withing days of reaching an agreement without
18 any substantial dialogue.
19 Second, Plaintiffs request for sanctions is baseless. Defendant has not engaged in any
20 misuse of the discovery process. To the contrary. Defendant, through counsel, has worked
21 diligently to meet and confer with Plaintiffs counsel in order to narrow the discover issues in
22 dispute and provide further responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
24 Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant in January 2019 for failing to
25 timely report a knee injury on-the-job in violation of Defendant's safety policy. During the course
26 of litigation. Defendant provided Plaintiff with OSHA's Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries
27 and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2019. {See Jones Decl., ^ 9.) There is no OSHA's Form
28 300 Log for 2020 and 2021 because, as reflected on the summaries for those years, there were no
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 injuries. (Id.) Defendant also provided Plaintiff with "OSHA's Form 300A Summary of Work-
2 Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2021. (Id.) The 2022 Form 300A has
3 not been prepared yet. (Id.) The "OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report" is
4 specific to individual employees. After a diligent search. Defendant has not been able to locate
5 OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report for Plaintiff and Defendant believes it was
6 misplaced when its Sacramento facility significantly shut down operations. (Id.) On August 16,
7 defense counsel is scheduled to meet with a representative from Defendant who is knowledgeable
8 regarding the process for maintaining the Form 301 Incident Report to do a second search for this
9 item. This representative is traveling from out of state and will work with counsel to attempt to
10 locate the item. {See Declaration of James T. Jones ("Jones Decl."), ^ 8.)
11 On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special Interrogatories,
12 Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Four. {See Jones Decl., H 2.) Six days
13 later, on May 24, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set
14 Four, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Five. {See Jones Decl., ^ 2.) A few days
15 later, on May 27, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Form Interrogatories -
16 General, Set Two, Requests for Admissions, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set Five, along
17 with three notices of depositions. {See Jones Decl., 2.)
18 On June 21, 2022, Defendant electronically served objections to Plaintiffs Special
19 Interrogatories, Set Three. {See Jones Decl., ^ 3; Exhibit A.) On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs
20 counsel, Arash S. Khosrowshahi, sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel arguing
21 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special interrogatories lacked merit. {See Jones Decl., ^ 4;
22 Exhibit B.)
23 Defense counsel engaged in meet and confer efforts with Plaintiffs counsel, and responded
24 to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter on July 8, 2022, informing Plaintiffs counsel he would
25 prepare and deliver a response that weekend, and again on July 10, 2022, articulating why
26 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special interrogatories numbers 30 through 33 were fair and
27 proper, while also seeking further clarification from Plaintiffs counsel regarding the scope and
28 intended meaning of Plaintiffs special interrogatories. {See Jones Decl., T| 6; Exhibit C.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
1 Plaintiffs counsel responded on July 29, 2022, by agreeing to limit the scope of Plaintiff s special
2 interrogatory number 30 to "five years prior to Plaintiffs termination of employment to the
3 present," and requesting Defendant provide a deadline for when they could provide further
4 responses to special interrogatories 31 through 33 "as represented." (Id.)
5 On August 2, 2022, at 11:05 a.m. and 11:18 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs
6 counsel explaining that Ms. Morris, the associate attomey primarily responsible for handling
7 discovery issues, had unexpectedly gone on leave, and explaining that defense counsel would
8 need until the coming weekend to reply due to other pressing matters. {See Jones Decl., ^ 7;
9 Exhibit D.) Defense counsel specifically mentioned that he was preparing the reply brief for the
10 summary judgment motion in this case, and that defense counsel had no associate attomey at that
11 time. (Id.) On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion without waming to Defendant and
12 without any attempt to extend the deadline to file her Motion so Defendant could provide further
13 responses.
