Preview
iD/ENOOR
JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.G.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite #450
JUN 2 9 2022
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 By: E. Macdonald
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
L I B E R T Y 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
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
9 SAJIDA ZAMAN
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
13 RESERVATION I D : 2656706
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM O F POINTS AND
14
vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT O F
15 MOTION T O COMPEL DISCOVERY
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES RESPONSES AS TO FORM
16 through 20, inclusive. INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET
TWO (2), AND MONETARY
17 SANCTIONS
Defendants.
18 Concurrently filed with Plaintiff's Motion to
Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and
19 Monetary Sanctions
20 Date: September 1, 2022^"^^ p /6\
Time: 1:30pm
21 Dept.: 53
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
I. INTRODUCTION.
23
Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) served her second set of Form Interrogatories—
24
General, Set Two (2) on Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") via email on May 27,
25
2022. However, Defendant failed to serve objections or responses by the June 28, 2022 deadline.
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I of 5
Plaintiff therefore moves this Court for an order compelling Defendant to respond to Form
2 Interrogatory No. 17.1 therein, with Defendant having waived its right to object and Defendant
3 being monetarily sanctioned in the amount of $810.00.
4 IL STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 A. Plaintiff Alleges in her Operative Complaint She was Terminated in Violation
6 of FEHA for Her Disabilities and Work-Related Injuries.
7 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
8 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was an Inspector-Packer employee of Defendant, a
9 liquid bag manufacturing company, from December 2003 until January 2019. (FAC, 3, 6, 9.)
10 Plaintiff alleges that her job duties included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive
11 tasks, requiring standing for long periods and lifting/hauling heavy loads (Id., ^ 6.)
12 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2018, she suffered an injury to her left knee
13 while working for Defendant, and that over time the injury gradually tumed from stiffness to
14 consistent and considerable pain. (Id., ^ 7.) About a month later on January 3, 2019, Plaintiff
15 became aware her injury was work-related, and reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and
16 begin a workers' compensation claim, as the knee injury caused chronic pain and interfered with
17 PlaintifTs ability to walk, move, and work. (Id.)
18 After being seen by the workers compensation medical provider. Plaintiff was instmcted
19 to go home until further notice. (Id., 1[f 8-9.) One week later, on or about January 10, 2019,
20 Defendant called Plaintiff into a meting, and terminated her 16 years of employment because she
21 allegedly neglected to report her injury timely in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety
22 Behavior's ("CSB") policy. (Id., H 9.) This policy in sum states that employees are to "Immediately
23 report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no matter how minor or without
24 exception," and that "any violation of these Critical Safety Behaviors will result in immediate
25 termination of employment." (Id.)
26 Plaintiff alleges that her injury required that she take time off work or receive othei
27 modified work duties or other accommodations—however, upon leaming of Plaintiffs injury
28 Defendant immediately terminated her employment. (Id., ^ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that but for hei
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 5
injury and workers compensation claim, she would not have been terminated, with the CSB policy
2 used as pretext, itself facially in violation of OSHA regulations. (Id.)
3 Based on these allegations. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination
4 in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Disability
5 Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (4) Failure to
6 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable
7 Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7)
8 Unfair Competition Law. (M, TITf 12-64.)
9 B. Plaintiff Served Her Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two, to Defendant
10 via Email on May 27,2022, but Defendant Failed to Timely Respond or Object
11 by the June 28, 2022 Deadline.
12 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her second set of Form Interrogatories—General
13 propounded against Defendant via email. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support
14 ["Khos. Decl."], 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's
15 Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two to Defendant [hereinafter "FROGs"]; attached as Exhibit
16 B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Proof of Service, showing a service date of May 27, 2022
17 and executed May 31, 2022.) The FROGs were concurrently served with Plaintiffs Requests for
18 Admissions to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set One) ("RFAs") (Khos. Decl., ^ 3; see
19 Exhibit B), and contained a single interrogatory. No. 17.1, which required the Defendant to
20 provide all facts, witnesses, and documents in support of any denial or qualified admission to the
21 RFAs. (Khos. Decl., 1 3; see Exhibit A),
22 Given the FROGs were served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to serve responses
23 was June 28, 2022, constituting 30 calendar days plus two additional court days from May 27
24 2022. However, as of this writing Defendant did not serve any objections or responses to the
25 FROGs. (Khos. Decl., TI 4.) This was despite the fact that Defendant did serve objections on
26 concurrently-served discovery requests from the same email the FROGs and RFAs were served
27 in. (See Khos. Decl., 14; see Exhibit B.)
