Preview
1 Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., SBN 247141
Ryan Reza, Esq., SBN 349452
2 CLARK HILL LLP
555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 891-9100
4 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
BHughes@ClarkHill.com
5 RReza@ClarkHill.com
6 Attorneys for Defendants
FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA
7 GONZALEZ BLAS
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Case No. 22CV002878
12 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER
COMPELLING ANSWERS TO
13 v. DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND
14 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
15 Does 1 - 50, inclusive, Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
Dept.: 14
16 Defendants.
Complaint Filed: September 27, 2022
17 Trial Date: March 25, 2024
18 Date: February 2nd, 2024
Time: 8:30 am
19 Place: Department 14
20 TO ALL PARTIES:
21 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 2nd, 2024, or as soon as the matter may
22 be heard, in Department 14 of the above-captioned court, located at 12000 Aguajito Road,
23 Monterey, California, 93940, FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION LLC and
24 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS (collectively, “Defendants”), will and hereby does move by for
25 an order compelling deponent ROBERT MOSQUEDA (“Plaintiff”) to answer certain questions
26 propounded at his deposition that the deponent refused to answer, all as shown in this
27 memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Ryan Reza, the transcript of Plaintiff’s
28 deposition, and the Statement of Disputed Questions and Answers filed with this motion.
1
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an Order directing Plaintiff to appear
2 and answer the questions set forth in the moving party’s separate statement, as well as order
3 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay sanctions in the form of the reasonable costs and attorney’s
4 fees incurred by Defendants in preparing and filing this motion, equaling $3,978.00, as well as the
5 filing fee of this motion equaling $60.00, as well as all costs associated with Plaintiff’s first
6 deposition, including the cost of the court reporter, the venue, the videographer, and Defense
7 counsel’s travel costs, equaling $2,828.88. In total, Defendants respectfully request the Court order
8 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Defendants sanctions in the amount of $6,866.88.
9 This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff refused to answer questions related to
10 Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration as the result of a felony conviction, Plaintiff’s medical
11 history, and Plaintiff’s social media during Plaintiff’s deposition held on Monday, October 9,
12 2023. This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2025.480, as attempts
13 were made to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel, who stood by the improper instructions he
14 gave his client during the first deposition without substantial justification, thereby making this
15 motion necessary. (See the Declaration of Ryan Reza “Reza Dec.” ¶¶ 2, 3).
16 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum in support and declaration,
17 the accompanying Statement of Disputed Questions and Answers, attached as Exhibit A to this motion,
18 the records and files in this action, and a certified copy of the relevant portions of the deposition
19 proceedings, attached to this motion as Exhibit B.
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed Plaintiff not to answer proper questions asked by
4 Defendants during Plaintiff’s deposition on Monday, October 9, 2023, and should be ordered to
5 appear for a second deposition. Further, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel should be ordered to pay
6 all costs associated with Plaintiff’s first deposition, and the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees
7 incurred by Defendants for this proceeding.
8 During Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendants attempted to ask questions about Plaintiff’s
9 medical history, Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration as the result of a felony conviction, and
10 whether Plaintiff posted on social media regarding the incident, all so as to further assess
11 Plaintiff’s claim for damages in the subject lawsuit. However, Plaintiff’s counsel continually
12 instructed Plaintiff not to answer Defendants’ questions based on improper objections and an
13 improper understanding of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff fails to meet its burden
14 of justifying the refusal to answer such questions and fails to justify any objection to Defendants’
15 line of questioning. As such, Defendants’ motion should be granted in its entirety.
16 II. RELEVANT FACTS
Plaintiff claims that on November 17, 2020, he was on his bicycle when Defendant
17
18 Gabriela Blas allegedly struck Plaintiff with her car. (Reza Dec. ¶ 4). Plaintiff filed the instant
19 matter on September 27, 2022, alleging a cause of action for general negligence and a cause of
20 action for motor vehicle negligence while making a claim for general damages. (Reza Dec. ¶ 5).