14 IH. LEGAL ARGUMENT
15 a. Defendant's Objections and Responses Were Proper
16 Plaintiffs Motion mischaracterizes and omits critical aspects of Defendant's good faith
17 meet and confer efforts over the contested special interrogatories. Plaintiff does not include as
18 exhibits to her Motion the entirety of the meet and confer efforts conducted by Defendant and
19 Plaintiff
20 Contrary to Plaintiffs motion. Defendant did not merely argue that "Special Interrogatory
21 No. 30 did not define the time period of which individuals were responsible for drafting the
22 OSHA logs" and "bicker about the meanings the plain terms 'responsible for storing OSHA logs'
23 and 'describe where they are stored'." {See Plaintiffs Motion at 7:11-16.) As further detailed
24 below. Defendant provided an explanation of its objections and agreed to provide further
25 responses based on defense counsel's interpretation of Plaintiffs special interrogatories. {See
26 Jones Decl., H 6; Exhibit E.) In response. Plaintiffs counsel agreed to limit the scope of special
27 interrogatory number 30 but ignored Defendant's contentions with special interrogatory numbers
28 31 through 33. (Id.) Despite not addressing the remaining issues raised by Defendant regarding
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
^ special interrogatory numbers 31 through 33, Plaintiffs counsel replied by asking, "when can we
2 expect responses as represented?" on Friday, July 29, 2022. (Id.) On August 2, 2022, at 11:05
2 a.m. and 11:18 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel explaining that Ms. Morris, the
4 associate attomey primarily responsible for handling discovery issues, had unexpectedly gone on
5 leave, and explaining that defense counsel would need until the coming weekend to reply due to
6 other pressing matters. {See Jones Decl., ^ 7; Exhibit D.) Defense counsel specifically mentioned
7 that he was preparing the reply brief for the summary judgment motion in this case, and that
^ defense counsel had no associate attomey at that time. (Id.) A day later, on Wednesday, August 3,
9 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion without waming.
10 As such, this Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion because Plaintiff did not meet and
II confer adequately.
12
i. As Stated, PlaintifTs Special Interrogatories Regarding "OSHA logs"
13
are Vague, Ambiguous. Compound. Speculative, Overbroad,
14
Irrelevant, and Potentially Privileged
15
Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three, impermissibly contain subparts making them
16
compound in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition. Plaintiff includes a preface of
17
definitions with her interrogatories, in direct violation of the Code of Civil Procedure. To further
18
add to the confusion, vagueness and ambiguity. Plaintiff adopts a different term throughout her
19
interrogatories to refer to Defendant rather than the original term she defined in her preface.
20
Plaintiff does not specially define other vague terms used in her interrogatories, making the
21
interrogatories further ambiguous and overbroad, and thereby forcing Defendant to speculate as to
22
their intended meaning. Furthermore, because Plaintiff did not specify a timeframe for each
23
interrogatory. Defendant properly asserted objections that the interrogatories may be irrelevant,
24
seek information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or
25
seek privileged information as the interrogatories were broadly phrased. Additionally, because
26
Defendant believes it has already provided Plaintiff with all responsive information and
27
documents subject to Plaintiffs Interrogatories during the course of litigation. Defendant is
28
unclear what other information and documents Plaintiff is looking for.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
The Code of Civil Procedure provides that each interrogatory shall be full and complete in
1
and of itself. Cal. Code Civ. Proc, § 2030.060 subd. (d). No preface or instruction shall be
2
included with a set of interrogatories. (Id.) Additionally, no specially prepared interrogatory shall
3
contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question. Cal. Code Civ. Proc, §
4
5 2030.060 subd. (f).
g In this case. Plaintiff argues her interrogatories, "are not so compound as to confuse
y Defendant here. Defendant knows precisely what we are asking for..." and the interrogatories are,
g "not vague and ambiguous clauses, but carry their plain English meanings about who is in charge
g of drafting or storing the OSHA logs in question." {See Plaintiffs Motion at 9:12-13, emphasis
jQ added; and Plaintiffs Motion at 8:12-13.)
J^ To the contrary, it is quite unclear what Plaintiff means by, persons "responsible for
j2 drafting OSHA logs," "responsible for storing OSHA logs," "procedures relating to the drafting
J2 and storing of OSHA logs," and "describe where the OSHA logs... are stored at [Defendant's]
Sacramento facility" because as phrased. Plaintiffs interrogatories assume facts which have not
been established, including whether a person is responsible for drafting or storing OSHA logs,
Jg whether Defendant created a "procedure" related to drafting and storing logs, and whether OSHA
jy logs are stored at Defendant's Sacramento facility. Therefore, Plaintiffs special interrogatories
force Defendant to speculate and adopt potential factual inaccuracies in order to provide a
response to her requests.
