Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati

Defendants have been self-represented for the majority of this action. They did not retain counsel until November 1, 2025 – seventeen days prior to the initial November 18, 2025 trial date. Given the November 18, 2025 trial date, discovery closed on October 18, 2025.

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 without prejudice Defendants’ request to re-open discovery to reassert the motion in the Civil Home Court department. (Ibid.)

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

Defendants filed the instant motion on April 15, 2026.

Defendants concede that they have conducted no written discovery, taken no depositions, did not ask any questions at the two depositions take by Plaintiff, and did not respond to Plaintiff’s Demand for Exchange of Trial Expert Witness Information. (Motion, 1:27-27.)

Defendants now move to reopen fact and expert discovery as follows:

 Reopen written discovery and fact-witness depositions with a new cutoff date 15 days before the current trial date (the same date as the expert discovery cutoff);

 Allow a new Demand for Exchange of Trial Expert Witness Information and set the expert discovery cutoff 15 days before the new trial date;

 Reopen the depositions that Plaintiff took of Yusuf Gorakhpuri (“Gorakhpuri”), who lives in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Mohammad Sohail (“Sohail”) who lives in Toronto, Canada. Defendants would like the opportunity to schedule a continued remote deposition. These witnesses may not consent to or be available for a continued deposition, but Defendants should be allowed to try to obtain further testimony from them since they most likely will not appear at trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Fact and Expert Discovery in Department 16C

(Motion, 2:17-27.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b)[1] provides:

(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(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.

Analysis

Again, Defendants concede that they have conducted no discovery in this action and failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Demand for Exchange of Trial Expert Witness Information. The crux of Defendants’ motion is that they are from Afghanistan and lack legal training. Each submit their declaration in support of the motion. Both explain, in part, they did not conduct any written discovery and did not take any depositions due to their lack of knowledge and professional assistance. (Declaration of Ahmad Esmati (“Ahmad Decl.”), ¶ 7, Declaration of Mohd Esmati (“Mohd Decl.”), ¶ 7.)

Ghyasi’s deposition has not been taken. (Ibid.) Defendants did not ask Gorakhpuri or Sohail any questions at their depositions because they “decided it was best not to ask questions that would reveal our strategy at the depositions. We agreed to save our questions for trial.” (Ahmad Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; Mohd Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) They explain that they were “not aware

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Fact and Expert Discovery in Department 16C

that under U.S. and California law, witnesses who live abroad cannot be compelled to attend the trial or testify remotely.” (Ibid.) With respect to responding to Plaintiff’s Demand for Exchange of Trial Expert Witness Information, they explain that Plaintiff has objected to some of their trial witnesses on the ground that they were not timely disclosed. Defendants are afraid that they will be unable to present their legal defenses and arguments without a witness to testify on the law of contracts and business entities in Afghanistan. (Ahmad Decl., ¶ 11; Mohd Decl., ¶ 11.)

Defendants also insist that they have a meritorious defense, and if not allowed to conduct discovery or present expert evidence, the case will be decided in a “trial by ambush.” (Motion, 2:4-5.) They emphasize that to avoid unfair surprise, they “must propound written discovery and obtain documents from Plaintiff relevant to the claims and defenses,” and they need to depose Netlinks’ CEO, as well as have an opportunity to examine Yusuf Gorakhpuri or Mohammad Sohail.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that Defendants have not demonstrated good cause under Section 2024.050. It explains that Defendants only describe the needed discovery in general terms, and fail to identify any missing document, fact or evidentiary gap because each of Defendants’ five defense are legal arguments, fully addressable on the existing record. It continues that Defendants have shown no diligence in conducting discovery or moving to re-open discovery. Plaintiff observes that Defendants’ declarations show that they did not ask Gorakhpuri or Sohail any questions at their depositions due to the deliberate tactical decision to not reveal their legal defenses as such, Defendants have not shown good cause to re-take the depositions pursuant to Section 2025.610(a).

