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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
TERESA A. BEAUDET
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DOES 1 TO 25
MCINTYRE JEFFREY C. ESQ.
RODRIGUEZ DAVID C.
9/4/2018: Minute Order
9/6/2018: NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
11/26/2018: Motion to Compel Discovery
2/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
2/26/2019: Minute Order
3/27/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment
4/30/2019: Notice of Motion
5/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
7/11/2018: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION VACATING AND RESETTING THE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOVE FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THE MOTION FOR SAME BY OF DEFENDANT, THE PEOPLE
10/6/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ERRONEOUSLY NAMED SEPARATELY AS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
8/11/2017: COMPLAINT 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ;ETC
at 11:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Objection (OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF AHOURA VAHEDI'S EVIDENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER); Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Reply (REPLY BY DEFENDANT, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO AHOURA VAHEDI'S OPPOSITION TO ITS SECOND AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Brief (Plaintiff's Evidence in Opposition to Defendant's 2nd Amended MSJ); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Separate Statement; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Informal Discovery Conference; Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice ( OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE); Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Other - ((Second Amended) Index of Evidence); Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Summary Judgment ((Second Amended) or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication); Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC672229 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.
state of california, et al.
March 16, 2020
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2025.420
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.
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.
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