This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2020 at 16:24:59 (UTC).

AHOURA VAHEDI VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/11/2017 AHOURA VAHEDI filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2229

  • Filing Date:

    08/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VAHEDI AHOURA

Respondents and Defendants

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MCINTYRE JEFFREY C. ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

AUDREY EGAN

RODRIGUEZ DAVID C.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MSJ HEARING DATE OF 7/9/19)

7/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MSJ HEARING DATE OF 7/9/19)

Order - ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/10/2019: Order - ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,...)

9/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,...)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

9/10/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Notice of Ruling

9/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TWO DAMAGE AMOUNT IN OPENING STATEMENT OR JURY SELECTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARA

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TWO DAMAGE AMOUNT IN OPENING STATEMENT OR JURY SELECTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARA

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE "A"

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE "A"

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNO. FIVE EXCLUDE WITNESSES FROM COURTROOM MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID R

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNO. FIVE EXCLUDE WITNESSES FROM COURTROOM MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID R

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE JURY CONSULTANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE JURY CONSULTANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. ONE TO EXCLUDE OTHER COMPLAINTS AND LAWSUITS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. ONE TO EXCLUDE OTHER COMPLAINTS AND LAWSUITS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FOUR REPTILE THEORY/GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FOUR REPTILE THEORY/GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DECLARATION OF DAVID RODRIGUEZ

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO SIX EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR ALTERNATIVELY NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIO

12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO SIX EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR ALTERNATIVELY NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIO

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 3

1/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 3

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 1

1/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 1

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE "A" TO EXCLUDE EXPERT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY OF ANY PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL, OR MEDICAL EXPERT OF

1/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE "A" TO EXCLUDE EXPERT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY OF ANY PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL, OR MEDICAL EXPERT OF

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 6

1/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 6

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 4

1/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 4

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 5

1/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL NO. 5

143 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/11/2020
  • Hearing12/11/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF COURT ORDER: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL AFTER SETTLEMENT); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 10:11 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 10/27/2020); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion in Limine (re #1, 7, 8, A and B) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion in Limine re #1, 7, 8, A and B)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketReply (Of Defendant The People Of The State Of California, Acting By And Through The Department Of Transportation To Ahoura Vahedis Opposition To Motion In Limine No. Eight To Exclude Discussion Of Prospects); Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
204 More Docket Entries
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2229    Hearing Date: March 16, 2020    Dept: 50

THE COURT NOTES THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DOCUMENTS REGARDING A MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THUS, THERE IS NO TENTATIVE RE SUCH MOTION.  THE TENTATIVE RE THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER APPEARS BELOW.  THE PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL.

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

ahoura vahedi,

Plaintiff,

vs.

state of california, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 672229

Hearing Date:

March 16, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ; 2025.420

Background

Plaintiff Ahoura Vahedi (“Vahedi”) filed this employment discrimination action on August 11, 2017, against Defendants State of California and California Department of Transportation (jointly, “Caltrans”).

Vahedi now moves for a protective order to preclude Veritext Legal Solutions from releasing the deposition transcript of Vahedi taken in another lawsuit, Francisco Valentin v. Ahoura Vahedi (the “Valentin Matter”). Caltrans opposes.

Discussion

Vahedi argues that Caltrans’s request for the Valentin deposition transcript is an impermissible attempt to conduct discovery beyond the discovery cut-off date. Trial in this matter was originally set for January 29, 2020. (7/2/19 Minute Order.) Therefore, the discovery cut-off date was December 30, 2019. (1/21/20 Trial Continuance Plan and Order.) On January 21, 2020, the Court issued an order continuing trial to March 4, 2020, but discovery was to remain closed. (1/21/20 Trial Continuance Plan and Order.) On January 27, 2020, counsel for Vahedi was informed that Veritext Legal Solutions had sent a letter to Vahedi informing him that a certified transcript of his deposition taken on August 29, 2014 in the Valentin Matter had been requested by Caltrans. (Garcia, Jr. Decl., ¶ 3.) The letter was dated January 20, 2020. (Garcia, Jr. Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) The letter does not indicate when exactly Caltrans made its request. Nevertheless, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), discovery must be completed on or before the 30th day before the date initially set for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024.020, subd. (a).)

In opposition, Caltrans does not address the issue of the timing of its request for the deposition transcript. Instead, Caltrans asserts that the deposition transcript sought is not discovery. Although Caltrans does not explain how it arrived at the conclusion that the deposition transcript is not discovery, the Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.570, which provides the authority for Caltrans’s request, “a copy of the transcript of the deposition testimony made by, or at the direction of, any party . . . shall be made available by the deposition officer to any person requesting a copy, on payment of a reasonable charge set by the deposition officer.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.570, subd. (a) [emphasis added]; see also Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 889, 901 [noting that deposition transcripts are “available to the public, absent an objection and protective order” and are thus “ordinarily not documents that the parties would reasonably envision would not be made available to persons or entities outside the litigation”].) Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that the discovery cut-off applies to Caltrans’s request for the deposition transcript at issue here.

Moreover, the Court finds that Vahedi has not demonstrated good cause for a protective order. It is undisputed that the Valentin Matter was a landlord-tenant matter initiated by Vahedi’s former tenants. Caltrans argues that Vahedi’s testimony in a landlord-tenant matter may be relevant for impeachment purposes. (See Evid. Code, ; 210 [“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”].) Vahedi contends that the landlord-tenant matter has no relevance to this action, but Vahedi has not shown that production of the deposition transcript will result in burden, expense, or intrusion (see Code Civ. Proc., ; 2017.020, subd. (a) [“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”]) or unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression (see Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.420, subd. (b) [“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”]). The Court notes that the parties stipulated that Caltrans would pay the costs of the transcript. (2/28/20 Minute Order.) Moreover, the nature of the Valentin Matter (landlord-tenant) does not support an inference that the topics addressed during Vahedi’s deposition were particularly intrusive or embarrassing, and Vahedi does not argue as much.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Vahedi’s motion for a protective order is denied.

Caltrans is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 16, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer RODRIGUEZ DAVID C.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer EGAN AUDREY