2Q In addition. Defendant previously provided Plaintiff with the relevant "OSHA's Form 300
2j Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2019. (See Jones Decl.,
22 9.) There are no OSHA's Form 300 Logs for 2020 and 2021 because, as reflected on the
22 summaries for those years, there were no injuries. (Id.) Defendant further provided Plaintiff with
24 the relevant "OSHA's Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years
25 2017 through 2021. (Id.) The 2022 Form 300A has not been prepared yet. (Id.) The name of the
2g person who filled out the OSHA's Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses
2j is included on the summary itself. Further, the "OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident
2g Report" is specific to individual employees. (Id.) After a diligent search. Defendant has not been
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
able to locate OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report for Plaintiff and Defendant
I
believes it was misplaced when its Sacramento facility significantly shut down operations. (Id.)
2
Lastly, Defendant is not aware of any logs related to OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness
3
Incident Reports. (Id.)
4
Hence, Plaintiff is already in possession of the information and documents Defendant
5
believes are responsive to her Interrogatories, (e.g., who "drafted" or filled out the OSHA log(s)
6
and what "procedure" is followed to fill out the OSHA log(s).) As can further be seen from the
7
forms already provided by Defendant, the request for identification of the names, addresses and
8
phone numbers of individuals who filled out these various forms for these various years is not
9
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence, are completely
10
irrelevant to Plaintiffs case, and outside the scope of discovery.
II
12 Accordingly, on July 10, 2022, defense counsel responded to Plaintiffs meet and confer
13 letter and stated special interrogatory number 30 did not define a time period and Defendant
14 would provide the identity of known individuals during the time period relevant to the lawsuit.
15 (Jones Decl.), ^ 6; Exhibit C.) Defense counsel further informed Plaintiffs counsel although he
16 was not really sure what Plaintiff meant in special interrogatories 31 through 33, he would
17 provide the identify of known individuals who could testify regarding the creation of logs, how
18 logs are maintained, where logs are maintained, and who maintains the records. (Id.) Defense
19 counsel further commented he assumed Plaintiff did not expect Defendant to describe where
20 OSHA logs are stored beyond identifying their location. (Id.)
21 Plaintiffs counsel replied by stating they could agree to a scope of "five years prior to
22 Plaintiffs termination of employment to the present" for special interrogatory number 30. (Id.)
23 Plaintiffs counsel did not contest defense counsel's interpretation of special interrogatories 31
24 through 33 and merely asked when he could "expect responses as represented?" (Id.) As such.
25 Plaintiffs counsel acknowledged special interrogatories 31 through 33 were subject to different
26 interpretations and could not simply be responded to as drafted. Likewise, Plaintiffs conceded
27 special interrogatory number 30 was unlimited in time and thereby acknowledged the
28 interrogatory was overbroad.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
For these reasons. Defendant's objections were not meritless or too general, as Plaintiffs
I
counsel himself agreed to limit special interrogatory number 30 and revise the scope of special
2
interrogatory numbers 31 through 33 to defense counsel's interpretation during the parties meet
3
and confer efforts. Rather than complete the meet and confer process, when Defendant was
4
obviously cooperating. Plaintiff rushed forward with this unnecessary motion.
5
b. Plaintiffs Request for Sanctions is Unjustified. Baseless and Harassing, and
6
the Court Should Impose Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs Counsel
7
As set forth above. Defendant's objections were proper, and did not amount to "misuse of
8
discovery" as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 because Defendant
9
acted with substantial justification in raising its objections. In any event. Defendant, in a showing
10
of good faith, and in an effort to facilitate the discovery process, agreed to provide further
II
responses to all four special interrogatories which are the subject of this Motion to Compel.
12
13 Even if the Court were to find that a further response is warranted with respect to any of
14 these four special interrogatories. Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that its objections
15 were valid, as explained above. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.030(a) (sanctions will not be
16 awarded where party subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification, or other
17 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust). As detailed in the Declaration of
18 James Jones filed concurrently herewith. Defendant diligently met and conferred with Plaintiff,
19 and was willing to provide an extension for Plaintiff to file her motion to compel in order to
20 minimize the discovery items in dispute. However, Plaintiff brought her Motion without waming
21 and within days of Defendant and Plaintiff reaching agreement over the scope and interpretation
22 of her special interrogatories. Accordingly, no sanctions against Defendant are warranted under
23 the circumstances.
