Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450
^ s^v £• It y v^;; fi ,^j t
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com AUG 1 2 2022
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) By:.
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
6
1010 F Street, Ste. 300
7 Sacramento, California 95814
Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
8 Email: ash(glibertymanlaw.com
9 Attomeys for Plaintiff,
SAJIDA ZAMAN
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EX
15
vs. PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
16 EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIVE
17 through 20, inclusive, MOTIONS TO COMPEL ORIGINALLY
18 SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 18, 2022
Defendants. AND CONTINUED TO AUGUST 25, 2022
19
Date: August 12, 2022 BY FAX
20 Time: 9:00a.m.
21 Dept.: 53
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) respectfully opposes Defendant Liqui-Box
24 Corporation's ("Defendant") ex parte application requesting an extension of time to oppose
25 Plaintiffs discovery motions.
26 Defendant was aware of Plaintiffs discovery requests and extensive meet and confer
27 efforts from May to July 2022, during the time Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion for summary
28 judgment/adjudication. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Decl."], 3-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 of 3
1 13.) In all of that time Defendant either entire failed to respond or object to the discovery requests
2 at all, failed to meet and confer as to the objections it did provide, and in any event was provided
3 more than 16-court-day notice to oppose each and every motion, even with the advanced hearing
4 date of August 25, 2022. (Khos. Decl., Tfll 3-12, 14.)
5 Now, Defendant's counsel comes into this Court with a parade of excuses for his lack of
6 diligence, despite knowing of the outstanding discovery disputes for three months. First Mr. Jones
7 expressed to us the reason for not serving responses to Plaintiff Requests for Admissions, Set One
8 and Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two was because his calendar clerk "erroneously"
9 miscalendared deadlines simply because Plaintiff served a proof of service a few days after the
10 original requests were served. (Id., ^ 15; attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
11 communications between counsel re: the supposed calendar clerk error for failing to respond to
12 discovery; attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the proof of service for the Requests
13 for Admissions, Set One, clearly stating that the service date was May 27, 2022 while the
14 execution date was May 31, 2022.) Indeed, when Mr. Jones was four days late in designating
15 Defendant's expert witnesses despite Plaintiffs timely disclosures, he once again invoked the
16 calendar clerk excuse as to why he was late. (Khos. Decl., 16; attached as Exhibit C is a true
17 and correct copy of commimications between cotinsel re: the supposed calendar clerk error in
18 Defendant's delay in disclosing expert witnesses.)
19 Mr. Jones has also invoked his lack of adequate support counsel to assist him with his
20 oppositions. This ignores the fact that Plaintiffs counsels, all solo practitioners, themselves have
21 been serving discovery, meeting and conferring, filing/serving discovery motions, filing
22 applications for ex parte relief, and opposing Defendant's motion for summary
23 judgment/adjudication even when co-counsel Mr. Falakassa has been unavailablefromAugust 3,
24 2022 to the present. (Khos. Deck, ^1 17; attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Mr.
25 Falakassa's email away message.) And this ignores that Mr. Jones, a member of a nationwide
26 defense firm, did not have such staffing issues for the full three months these discovery disputes
27 have been outstanding. He could have easily worked out the discovery disputes via the meet and
28 confer process to obviate the need for Plaintiffs motion practice when he did have the staff to
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 3
1 help him—instead, in hindsight Mr. Jones claims he cannot now adequately oppose the motions
2 without more time.
3 Indeed, the real motive behind Mr. Jones's lack of diligence in providing discovery
4 responses, and failing to meet and confer, was because he did not want Plaintiff to have any
5 additional discovery to oppose the motion for summary judgment/adjudication. Now that
6 discovery sanctions are on the horizon for Defendant, Mr. Jones comes to this Court hat in hand
7 begging for relief caused by his own delay and obstructionist litigation conduct. This self-created
8 "emergency" does not remotely meet the irreparable harm standard, and Defendant does not have
9 good cause to be asking for any additional time to oppose the motions.
10 Altematively, to the extent this Court does grant Defendant's requests. Plaintiff
11 respectfully requests that she be provided a similar extension of time to file and serve reply briefs.
