Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati

On November 18, 2025, the Presiding Judge granted Defendants’ motion to continue trial upon finding that there was “good cause for a continuance due to the substitution of counsel in the interests of justice, the need for additional time to ensure essential evidence located in a foreign country can be presented at trial, and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.” (Minute Order, November 18, 2025.) The Presiding Judge denied Defendants’ request to re-open discovery without prejudice to Defendants’ right to reassert the motion in the Civil Home Court department. (Ibid.)

Trial was continued, and is now scheduled for July 20, 2026.

Defendants argue their failure to take Ghyasi’s deposition is due to excusable neglect and that permitting the deposition would reduce the risk of unfair surprise at trial and allow the parties to engage in informed settlement discussions.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides that “[o]n motion of any party, the court may reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. ” The Court considers the following matters in determining whether to exercise its discretion to grant or deny the motion:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery to Take the Deposition of Netlinks Officer in Department 16C

Defendants assert Ghyasi’s deposition is necessary because his testimony goes to the heart of the claims and defenses in this action because Ghyasi is the officer who was personally involved in Plaintiff’s dealings with Defendants and Cisnet. Defendants insist Ghyasi has first-hand knowledge “relevant to nearly every issue that will be litigated at trial, including” determining which jurisdiction’s laws will govern the interpretation of the contract and the tort claims, whether anyone besides Ghyasi and Ahmad participated in the negotiation and execution of the contract, how the armed insurgency against the civil government by the Taliban affected the IT infrastructure projects, communications upon which Plaintiff allegedly relied in entering the contract, among other examples. (Motion at 4:24-6:14.)

Plaintiff has opposed. Plaintiff first argues this motion is, in substance, a motion for reconsideration because it is asking the Court to re-decide the same legal question, against the same parties, under the same statute, and on the same record, with the only distinction being that a narrower scope of discovery is being requested.

The Court disagrees that this is a motion for reconsideration. Although it is a second motion to reopen discovery under section 2024.250, the ultimate relief requested is much narrower, which alters the analysis. Accordingly, the Court declines to deny this motion as an untimely motion for reconsideration.

The Court agrees that Ghyasi’s deposition would likely provide key testimony that would be relevant to both the claims and defenses in this action. However, the necessity of the discovery is but one of the relevant factors the Court must evaluate to determine whether to exercise its discretion and re-open discovery.

As to diligence, Defendants do not explain why they did not take Ghyasi’s deposition before the close of discovery and, instead, suggest that the Presiding Judge, in ruling on their motion to continue trial, already determined their lack of diligence was excusable by citing to the portion of the ruling that states:

“The Court finds there is good cause for a continuance due to the substitution of counsel in the interests of justice, the need for additional time to ensure essential evidence located in a foreign country can be presented at trial, and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. Defendants have submitted evidence that this is a complex contract and fraud case and that representation is necessary to ensure they can adequately present their defenses on the merits. As Defendants note, the Court granted a fee waiver in this case, which supports the inference the Defendants’ failure to retain counsel earlier was due in part to their lack of financial resources.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery to Take the Deposition of Netlinks Officer in Department 16C

(Motion at 7:3-10; Minute Order, November 18, 2025.)

The Court disagrees that the Presiding Judge’s ruling made any explicit finding that Defendants’ lack of diligence was excusable. At most, the Court found that the failure to retain counsel earlier was partially due to limited financial resources. Yet, that is not synonymous with a finding that the failure to conduct discovery was excusable. The Presiding Judge was also evaluating whether there was good cause to continue the trial based on substitution of counsel and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, not whether the circumstances warranted the reopening of discovery under section 2024.050.

As previously explained to Defendants, self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.) While Defendants were self-represented and have little or no legal training, self-represented litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) A party representing himself or herself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)

Defendants’ attempt to distinguish some of the foregoing legal authorities is unavailing and misses the mark. Defendants assert that, unlike Nwosu, McComber, and Barton, they are not seeking to set aside a final judgment or a decision on the merits that has been entered against them and they have “followed the applicable procedural rule by filing the appropriate motions to continue the trial date and then to reopen discovery after a new trial date had been set.” (Motion at 12:11-13.) While Defendants may not be trying to set aside a judgment or violating any procedural rules in bringing this motion, the fact remains that they are bound by the same discovery rules and deadlines and they concede they were not diligent and made no attempt to take Ghyasi’s deposition until after the close of discovery.

Thus, the Court concludes that the Defendants' failure to take Ghyasi’s deposition earlier was not diligent.

Defendants then assert that permitting the deposition will not prevent the case from going to trial because it is a single Zoom deposition that may occur on just ten days’ notice, and counsel does not anticipate any issues regarding privilege or waiver of privilege that would necessitate a motion to compel. Defendants further argue that, unlike written discovery, a deponent must answer deposition questions, even objectionable ones, except in narrow circumstances. Lastly, Defendants insist Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice if the motion is granted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery to Take the Deposition of Netlinks Officer in Department 16C

Plaintiff disagrees and asserts its pretrial preparation is substantively complete insofar as Plaintiff’s witness list was filed on October 31, 2025; trial exhibits were prepared and informally exchanged in connection with the original November 18, 2025 trial setting; and Plaintiff's Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 were filed and served on November 11- 12, 2025. Plaintiff contends that updated pretrial filings are in an advanced draft and will be filed by the required deadlines. Plaintiff also asserts that preparing Mr. Ghyasi to be deposed by Defendants and coordination with Mr. Ghyasi in Virginia would materially displace remaining trial preparation in the weeks immediately before trial. In addition, the deposition transcript will then have to be reviewed and new testimony may invite expert related disputes, supplemental motions in limine, or rebuttal evidence.

There is no dispute that Defendants have shown absolutely no diligence in taking Mr. Ghyasi’s deposition and that the necessity for this motion was created by Defendants’ own conduct. The only reason Mr. Ghyasi’s deposition was not taken earlier was apparently due to Defendants’ self-represented status, which is not an excuse. The Court is also not persuaded that permitting the deposition will not interfere with trial preparation or result in prejudice to Plaintiff. Trial is only one month away, and as Plaintiff has explained, its pretrial preparation is already substantively complete based on the discovery to date, and permitting the deposition will displace remaining trial preparation and may invite additional disputes, supplemental motions in limine, or rebuttal evidence.

Further, even if the deposition were immediately noticed and taken in 10 days, a rush order would have to be placed for the deposition transcript and there would be insufficient time to resolve any potential disputes that may arise between the parties.

Defendants cite to “additional relevant factors” they suggest the Court consider, including that the deposition will promote settlement and allow the parties to better prepare for trial. Although section 2024.050 permits the Court to consider any matter relevant to the leave request, the fact that the deposition may place Defendants in a better position for settlement purposes and assist them with trial preparation does not counterbalance the fact that Defendants have completely failed throughout the entire course of this action to act diligently with respect to discovery and in moving promptly to seek relief.

As the Court previously noted, Defendants also waited five months from the time the Presiding Judge continued the trial to file their first motion to reopen discovery. Considering the entirety of Defendants’ conduct, the Court concludes that Defendants have failed to establish discovery should be reopened, even for just the narrow purpose of taking Mr. Ghyasi’s deposition.

Having considered the factors set forth in Section 2024.050(b), the motion is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 06/18/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery to Take the Deposition of Netlinks Officer in Department 16C

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.