24 In fact, the Court should impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs counsel, should the
25 Court deny Plaintiffs Motion. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d), Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
26 2023.030(a) ("The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that
27 another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attomey who advised that
28 assertion, or on both."). Plaintiffs tactic of serving three sets of special interrogatories within a
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
span of nine days, and five motions to compel on the same day is further evidence of Plaintiffs
egregious misuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions.
2
IV. CONCLUSION
3
For all of the foregoing reasons. Defendant respectfully request the Court deny Plaintiffs
4
Motion to Compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three.
5
6
Dated: August 15, 2022 JACKSON LEWIS P.C
Q JAMES T. JONES
BENJAMIN A. MAINS
10 Attomeys for Defendant
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of
2 eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C,
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814.
3 On August 15, 2022,1 served the within:
4
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
5 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, AND MONETARY
6 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
I I PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a tme 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
|~~| MAIL - 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
|~) 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 10l0.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be
18 sent from e-mail address angle.lombard(2),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
2^ Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libertvmanlaw.com
25 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
26 Sacramento, Califomia.
27 Angie Lombard
4882-7588-4333, v. 1
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
Preview
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. JAMES T. JONES (SBN 167967) FlLED/Ef^OORSED 2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 AUG 1 5 2022 3 Telephone: (916)341-0404 Facsimile: (916)341-0141 E. Marrlnnald 4 Email: james.iones@iacksonlewis.com Bv: Deputy Clerk 5 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. BENJAMIN A. MAINS (SBN 274056) 6 50 Califomia Street, 9"^ Floor San Francisco, Califomia 94111 7 Telephone: (415)394-9400 Facsimile: (415)394-9401 8 Email: beniamin.mains(5),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, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 15 vs. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 16 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 17 through 20, inclusive. INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS 18 Defendants. Rescheduled Date: August 25, 2022 19 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 53 20 Reservation No.: 2664201 21 Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF 2 RECORD: 3 Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION ("Defendant") hereby submits the following 4 Opposition to Plaintiff SAJIDA ZAMAN's ("Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Responses to 5 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Sanctions. 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set 9 Three, and Request for Sanctions ("Motion") is premature, improper, unnecessary, and a further 10 example of Plaintiff s counsel's misuse of the discovery process. Because Defendant's objections 11 are meritorious, because Defendant already agreed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs 12 requests, and because Plaintiff has filed her Motion to Compel in bad faith. Plaintiffs Motion to 13 Compel must be denied and this Court should award sanctions to Defendant. 14 First, Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three, 15 ("Interrogatories") were proper. After meeting and conferring over the scope and meaning of 16 Plaintiffs requests. Defendant agreed to provide further responses. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs 17 counsel unnecessarily rushed to file this Motion withing days of reaching an agreement without 18 any substantial dialogue. 19 Second, Plaintiffs request for sanctions is baseless. Defendant has not engaged in any 20 misuse of the discovery process. To the contrary. Defendant, through counsel, has worked 21 diligently to meet and confer with Plaintiffs counsel in order to narrow the discover issues in 22 dispute and provide further responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. 23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant in January 2019 for failing to 25 timely report a knee injury on-the-job in violation of Defendant's safety policy. During the course 26 of litigation. Defendant provided Plaintiff with OSHA's Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries 27 and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2019. {See Jones Decl., ^ 9.) There is no OSHA's Form 28 300 Log for 2020 and 2021 because, as reflected on the summaries for those years, there were no MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 injuries. (Id.) Defendant also provided Plaintiff with "OSHA's Form 300A Summary of Work- 2 Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2021. (Id.) The 2022 Form 300A has 3 not been prepared yet. (Id.) The "OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report" is 4 specific to individual employees. After a diligent search. Defendant has not been able to locate 5 OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report for Plaintiff and Defendant believes it was 6 misplaced when its Sacramento facility significantly shut down operations. (Id.) On August 16, 7 defense counsel is scheduled to meet with a representative from Defendant who is knowledgeable 8 regarding the process for maintaining the Form 301 Incident Report to do a second search for this 9 item. This representative is traveling from out of state and will work with counsel to attempt to 10 locate the item. {See Declaration of James T. Jones ("Jones Decl."), ^ 8.) 