On 03/13/2018 LIPI AZAD filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JASON HECHT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
DOES 1 TO 15
MATUSEK HENRY JOHN II ESQ.
OGUNNUBI MELISSA ANN
12/31/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF
1/9/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE
8/16/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO
2/14/2019: Demand for Jury Trial
2/14/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury
2/25/2019: Answer - Answer to Complaint
3/13/2018: SUMMONS -
3/13/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -
Hearing03/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE DismissalRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/04/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/31/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE); Filed by Lipi Azad (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff); Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Lipi Azad (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer (to Complaint); Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Lipi Azad (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC697808 Hearing Date: January 31, 2020 Dept: 27
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed the action alleging negligence in connection with a motor vehicle collision. On February 14, 2019, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for May 16, 2019. The parties rescheduled the deposition for May 29, 2019. On that day, Plaintiff and her counsel appeared, but the deposition did not go forward due to a disagreement over an interpreter. Defendant moves to compel the deposition.
Plaintiff contends when she and counsel arrived for the deposition, they asked to meet first with the interpreter hire by Defendant. Plaintiff states defense counsel would not allow the meeting because defense counsel had hired the interpreter and said Plaintiff needed to bring her own. Plaintiff and counsel then left. Plaintiff argues the deposition should not go forward unless defense counsel pays for parking and allows Plaintiff and her counsel to use the interpreter to meet separately to “facilitate their privileged communications.” Plaintiff argues that under the California Rules of Court, interpreters must be impartial neutrals and may not engage in any conduct create the appearance of bias, prejudice or impartiality, and that by not allowing Plaintiff and counsel to meet separately with the interpreter, defense counsel violated these rules.
Plaintiff’s argument is not convincing. Indeed, having the interpreter meet privately with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel alone could create the appearance of bias, prejudice or impartiality. If Plaintiff wants an interpreter to facilitate confidential discussions with her counsel, she will need to bring her interpreter and not use the interpreter who Defendant hires for the deposition.
The motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear for her deposition within 20 days of the date of this order at defense counsel’s office. The request for sanctions is DENIED. The parties should have both met and conferred and resolved this dispute without court involvement.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.