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 5
III. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 WITHOUT MEETING OR CONFERRING AND
3 WITHOUT A SEPARATE STATEMENT. WHILE DEFENDANT MUST BE
4 SANCTIONED WHILE WAIVING ITS RIGHT TO OBJECT.
5 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290, when a party fails to timely serve responses to
6 interrogatory discovery requests, they waive any objection to the requests. (Id., subd. (a).) Further,
7 the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. (Id., subd. (b).) Failure to
8 respond to discovery is grounds for monetary sanctions. (Id., subd. (c); § 2023.010(6); Sinaiko
9 Healthcare Consulting. Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411-
10 12 [sanctions may be issued without meeting and conferring].) Finally, no meet and confer
11 declaration or separate statement is required when the responding party fails to timely respond
12 (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th at
13 404.)
14 Here, Plaintiff served via email her FROGs on May 27, 2022. Thirty days from that date
15 was June 26, 2022, and adding two court days for electronic service made Defendant's deadline to
16 object and respond June 28, 2022. (Id., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) However, at no point during June 28,
17 2022 did Defendant serve objections or responses to the FROGs.
18 As such. Defendant has now waived all objections it could otherwise make to the FROGs
19 Plaintiff isftirtherentitled to move to compel responses from Defendant as to No. 17.1 Defendant
20 must also be sanctioned monetarily in the amount of $810.00. (Khos. Decl., HI 5-6.) Plaintiff was
21 not obligated to meet and confer or provide a separate statement under these circumstances.
22 IV. CONCLUSION
23 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion
24 and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Requests for Admissions
25 Nos. 1 through 23; (2) compel a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1; and (3) to pay separate
26 monetary sanctions in an amount of $810.00.
27 ///
28 ///
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 of 5
Dated: June 29, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2
3
By:
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5 of 5
Preview
iD/ENOOR JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.G. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite #450 JUN 2 9 2022 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 By: E. Macdonald Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) L I B E R T Y 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 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 9 SAJIDA ZAMAN 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 13 RESERVATION I D : 2656706 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM O F POINTS AND 14 vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT O F 15 MOTION T O COMPEL DISCOVERY LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES RESPONSES AS TO FORM 16 through 20, inclusive. INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET TWO (2), AND MONETARY 17 SANCTIONS Defendants. 18 Concurrently filed with Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and 19 Monetary Sanctions 20 Date: September 1, 2022^"^^ p /6\ Time: 1:30pm 21 Dept.: 53 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 I. INTRODUCTION. 23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) served her second set of Form Interrogatories— 24 General, Set Two (2) on Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") via email on May 27, 25 2022. However, Defendant failed to serve objections or responses by the June 28, 2022 deadline. 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I of 5 Plaintiff therefore moves this Court for an order compelling Defendant to respond to Form 2 Interrogatory No. 17.1 therein, with Defendant having waived its right to object and Defendant 3 being monetarily sanctioned in the amount of $810.00. 4 IL STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 A. Plaintiff Alleges in her Operative Complaint She was Terminated in Violation 6 of FEHA for Her Disabilities and Work-Related Injuries. 7 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 8 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was an Inspector-Packer employee of Defendant, a 9 liquid bag manufacturing company, from December 2003 until January 2019. (FAC, 3, 6, 9.) 10 Plaintiff alleges that her job duties included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive 11 tasks, requiring standing for long periods and lifting/hauling heavy loads (Id., ^ 6.) 12 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2018, she suffered an injury to her left knee 13 while working for Defendant, and that over time the injury gradually tumed from stiffness to 14 consistent and considerable pain. (Id., ^ 7.) About a month later on January 3, 2019, Plaintiff 15 became aware her injury was work-related, and reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and 16 begin a workers' compensation claim, as the knee injury caused chronic pain and interfered with 17 PlaintifTs ability to walk, move, and work. (Id.) 18 After being seen by the workers compensation medical provider. Plaintiff was instmcted 19 to go home until further notice. (Id., 1[f 8-9.) One week later, on or about January 10, 2019, 20 Defendant called Plaintiff into a meting, and terminated her 16 years of employment because she 21 allegedly neglected to report her injury timely in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety 22 Behavior's ("CSB") policy. (Id., H 9.) This policy in sum states that employees are to "Immediately 23 report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no matter how minor or without 24 exception," and that "any violation of these Critical Safety Behaviors will result in immediate 25 termination of employment." (Id.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that her injury required that she take time off work or receive othei 27 modified work duties or other accommodations—however, upon leaming of Plaintiffs injury 28 Defendant immediately terminated her employment. (Id., ^ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that but for hei MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 5 injury and workers compensation claim, she would not have been terminated, with the CSB policy 2 used as pretext, itself facially in violation of OSHA regulations. (Id.) 3 Based on these allegations. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination 4 in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Disability 5 Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (4) Failure to 6 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable 7 Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) 8 Unfair Competition Law. (M, TITf 12-64.) 9 B. Plaintiff Served Her Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two, to Defendant 10 via Email on May 27,2022, but Defendant Failed to Timely Respond or Object 11 by the June 28, 2022 Deadline. 12 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her second set of Form Interrogatories—General 13 propounded against Defendant via email. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support 14 ["Khos. Decl."], 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's 15 Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two to Defendant [hereinafter "FROGs"]; attached as Exhibit 16 B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Proof of Service, showing a service date of May 27, 2022 17 and executed May 31, 2022.) The FROGs were concurrently served with Plaintiffs Requests for 18 Admissions to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set One) ("RFAs") (Khos. Decl., ^ 3; see 19 Exhibit B), and contained a single interrogatory. No. 17.1, which required the Defendant to 20 provide all facts, witnesses, and documents in support of any denial or qualified admission to the 21 RFAs. (Khos. Decl., 1 3; see Exhibit A), 22 Given the FROGs were served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to serve responses 23 was June 28, 2022, constituting 30 calendar days plus two additional court days from May 27 24 2022. However, as of this writing Defendant did not serve any objections or responses to the 25 FROGs. (Khos. Decl., TI 4.) This was despite the fact that Defendant did serve objections on 26 concurrently-served discovery requests from the same email the FROGs and RFAs were served 27 in. (See Khos. Decl., 14; see Exhibit B.) 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 5 III. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 WITHOUT MEETING OR CONFERRING AND 3 WITHOUT A SEPARATE STATEMENT. WHILE DEFENDANT MUST BE 4 SANCTIONED WHILE WAIVING ITS RIGHT TO OBJECT. 5 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290, when a party fails to timely serve responses to 6 interrogatory discovery requests, they waive any objection to the requests. (Id., subd. (a).) Further, 7 the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. (Id., subd. (b).) Failure to 8 respond to discovery is grounds for monetary sanctions. (Id., subd. (c); § 2023.010(6); Sinaiko 9 Healthcare Consulting. Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411- 10 12 [sanctions may be issued without meeting and conferring].) Finally, no meet and confer 11 declaration or separate statement is required when the responding party fails to timely respond 12 (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th at 13 404.) 14 Here, Plaintiff served via email her FROGs on May 27, 2022. Thirty days from that date 15 was June 26, 2022, and adding two court days for electronic service made Defendant's deadline to 16 object and respond June 28, 2022. (Id., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) However, at no point during June 28, 17 2022 did Defendant serve objections or responses to the FROGs. 18 As such. Defendant has now waived all objections it could otherwise make to the FROGs 19 Plaintiff isftirtherentitled to move to compel responses from Defendant as to No. 17.1 Defendant 20 must also be sanctioned monetarily in the amount of $810.00. (Khos. Decl., HI 5-6.) Plaintiff was 21 not obligated to meet and confer or provide a separate statement under these circumstances. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion 24 and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Requests for Admissions 25 Nos. 1 through 23; (2) compel a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1; and (3) to pay separate 26 monetary sanctions in an amount of $810.00. 27 /// 28 /// MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 of 5 Dated: June 29, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 3 By: 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 of 5