11 On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, 12 Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Four. {See Jones Decl., H 2.) Six days 13 later, on May 24, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set 14 Four, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Five. {See Jones Decl., ^ 2.) A few days 15 later, on May 27, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with Form Interrogatories - 16 General, Set Two, Requests for Admissions, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set Five, along 17 with three notices of depositions. {See Jones Decl., 2.) 18 On June 21, 2022, Defendant electronically served objections to Plaintiffs Special 19 Interrogatories, Set Three. {See Jones Decl., ^ 3; Exhibit A.) On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs 20 counsel, Arash S. Khosrowshahi, sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel arguing 21 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special interrogatories lacked merit. {See Jones Decl., ^ 4; 22 Exhibit B.) 23 Defense counsel engaged in meet and confer efforts with Plaintiffs counsel, and responded 24 to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter on July 8, 2022, informing Plaintiffs counsel he would 25 prepare and deliver a response that weekend, and again on July 10, 2022, articulating why 26 Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs special interrogatories numbers 30 through 33 were fair and 27 proper, while also seeking further clarification from Plaintiffs counsel regarding the scope and 28 intended meaning of Plaintiffs special interrogatories. {See Jones Decl., T| 6; Exhibit C.) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 1 Plaintiffs counsel responded on July 29, 2022, by agreeing to limit the scope of Plaintiff s special 2 interrogatory number 30 to "five years prior to Plaintiffs termination of employment to the 3 present," and requesting Defendant provide a deadline for when they could provide further 4 responses to special interrogatories 31 through 33 "as represented." (Id.) 5 On August 2, 2022, at 11:05 a.m. and 11:18 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs 6 counsel explaining that Ms. Morris, the associate attomey primarily responsible for handling 7 discovery issues, had unexpectedly gone on leave, and explaining that defense counsel would 8 need until the coming weekend to reply due to other pressing matters. {See Jones Decl., ^ 7; 9 Exhibit D.) Defense counsel specifically mentioned that he was preparing the reply brief for the 10 summary judgment motion in this case, and that defense counsel had no associate attomey at that 11 time. (Id.) On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion without waming to Defendant and 12 without any attempt to extend the deadline to file her Motion so Defendant could provide further 13 responses. 14 IH. LEGAL ARGUMENT 15 a. Defendant's Objections and Responses Were Proper 16 Plaintiffs Motion mischaracterizes and omits critical aspects of Defendant's good faith 17 meet and confer efforts over the contested special interrogatories. Plaintiff does not include as 18 exhibits to her Motion the entirety of the meet and confer efforts conducted by Defendant and 19 Plaintiff 20 Contrary to Plaintiffs motion. Defendant did not merely argue that "Special Interrogatory 21 No. 30 did not define the time period of which individuals were responsible for drafting the 22 OSHA logs" and "bicker about the meanings the plain terms 'responsible for storing OSHA logs' 23 and 'describe where they are stored'." {See Plaintiffs Motion at 7:11-16.) As further detailed 24 below. Defendant provided an explanation of its objections and agreed to provide further 25 responses based on defense counsel's interpretation of Plaintiffs special interrogatories. {See 26 Jones Decl., H 6; Exhibit E.) In response. Plaintiffs counsel agreed to limit the scope of special 27 interrogatory number 30 but ignored Defendant's contentions with special interrogatory numbers 28 31 through 33. (Id.) Despite not addressing the remaining issues raised by Defendant regarding MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE ^ special interrogatory numbers 31 through 33, Plaintiffs counsel replied by asking, "when can we 2 expect responses as represented?" on Friday, July 29, 2022. (Id.) On August 2, 2022, at 11:05 2 a.m. and 11:18 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel explaining that Ms. Morris, the 4 associate attomey primarily responsible for handling discovery issues, had unexpectedly gone on 5 leave, and explaining that defense counsel would need until the coming weekend to reply due to 6 other pressing matters. {See Jones Decl., ^ 7; Exhibit D.) Defense counsel specifically mentioned 7 that he was preparing the reply brief for the summary judgment motion in this case, and that ^ defense counsel had no associate attomey at that time. (Id.) A day later, on Wednesday, August 3, 9 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion without waming. 