Preview
\e N
Brian T. Hafter (CA State Bar No. 173151) SAN MATEO col UNTY
brian.hafter@rimonlaw.com
RIMON P.C.
sep 28 2018
One Embarcadero Center #400
San Francisco, CA 94111 Clerkof
Telephone: (415) 810-8403
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
FAIZAN BUZDAR
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11
12 FAIZAN BUZDAR, CASE NO. 17 CIV 03337
13 Plaintiff, © Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte
14 Vv.
Application for an Order Shortening Time to
Hear Defendant’s Motion to Compel;
15 Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support
CONVO CORPORATION, and DOES 1
16 through 10, inclusive, Thereof
17 Date: September 25, 2018
Defendant. Time: 2:00 p.m.
18 Dept: Law and Motion
we enn
ne ene eee
19 -—
17-01-0337
20
CONVO CORPORATION, EPOPP
Be Parte Opposition
21
22 Vv.
Cross-Complainant,
,
KAI
23
FAIZAN BUZDAR, and DOES 1 through 10,
24 inclusive,
25 Cross-Defendant.
26
27
28
Defendant Convo Corporation (“Convo”) seeks an Order Shortening Time for a hearing on
its motion to compel production of documents from Plaintiff Faizan Buzdar (“Plaintiff”). The Court
should deny Convo’s ex parte application on three independent grounds.
First, on September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents
against Convo and noticed the motion to be heard on October 12, 2018 — which was the first date
that the Court had available to hear Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff appeared at an ex parte hearing on
September 20, 2018 with a stipulated and unopposed ex parte application to advance the hearing date
on its motion to compel to September 28, 2018. The Court denied Plaintiff's request because it had
no available hearing dates. Given that the Court has denied Plaintiff's application to have Plaintiff's
10
motion heard on shortened time, it would be unjust to allow Convo to “jump the line” ahead of
ll
Plaintiff and other litigants.
12
Si econd, there is no good cause for Convo’s motion to be heard on shortened time. In its
13
email providing ex parte notice, Convo has not identified the specific document requests to which its
14
15 motion to compel applies. Plaintiff has produced thousands of pages of documents in response to
16 Convo’s various document requests. Convo’s threatened motion to compel not only is premature,
17 but certainly should not be heard on shortened time. Convo’s request is nothing more than a
18 transparent attempt to deflect attention from Convo’s obligations to produce responsive documents —
19 which subject will be before the Court on October 12, as a result of Plaintiffs properly-filed and
20 noticed motion.
21 Indeed, in response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Convo produced over 1,876 pages of
22 text messages at 6:56 a.m. this morning. These text messages should have been produced months
23 ago — as the documents were clearly responsive to Plaintiffs requests for production of documents.
24 The Court should not reward Convo’s gamesmanship with respect to its discovery obligations — and
25
should instead deny its request for special calendaring treatment.
26
Third, Plaintiff's counsel is unavailable to oppose Convo’s motion to compel if set on
27
shortened time due to case commitments — and most notably, the fact that four depositions are
28
1
Faizan Buzdar v. Convo Corporation
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to
Compel; Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support Thereof
scheduled to be held in this case next week:
™ October 1, 2018 — Continued deposition of Convo Board member, David Straus
™ October 2, 2018 — Continued deposition of Plaintiff
™@ October 4, 2018 — Deposition of Convo CEO, Osman Rashid
@ October 5, 2018 — Deposition of Convo’s retained expert witness
Accordingly, the Court should deny Convo’s ex parte application.
Dated: September 25, 2018 Rimon P.C.
10
11
eZ SY)
Hafter
eys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
FAIZAN BUZDAR
12
DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. HAFTER
13
J, Brian T. Hafter, declare:
14
1 lam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am a partner with
15
the law firm Rimon P.C. ("Rimon"), counsel of record for Plaintiff Faizan Buzdar (“Plaintiff”) in the
16
above-entitled action. I have practiced law in the State of California and before this Court
17
continuously since December 1994. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. If called
18
upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.