12 Dated: August 11, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
13 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
14
15 By:
Arash S. Khosrowshahi
16 Joshua S. Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 3
Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 ^ s^v £• It y v^;; fi ,^j t 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com AUG 1 2 2022 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) By:. LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 7 Sacramento, California 95814 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 8 Email: ash(glibertymanlaw.com 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff, SAJIDA ZAMAN 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EX 15 vs. PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 16 EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIVE 17 through 20, inclusive, MOTIONS TO COMPEL ORIGINALLY 18 SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 18, 2022 Defendants. AND CONTINUED TO AUGUST 25, 2022 19 Date: August 12, 2022 BY FAX 20 Time: 9:00a.m. 21 Dept.: 53 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) respectfully opposes Defendant Liqui-Box 24 Corporation's ("Defendant") ex parte application requesting an extension of time to oppose 25 Plaintiffs discovery motions. 26 Defendant was aware of Plaintiffs discovery requests and extensive meet and confer 27 efforts from May to July 2022, during the time Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion for summary 28 judgment/adjudication. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Decl."], 3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 of 3 1 13.) In all of that time Defendant either entire failed to respond or object to the discovery requests 2 at all, failed to meet and confer as to the objections it did provide, and in any event was provided 3 more than 16-court-day notice to oppose each and every motion, even with the advanced hearing 4 date of August 25, 2022. (Khos. Decl., Tfll 3-12, 14.) 5 Now, Defendant's counsel comes into this Court with a parade of excuses for his lack of 6 diligence, despite knowing of the outstanding discovery disputes for three months. First Mr. Jones 7 expressed to us the reason for not serving responses to Plaintiff Requests for Admissions, Set One 8 and Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two was because his calendar clerk "erroneously" 9 miscalendared deadlines simply because Plaintiff served a proof of service a few days after the 10 original requests were served. (Id., ^ 15; attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of 11 communications between counsel re: the supposed calendar clerk error for failing to respond to 12 discovery; attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the proof of service for the Requests 13 for Admissions, Set One, clearly stating that the service date was May 27, 2022 while the 14 execution date was May 31, 2022.) Indeed, when Mr. Jones was four days late in designating 15 Defendant's expert witnesses despite Plaintiffs timely disclosures, he once again invoked the 16 calendar clerk excuse as to why he was late. (Khos. Decl., 16; attached as Exhibit C is a true 17 and correct copy of commimications between cotinsel re: the supposed calendar clerk error in 18 Defendant's delay in disclosing expert witnesses.) 19 Mr. Jones has also invoked his lack of adequate support counsel to assist him with his 20 oppositions. This ignores the fact that Plaintiffs counsels, all solo practitioners, themselves have 21 been serving discovery, meeting and conferring, filing/serving discovery motions, filing 22 applications for ex parte relief, and opposing Defendant's motion for summary 23 judgment/adjudication even when co-counsel Mr. Falakassa has been unavailablefromAugust 3, 24 2022 to the present. (Khos. Deck, ^1 17; attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Mr. 25 Falakassa's email away message.) And this ignores that Mr. Jones, a member of a nationwide 26 defense firm, did not have such staffing issues for the full three months these discovery disputes 27 have been outstanding. He could have easily worked out the discovery disputes via the meet and 28 confer process to obviate the need for Plaintiffs motion practice when he did have the staff to MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 3 1 help him—instead, in hindsight Mr. Jones claims he cannot now adequately oppose the motions 2 without more time. 3 Indeed, the real motive behind Mr. Jones's lack of diligence in providing discovery 4 responses, and failing to meet and confer, was because he did not want Plaintiff to have any 5 additional discovery to oppose the motion for summary judgment/adjudication. Now that 6 discovery sanctions are on the horizon for Defendant, Mr. Jones comes to this Court hat in hand 7 begging for relief caused by his own delay and obstructionist litigation conduct. This self-created 8 "emergency" does not remotely meet the irreparable harm standard, and Defendant does not have 9 good cause to be asking for any additional time to oppose the motions. 10 Altematively, to the extent this Court does grant Defendant's requests. Plaintiff 11 respectfully requests that she be provided a similar extension of time to file and serve reply briefs. 12 Dated: August 11, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 13 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 14 15 By: Arash S. Khosrowshahi 16 Joshua S. Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 3