10 As such, this Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion because Plaintiff did not meet and II confer adequately. 12 i. As Stated, PlaintifTs Special Interrogatories Regarding "OSHA logs" 13 are Vague, Ambiguous. Compound. Speculative, Overbroad, 14 Irrelevant, and Potentially Privileged 15 Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Three, impermissibly contain subparts making them 16 compound in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition. Plaintiff includes a preface of 17 definitions with her interrogatories, in direct violation of the Code of Civil Procedure. To further 18 add to the confusion, vagueness and ambiguity. Plaintiff adopts a different term throughout her 19 interrogatories to refer to Defendant rather than the original term she defined in her preface. 20 Plaintiff does not specially define other vague terms used in her interrogatories, making the 21 interrogatories further ambiguous and overbroad, and thereby forcing Defendant to speculate as to 22 their intended meaning. Furthermore, because Plaintiff did not specify a timeframe for each 23 interrogatory. Defendant properly asserted objections that the interrogatories may be irrelevant, 24 seek information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or 25 seek privileged information as the interrogatories were broadly phrased. Additionally, because 26 Defendant believes it has already provided Plaintiff with all responsive information and 27 documents subject to Plaintiffs Interrogatories during the course of litigation. Defendant is 28 unclear what other information and documents Plaintiff is looking for. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE The Code of Civil Procedure provides that each interrogatory shall be full and complete in 1 and of itself. Cal. Code Civ. Proc, § 2030.060 subd. (d). No preface or instruction shall be 2 included with a set of interrogatories. (Id.) Additionally, no specially prepared interrogatory shall 3 contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question. Cal. Code Civ. Proc, § 4 5 2030.060 subd. (f). g In this case. Plaintiff argues her interrogatories, "are not so compound as to confuse y Defendant here. Defendant knows precisely what we are asking for..." and the interrogatories are, g "not vague and ambiguous clauses, but carry their plain English meanings about who is in charge g of drafting or storing the OSHA logs in question." {See Plaintiffs Motion at 9:12-13, emphasis jQ added; and Plaintiffs Motion at 8:12-13.) J^ To the contrary, it is quite unclear what Plaintiff means by, persons "responsible for j2 drafting OSHA logs," "responsible for storing OSHA logs," "procedures relating to the drafting J2 and storing of OSHA logs," and "describe where the OSHA logs... are stored at [Defendant's] Sacramento facility" because as phrased. Plaintiffs interrogatories assume facts which have not been established, including whether a person is responsible for drafting or storing OSHA logs, Jg whether Defendant created a "procedure" related to drafting and storing logs, and whether OSHA jy logs are stored at Defendant's Sacramento facility. Therefore, Plaintiffs special interrogatories force Defendant to speculate and adopt potential factual inaccuracies in order to provide a response to her requests. 2Q In addition. Defendant previously provided Plaintiff with the relevant "OSHA's Form 300 2j Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 2017 through 2019. (See Jones Decl., 22 9.) There are no OSHA's Form 300 Logs for 2020 and 2021 because, as reflected on the 22 summaries for those years, there were no injuries. (Id.) Defendant further provided Plaintiff with 24 the relevant "OSHA's Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" for the years 25 2017 through 2021. (Id.) The 2022 Form 300A has not been prepared yet. (Id.) The name of the 2g person who filled out the OSHA's Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses 2j is included on the summary itself. Further, the "OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 2g Report" is specific to individual employees. (Id.) After a diligent search. Defendant has not been MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE able to locate OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report for Plaintiff and Defendant I believes it was misplaced when its Sacramento facility significantly shut down operations. (Id.) 2 Lastly, Defendant is not aware of any logs related to OSHA's Form 301 Injury and Illness 3 Incident Reports. (Id.) 4 Hence, Plaintiff is already in possession of the information and documents Defendant 5 believes are responsive to her Interrogatories, (e.g., who "drafted" or filled out the OSHA log(s) 6 and what "procedure" is followed to fill out the OSHA log(s).) As can further be seen from the 7 forms already provided by Defendant, the request for identification of the names, addresses and 8 phone numbers of individuals who filled out these various forms for these various years is not 9 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence, are completely 10 irrelevant to Plaintiffs case, and outside the scope of discovery. II 12 Accordingly, on July 10, 2022, defense counsel responded to Plaintiffs meet and confer 13 letter and stated special interrogatory number 30 did not define a time period and Defendant 14 would provide the identity of known individuals during the time period relevant to the lawsuit. 