Plaintiff correctly notes that as self-represented parties, Defendants are held to the same procedural rules as represented parties. Plaintiff adds that Defendants fail to show diligence in moving to re-open discovery – waiting five months from the Presiding Judge’s order to file the instant motion. Plaintiff further explains that trial is scheduled 74 days from today’s date, and that Defendants’ proposal to complete discovery by July 5th is not feasible. Plaintiff stresses that it would be prejudiced by re-opening discovery because it has “diligently prepared this matter for trial over the course of three years.

Witnesses have been secured pursuant to deposition transcripts that will be available at trial. Trial exhibits have been organized and trial briefs are in preparation. Reopening discovery at this stage would require Plaintiff to respond to new written discovery, prepare for and attend additional depositions, and potentially respond to a newly designated defense expert — all within a compressed period before a July 20, 2026 trial.” (Opposition, 10:2-7.)

The Court must emphasize that self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639.) While Defendants were selfrepresented 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Fact and Expert Discovery in Department 16C

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.)

Although it appears that Defendants may need to take the discovery, this need was created by Defendants’ own conduct. This action has been pending for over three years. Discovery closed on October 18, 2025 before the initial trial date. Defendants have shown absolutely no diligence in conducting discovery. Defendants claim that the Court may not consider their five-month delay in filing the instant motion as a factor because it is not expressly stated in Section 2024.050(b). The Court is not convinced. Section 2024.050(b) sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors. Defendants waited five months from the time the Presiding Judge continued the trial to file the motion. In ruling on this motion, the Court will take into consideration Defendants’ delay and lack of diligence in filing the instant motion.

With respect to Gorakhpuri or Sohail’s depositions, Defendants made the tactical decision not to ask them any question. Re-opening discovery would more likely than not prevent the case from going to trial on July 20, 2026. In their moving papers, Defendants fail to explain why it is unlikely that re-opening discovery would not result in prejudice to Plaintiff. In reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice because “written discovery will be limited to a single will be limited to a single set.

The number of depositions and other follow-up on Plaintiff’s initial discovery responses will also be limited due to time constraints” and Ghyasi’s deposition will be a one-day Zoom deposition. (Reply, 5:13-15.) Defendants’ motion, however, seeks to reopen all written discovery and fact-witness depositions without limitation. Moreover, even assuming Defendants personally served all written discovery on today’s date, Plaintiff’s responses would be due on June 6, 2026, with the corresponding deadline to move to compel further responses on July 21, 2026 – after the trial date.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff will be prejudiced in its trial preparation due to having to respond to new written discovery, prepare for and attend additional depositions, and potentially respond to a newly designated defense expert.

With respect to the Demand for Exchange of Trial Expert Witness Information, Plaintiff advances that Defendants have waived the right to designate expert witnesses by failing to serve a response by the September 29, 2025 deadline. Given this waiver, Plaintiff maintains that the appropriate vehicle for relief from a waiver is Section 2034.720, and that Defendants’ motion neither cites to the statute nor address its requirements. In reply, Defendants suggest that the issue in the motion is not that they waived the right to present expert witnesses at trial, it is the reason for the motion. They explain that:

By reopening the time for expert discovery, both parties would be relieved of their respective waivers of expert witnesses. The prohibition on expert testimony works both ways. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on its claims. They disclosed no

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Fact and Expert Discovery in Department 16C

experts and thus may not proffer expert testimony on the relevant foreign laws. This limitation may prevent Netlinks from meeting its burden to show the meaning of the contract terms and establish a breach of contract at trial.

(Reply, 3:13-18.)

Defendants’ reply misses the mark. Defendants do not dispute that they waived their right to introduce expert witnesses at trial, or that they must comply with Section 2034.720. There is no evidence that Plaintiff did not disclose experts. In any event, Plaintiff is not the party moving to reopen discovery or seeking relief for its purported failure to disclose experts.

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

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Fact and Expert Discovery in Department 16C

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/court-reporters/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/courtreporters/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.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.