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.
9/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,...)
12/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE "A"
2/11/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MIL LETTER B
2/14/2020: Order - ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CHANGE FSC
2/14/2020: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
3/20/2020: Notice of Ruling
3/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/23/2020
3/23/2020: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter
10/2/2020: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter
10/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION IN LIMINE RE #1, 7, 8, A AND B)
10/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
10/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 10/27/2020
1/11/2019: Opposition - Opposition to Motion by Defendant to Compel the DME of Plaintiff
1/30/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury
5/21/2019: Separate Statement
5/31/2019: Reply - 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 J
11/20/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
8/15/2017: SUMMONS -
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 MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (NOTICE OF COURT ORDER: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL AFTER SETTLEMENT); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:11 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 10/27/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion in Limine (re #1, 7, 8, A and B) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion in Limine re #1, 7, 8, A and B)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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 MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Defendant); CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by AHOURA VAHEDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ;ETCRead 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