15 (Jones Decl.), ^ 6; Exhibit C.) Defense counsel further informed Plaintiffs counsel although he 16 was not really sure what Plaintiff meant in special interrogatories 31 through 33, he would 17 provide the identify of known individuals who could testify regarding the creation of logs, how 18 logs are maintained, where logs are maintained, and who maintains the records. (Id.) Defense 19 counsel further commented he assumed Plaintiff did not expect Defendant to describe where 20 OSHA logs are stored beyond identifying their location. (Id.) 21 Plaintiffs counsel replied by stating they could agree to a scope of "five years prior to 22 Plaintiffs termination of employment to the present" for special interrogatory number 30. (Id.) 23 Plaintiffs counsel did not contest defense counsel's interpretation of special interrogatories 31 24 through 33 and merely asked when he could "expect responses as represented?" (Id.) As such. 25 Plaintiffs counsel acknowledged special interrogatories 31 through 33 were subject to different 26 interpretations and could not simply be responded to as drafted. Likewise, Plaintiffs conceded 27 special interrogatory number 30 was unlimited in time and thereby acknowledged the 28 interrogatory was overbroad. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE For these reasons. Defendant's objections were not meritless or too general, as Plaintiffs I counsel himself agreed to limit special interrogatory number 30 and revise the scope of special 2 interrogatory numbers 31 through 33 to defense counsel's interpretation during the parties meet 3 and confer efforts. Rather than complete the meet and confer process, when Defendant was 4 obviously cooperating. Plaintiff rushed forward with this unnecessary motion. 5 b. Plaintiffs Request for Sanctions is Unjustified. Baseless and Harassing, and 6 the Court Should Impose Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs Counsel 7 As set forth above. Defendant's objections were proper, and did not amount to "misuse of 8 discovery" as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 because Defendant 9 acted with substantial justification in raising its objections. In any event. Defendant, in a showing 10 of good faith, and in an effort to facilitate the discovery process, agreed to provide further II responses to all four special interrogatories which are the subject of this Motion to Compel. 12 13 Even if the Court were to find that a further response is warranted with respect to any of 14 these four special interrogatories. Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that its objections 15 were valid, as explained above. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.030(a) (sanctions will not be 16 awarded where party subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification, or other 17 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust). As detailed in the Declaration of 18 James Jones filed concurrently herewith. Defendant diligently met and conferred with Plaintiff, 19 and was willing to provide an extension for Plaintiff to file her motion to compel in order to 20 minimize the discovery items in dispute. However, Plaintiff brought her Motion without waming 21 and within days of Defendant and Plaintiff reaching agreement over the scope and interpretation 22 of her special interrogatories. Accordingly, no sanctions against Defendant are warranted under 23 the circumstances. 24 In fact, the Court should impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs counsel, should the 25 Court deny Plaintiffs Motion. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d), Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 26 2023.030(a) ("The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that 27 another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attomey who advised that 28 assertion, or on both."). Plaintiffs tactic of serving three sets of special interrogatories within a MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE span of nine days, and five motions to compel on the same day is further evidence of Plaintiffs egregious misuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 For all of the foregoing reasons. Defendant respectfully request the Court deny Plaintiffs 4 Motion to Compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three. 5 6 Dated: August 15, 2022 JACKSON LEWIS P.C Q JAMES T. JONES BENJAMIN A. MAINS 10 Attomeys for Defendant LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE PROOF OF SERVICE 1 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia. I am over the age of 2 eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, Califomia 95814. 3 On August 15, 2022,1 served the within: 4 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 5 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, AND MONETARY 6 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 I I PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a tme 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 |~~| MAIL - 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 |~) 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 10l0.6(e)(l)(2), I caused the document(s) described above to be 18 sent from e-mail address angle.lombard(2),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 2^ Email: Josh@Falakassalaw.com Email: ash@libertvmanlaw.com 25 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 26 Sacramento, Califomia. 27 Angie Lombard 4882-7588-4333, v. 1 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE