This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/13/2020 at 06:19:05 (UTC).

LIPI AZAD VS JASON HECHT

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7808

  • Filing Date:

    03/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AZAD LIPI

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 15

HECHT JASON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MATUSEK HENRY JOHN II ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

OGUNNUBI MELISSA ANN

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF

12/31/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE

1/9/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE

[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

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

Demand for Jury Trial

2/14/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/14/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Answer - Answer to Complaint

2/25/2019: Answer - Answer to Complaint

SUMMONS -

3/13/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

3/13/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/15/2021
  • Hearing03/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • Hearing02/04/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • 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 Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE); Filed by Lipi Azad (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff); Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • 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
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketAnswer (to Complaint); Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Jason Hecht (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Lipi Azad (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.