19
2 On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents
20
against Convo and noticed the motion to be heard on October 12, 2018 — which was the first date
21
that the Court had available to hear Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff appeared at an ex parte hearing on
22
23 September 20, 2018 with a stipulated and unopposed ex parte application to advance the hearing date
24 on its motion to compel to September 28, 2018. The Court denied Plaintiff's request because it had
25 no available hearing dates. Given that the Court has denied Plaintiff's application to have
26 Plaintiff's motion heard on shortened time, it would be unjust to allow Convo to “jump the line”
27 ahead of Plaintiff and other litigants.
28
2
Faizan Buzdar v. Convo Corporation
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to
Compel; Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support Thereof
3 There is no good cause for Convo’s motion to be heard on shortened time. In its
email providing ex parte notice, Convo has not identified the specific document requests to which its
motion to compel applies. Plaintiff has produced thousands of pages of documents in response to
Convo’s various document requests, Convo’s threatened motion to compel not only is premature,
but certainly should not be heard on shortened time. Convo’s request is nothing more than a
transparent attempt to deflect attention from Convo’s obligations to produce responsive documents —
which subject will be before the Court on October 12, as a result of Plaintiffs properly-filed and
noticed motion.
4 In response to Plaintiff's motion to compel, Convo produced over 1,876 pages of text
10
messages at 6:56 a.m. this morning. These text messages should have been produced months ago —
11
as the documents were clearly responsive to Plaintiffs requests for production of documents. The
12
Court should not reward Convo’s gamesmanship with respect to its discovery obligations — and
13
14 should instead deny its request for special calendaring treatment.
15 5 lam the only lawyer at my law firm who has worked on this litigation on plaintiffs
16 behalf. Iam unavailable to oppose Convo’s motion to compel if set on shortened time due to case
17 commitments — and most notably, the fact that four depositions are scheduled to be held in this case
18 next week:
19 ™ October 1, 2018 — Continued deposition of Convo Board member, David Straus
20 ™ October 2, 2018 — Continued deposition of Plaintiff
21 ™ October 4, 2018 — Deposition of Convo CEO, Osman Rashid
22 a October 5, 2018 — Deposition of Convo’s retained expert witness
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
24
is true and correct. Executed this 25" day of September, 2018 at San Francisco, California.
25
26
27 Brial . Hafter
28
3
Faizan Buxdar v. Convo Corporation
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to
Compel; Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support Thereof
Preview
\e N Brian T. Hafter (CA State Bar No. 173151) SAN MATEO col UNTY brian.hafter@rimonlaw.com RIMON P.C. sep 28 2018 One Embarcadero Center #400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Clerkof Telephone: (415) 810-8403 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant FAIZAN BUZDAR CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 12 FAIZAN BUZDAR, CASE NO. 17 CIV 03337 13 Plaintiff, © Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte 14 Vv. Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Compel; 15 Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support CONVO CORPORATION, and DOES 1 16 through 10, inclusive, Thereof 17 Date: September 25, 2018 Defendant. Time: 2:00 p.m. 18 Dept: Law and Motion we enn ne ene eee 19 -— 17-01-0337 20 CONVO CORPORATION, EPOPP Be Parte Opposition 21 22 Vv. Cross-Complainant, , KAI 23 FAIZAN BUZDAR, and DOES 1 through 10, 24 inclusive, 25 Cross-Defendant. 26 27 28 Defendant Convo Corporation (“Convo”) seeks an Order Shortening Time for a hearing on its motion to compel production of documents from Plaintiff Faizan Buzdar (“Plaintiff”). The Court should deny Convo’s ex parte application on three independent grounds. First, on September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents against Convo and noticed the motion to be heard on October 12, 2018 — which was the first date that the Court had available to hear Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff appeared at an ex parte hearing on September 20, 2018 with a stipulated and unopposed ex parte application to advance the hearing date on its motion to compel to September 28, 2018. The Court denied Plaintiff's request because it had no available hearing dates. Given that the Court has denied Plaintiff's application to have Plaintiff's 10 motion heard on shortened time, it would be unjust to allow Convo to “jump the line” ahead of ll Plaintiff and other litigants. 12 Si econd, there is no good cause for Convo’s motion to be heard on shortened time. In its 13 email providing ex parte notice, Convo has not identified the specific document requests to which its 14 15 motion to compel applies. Plaintiff has produced thousands of pages of documents in response to 16 Convo’s various document requests. Convo’s threatened motion to compel not only is premature, 17 but certainly should not be heard on shortened time. Convo’s request is nothing more than a 18 transparent attempt to deflect attention from Convo’s obligations to produce responsive documents — 19 which subject will be before the Court on October 12, as a result of Plaintiffs properly-filed and 20 noticed motion. 21 Indeed, in response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Convo produced over 1,876 pages of 22 text messages at 6:56 a.m. this morning. These text messages should have been produced months 23 ago — as the documents were clearly responsive to Plaintiffs requests for production of documents. 24 The Court should not reward Convo’s gamesmanship with respect to its discovery obligations — and 25 should instead deny its request for special calendaring treatment. 26 Third, Plaintiff's counsel is unavailable to oppose Convo’s motion to compel if set on 27 shortened time due to case commitments — and most notably, the fact that four depositions are 28 1 Faizan Buzdar v. Convo Corporation Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Compel; Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support Thereof scheduled to be held in this case next week: ™ October 1, 2018 — Continued deposition of Convo Board member, David Straus ™ October 2, 2018 — Continued deposition of Plaintiff ™@ October 4, 2018 — Deposition of Convo CEO, Osman Rashid @ October 5, 2018 — Deposition of Convo’s retained expert witness Accordingly, the Court should deny Convo’s ex parte application. Dated: September 25, 2018 Rimon P.C. 10 11 eZ SY) Hafter eys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant FAIZAN BUZDAR 12 DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. HAFTER 13 J, Brian T. Hafter, declare: 14 1 lam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am a partner with 15 the law firm Rimon P.C. ("Rimon"), counsel of record for Plaintiff Faizan Buzdar (“Plaintiff”) in the 16 above-entitled action. I have practiced law in the State of California and before this Court 17 continuously since December 1994. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. If called 18 upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 19 2 On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents 20 against Convo and noticed the motion to be heard on October 12, 2018 — which was the first date 21 that the Court had available to hear Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff appeared at an ex parte hearing on 22 23 September 20, 2018 with a stipulated and unopposed ex parte application to advance the hearing date 24 on its motion to compel to September 28, 2018. The Court denied Plaintiff's request because it had 25 no available hearing dates. Given that the Court has denied Plaintiff's application to have 26 Plaintiff's motion heard on shortened time, it would be unjust to allow Convo to “jump the line” 27 ahead of Plaintiff and other litigants. 28 2 Faizan Buzdar v. Convo Corporation Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Compel; Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support Thereof 3 There is no good cause for Convo’s motion to be heard on shortened time. In its email providing ex parte notice, Convo has not identified the specific document requests to which its motion to compel applies. Plaintiff has produced thousands of pages of documents in response to Convo’s various document requests, Convo’s threatened motion to compel not only is premature, but certainly should not be heard on shortened time. Convo’s request is nothing more than a transparent attempt to deflect attention from Convo’s obligations to produce responsive documents — which subject will be before the Court on October 12, as a result of Plaintiffs properly-filed and noticed motion. 4 In response to Plaintiff's motion to compel, Convo produced over 1,876 pages of text 10 messages at 6:56 a.m. this morning. These text messages should have been produced months ago — 11 as the documents were clearly responsive to Plaintiffs requests for production of documents. The 12 Court should not reward Convo’s gamesmanship with respect to its discovery obligations — and 13 14 should instead deny its request for special calendaring treatment. 15 5 lam the only lawyer at my law firm who has worked on this litigation on plaintiffs 16 behalf. Iam unavailable to oppose Convo’s motion to compel if set on shortened time due to case 17 commitments — and most notably, the fact that four depositions are scheduled to be held in this case 18 next week: 19 ™ October 1, 2018 — Continued deposition of Convo Board member, David Straus 20 ™ October 2, 2018 — Continued deposition of Plaintiff 21 ™ October 4, 2018 — Deposition of Convo CEO, Osman Rashid 22 a October 5, 2018 — Deposition of Convo’s retained expert witness 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 24 is true and correct. Executed this 25" day of September, 2018 at San Francisco, California. 25 26 27 Brial . Hafter 28 3 Faizan Buxdar v. Convo Corporation Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Compel; Declaration of Brian T. Hafter in Support Thereof