On May 20, 2021 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Fenchem, Inc.,
and
Does 1-25,
Sdc Nutrition, Inc.,
for Other Contract Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Jarrad L. Wood (SBN 3 10688)
jlwood@reedsmith.com
REED SMITH LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Los Angeles, CA 9007 1 - 1 5 14 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Telephonez+1 213 457 8000
Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 11/21/2023 1:14 PM
Brian J. Willett (pro hac vice) By: Leslie Zepeda, DEPUTY
bwillett@reedsmith.com
REED SMITH LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: +1 212 521 5400
Facsimile: +1 212 521 5450
Attorneysfor Defendant, SDC Nutrition Inc.
10
Delaware
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
0f
State
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
the
LLP
in
13
FENCHEM,
formed
SMITH
INC., Case No.: CIV SB 21 14881
14
partnership
REED
Plaintiff, Honorable Wilfred J. Schneider, Dept. 32
15
liability
limited
16 V. DEFENDANT SDC NUTRITION INC.’S
A
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE
17 SDC NUTRITION, INC.; and DOES 1 DECLARATION OF ALVIN ZHANG IN
through 25, inclusive, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SDC
18 NUTRITION INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
19
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR
20 PLAINTIFF’S REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH THIS COURT’S AUGUST 31, 2023
21 ORDER
22 Case Filed: May 20, 2021
FAC Filed: May 18, 2023
23
24 Date: November 30, 2023
Time: 8:30 am
25 Dept: S32
26
27
28
DEFENDANT SDC’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALVIN ZHANG
Defendant SDC Nutrition, Inc. (“SDC”) hereby obj ects t0 the Declaration 0f Alvin Zhang
(“Alvin Decl.”) filed 0n November 14, 2023 in support 0f Plaintiff Fenchem, Inc.’s (“Fenchem”)
Opposition (“Opposition”) to SDC’s Motion t0 Compel Production of Documents and Request for
A Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Refusal t0 Comply with This Court’s August 3 1, 2023 Order (the
QQUI
“Motion”).
. .
Materlal Oblected To
1. Alvin Dec1., Par. 10
.
Oblectlon
.
Lacks Relevance, Cal. Evid. Code. §§ 210,
f
Court’s
Rulmg
.
“In 2019, 350; SUStam [ ]
I was in charge
0f approving purchase The question before the Court is whether
orders. Once a sales Fenchem failed t0 produce relevant, responsive Overrule [ ]
representative received a documents despite SDC’s discovery request,
purchase order from our SDC’s meet and confer letters, and the Court’s
10
customer, he 0r she would August 3 1, 2023 Order compelling production of
email me the purchase documents. The assertions in this paragraph are
Delaware
11
order for approval. irrelevant to that question.
of
12
Normally I would approve
State
Inadmissible Hearsay, Cal. Evid. Code.
the purchase order if there
§ 1200;
the
LLP
in
were no mistakes on the
13
SMITH
formed
face 0f the purchase What Mr. Zhang purportedly told Fenchem
14
orders. In fact, I had employees and/or Fenchem employees
REED
partnership
already approved the purportedly told him is inadmissible hearsay.
material terms 0f the
15
liability
purchase orders before the
purchase order came.
limited
16
After I received the
A
purchases orders, Iwould
17
notify employees 0f
18
Fenchem t0 fulfil the
purchase orders. We got
our work done by emails,
19
calls, 0r conferences.
20 Fenchem has produced
more than 2000 pages of
email communications in
21
this case.Those email
22 communications reflect 0r
record the course of
dealings between
23
Fenchem and its
customers, the
24
negotiations between
25
Fenchem and its
customers, how and when
26 Fenchem received
purchase orders, how and
27
when Fenchem fulfilled
the purchase orders.”
28
_1_
DEFENDANT SDC’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALVIN ZHANG
Document Filed Date
November 21, 2023
Case Filing Date
May 20, 2021
Category
Other Contract Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Jarrad L. Wood (SBN 3 10688) jlwood@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Los Angeles, CA 9007 1 - 1 5 14 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Telephonez+1 213 457 8000 Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 11/21/2023 1:14 PM Brian J. Willett (pro hac vice) By: Leslie Zepeda, DEPUTY bwillett@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 599 Lexington Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: +1 212 521 5400 Facsimile: +1 212 521 5450 Attorneysfor Defendant, SDC Nutrition Inc. 10 Delaware 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0f State 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO the LLP in 13 FENCHEM, formed SMITH INC., Case No.: CIV SB 21 14881 14 partnership REED Plaintiff, Honorable Wilfred J. Schneider, Dept. 32 15 liability limited 16 V. DEFENDANT SDC NUTRITION INC.’S A EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE 17 SDC NUTRITION, INC.; and DOES 1 DECLARATION OF ALVIN ZHANG IN through 25, inclusive, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SDC 18 NUTRITION INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL Defendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 19 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR 20 PLAINTIFF’S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT’S AUGUST 31, 2023 21 ORDER 22 Case Filed: May 20, 2021 FAC Filed: May 18, 2023 23 24 Date: November 30, 2023 Time: 8:30 am 25 Dept: S32 26 27 28 DEFENDANT SDC’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALVIN ZHANG Defendant SDC Nutrition, Inc. (“SDC”) hereby obj ects t0 the Declaration 0f Alvin Zhang (“Alvin Decl.”) filed 0n November 14, 2023 in support 0f Plaintiff Fenchem, Inc.’s (“Fenchem”) Opposition (“Opposition”) to SDC’s Motion t0 Compel Production of Documents and Request for A Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Refusal t0 Comply with This Court’s August 3 1, 2023 Order (the QQUI “Motion”). . . Materlal Oblected To 1. Alvin Dec1., Par. 10 . Oblectlon . Lacks Relevance, Cal. Evid. Code. §§ 210, f Court’s Rulmg . “In 2019, 350; SUStam [ ] I was in charge 0f approving purchase The question before the Court is whether orders. Once a sales Fenchem failed t0 produce relevant, responsive Overrule [ ] representative received a documents despite SDC’s discovery request, purchase order from our SDC’s meet and confer letters, and the Court’s 10 customer, he 0r she would August 3 1, 2023 Order compelling production of email me the purchase documents. The assertions in this paragraph are Delaware 11 order for approval. irrelevant to that question. of 12 Normally I would approve State Inadmissible Hearsay, Cal. Evid. Code. the purchase order if there § 1200; the LLP in were no mistakes on the 13 SMITH formed face 0f the purchase What Mr. Zhang purportedly told Fenchem 14 orders. In fact, I had employees and/or Fenchem employees REED partnership already approved the purportedly told him is inadmissible hearsay. material terms 0f the 15 liability purchase orders before the purchase order came. limited 16 After I received the A purchases orders, Iwould 17 notify employees 0f 18 Fenchem t0 fulfil the purchase orders. We got our work done by emails, 19 calls, 0r conferences. 20 Fenchem has produced more than 2000 pages of email communications in 21 this case.Those email 22 communications reflect 0r record the course of dealings between 23 Fenchem and its customers, the 24 negotiations between 25 Fenchem and its customers, how and when 26 Fenchem received purchase orders, how and 27 when Fenchem fulfilled the purchase orders.” 28 _1_ DEFENDANT SDC’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALVIN ZHANG