21
On November 18, 2022, Defendants answered the complaint by denying all allegations in the
22
complaint. (Reza Dec. ¶ 6). On September 6, 2023, Defendants served an amended notice of
23
deposition on Plaintiff. (Reza Dec. ¶ 7). On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose,
24
California, from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Reza Dec. ¶ 8). Defense counsel flew
25
26 from Los Angeles to San Jose and spent one night in San Jose, incurring a total travel cost of
27 $758.41. (Reza Dec. ¶ 9). The cost of the reporter for Plaintiff’s deposition was $947.50, the cost
28
3
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 of the venue in which the deposition was held was $347.97, and the cost for the videographer was
2 $775.00. (Reza Dec. ¶ 10). The cost of Plaintiff’s deposition, including travel costs incurred by
3
Defense counsel, totaled $2,828.88. (Reza Dec. ¶ 11).
4
5 During Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendants attempted to ask questions about Plaintiff’s medical
6 history, Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration as the result of a felony conviction, and whether Plaintiff
7 has posted on social media regarding the incident. (Reza Dec. ¶ 12). Defendants have provided Exhibit
8 A, a statement of disputed questions and answers to further illustrate the questions Plaintiff wrongfully
9 refused to answer. (Reza Dec. ¶ 13). (See Exhibit A for the Statement of Disputed Questions and
10 Answers). Due to Plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions related to his full medical history, his felony
11 conviction, and any social media posts made regarding the subject incident, Defendants bring this
12 motion to compel further deposition testimony from Plaintiff. In bringing this notice, the attached
13 memorandum in support and declaration, the accompanying Statement of Disputed Questions and
14 Answers, and identifying the relevant portions of the deposition proceedings, Defendants have incurred
15 attorney’s fees of $3,978.00. (Reza Dec. ¶ 14).
16 III. COUNSEL MAY NOT INSTRUCT A WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER A PROPER
17 QUESTION AT DEPOSITION
Counsel may not instruct a witness not to answer proper questions asked during a witness’s
18
deposition because under the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, any party may
19
20 obtain discovery that is relevant “if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
21 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” For discovery purposes,
22 admissibility is not the test and relevant information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might
23
reasonably lead to admissible evidence. Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539,
24
1546. “Information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing
25
for trial, or facilitating settlement.” Id. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.
26
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
27
28 Furthermore, given that a party has a right to obtain relevant discovery, “it is established
4
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 that a litigant has the right to take a proper deposition, and to receive responsive answers to proper
2 questions for the purposes of discovery or for use of evidence, or for both purposes”. Beverly Hills
3
Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d
4
861, 864-65. A proper deposition in California means an attorney may only instruct his or her
5
witness not to answer a question during a deposition when the information sought is privileged
6
7 (e.g., “attorney-client” (Evid. Code § 950-962) or ”work-product” (CCP §§2018.010-2018.080)). It
8 is well established in California that a witness to a deposition “must answer all questions seeking
9 nonprivileged information that is material to the subject matter of the pending action”. I. E. S.
10
Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1955) 44 Cal.2d 559, 563. Courts in California
11
have stated that “a deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is
12
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or
13
defense of the examining party, or to the claim or defense of any other party.” Kramer v. Superior
14
15 Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 756.
16
IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL IS TIMELY
17 Defendants maintain that its Motion to Compel is timely. Under Section 2025.480, if a
18 deponent fails to answer any question or produce any document, the party seeking discovery may
19
move the court for an order compelling the answer no later than 60 days after the completion of the
20
record of the deposition and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration pursuant to
21
Section 2016.040.
22
23 Here, Defendants received a copy of the record of the deposition on Monday, October 23rd.
24 (Reza Dec. ¶ 15). Under California Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants have until December
25 22nd, 2023, to timely file and serve its motion to compel. (Reza Dec. ¶ 16). On Monday, October
26 23rd, counsel for both parties met and conferred pursuant to 2016.040 via Zoom video conference.
27
(Reza Dec. ¶ 17). Following the meet and confer, the parties were unable to find a resolution
28
5
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 amongst themselves, which has resulted in this motion to compel. (Reza Dec. ¶ 18). As such, given
2 the date in which Defendants received the record of the deposition and met and conferred with
3
opposing counsel, this motion to compel is timely. (Reza Dec. ¶ 19).
4
5 V. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO
6 RESPOND TO PROPER QUESTIONING DURING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION
7 AND SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR FOR A SECOND DEPOSITION:
In this action, good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ questioning
8
because Plaintiff is refusing to provide Defendants with Plaintiff’s full medical history, which
9
10 significantly impacts Defendants’ ability to assess Plaintiff’s claim for damages in the subject
11 lawsuit. In Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, the defense
12 attorney instructed his witness not to answer on the grounds that the information sought was not
13
relevant. The plaintiff brought a motion to compel. The court granted the motion, and ordered
14
defense counsel as follows: “you are ordered not to instruct the witness not to answer a question
15
during any deposition in this case unless the matter is privileged. The proper procedure is to
16
adjourn the deposition and move for protective order.” Id. at 1011. In granting the plaintiff’s
17
18 motion to compel, the court in Stewart further stated to the defense counsel that “you don’t assume
19 the role of judge and instruct a witness not to answer a question at a deposition. That is a big no-
20 no.” Id.
21
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel is attempting to assume the role of judge. Plaintiff is making a
22
claim for general damages after alleging a motor vehicle incident occurred with Defendant
23
Gabriela Blas and alleges to have suffered severe lower-back and neck injuries as the result of
24
25 being struck by Defendant’s vehicle. Given Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, Defendants attempted to
26 gather information from Plaintiff regarding his full medical history and any previous accidents in
27 which Plaintiff was involved. When Defendants tried asking Plaintiff questions about his medical
28
6
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 history, such as whether Plaintiff has previously made a claim for disability insurance or worker’s
2 compensation, Plaintiff’s counsel objected and instructed Plaintiff to provide a “a response limited
3
to ten years prior to the incident”. (Reza Dec. ¶ 20). (See Exhibit B for Plaintiff’s Deposition
4
Transcript; Exhibit B 48:4-48:7). Furthermore, when asked whether he was a driver in a motor
5
vehicle accident at any point prior to the subject incident, Plaintiff’s counsel again wrongly
6
7 instructed Plaintiff to limit his response to a timeframe of twenty years, citing invasion of privacy
8 as the basis for Plaintiff’s misinformed objection. (Exhibit B 45:21-22; Exhibit B 45:25-46:4).
9 Moreover, during the deposition, Defendants attempted to request information from Plaintiff
10
regarding Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration following a felony conviction as to determine
11
whether Plaintiff obtained any injuries while incarcerated that may impact Plaintiff’s claim for
12
damages in the subject incident, as Plaintiff was incarcerated for nearly a decade. Once again,
13
Plaintiff’s counsel wrongfully objected and instructed Plaintiff not to answer on improper grounds
14
15 of invasion of privacy. (Exhibit B 16:4-9). Furthermore, Defendants asked Plaintiff for his social
16 media information so as to determine whether Plaintiff has made any statements publicly regarding
17 the subject incident, but once again, Plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed his client not to
18
answer questions related to Plaintiff’s social media on an improper basis of invasion of privacy.
19
(Exhibit B 56:3-8).
20
Throughout the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel continually provided improper instructions
21
22 to his client and instructed his client not to answer questions on a basis other than privilege,
23 thereby violating Stewart. Plaintiff’s counsel stated on the record that he believes he can instruct
24 his client “not to answer on many grounds, not just attorney client.” (Exhibit B 16:12-13). Despite
25 the continuous improper objections by Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants feel it is entitled to
26
responses from Plaintiff in these instances because “a deponent may be examined regarding any
27
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”
28
7
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 Kramer v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 756. In this instance,
2 Defendants are not seeking privileged information from Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendants maintain
3
that questions regarding Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration, prior applications for disability
4
insurance, history of prior motor vehicle accidents, and public statements regarding the subject
5
incident are all clearly relevant to the subject matter because these questions allow Defendants to
6
7 fully assess Plaintiff’s claim for damages.
8 It is clear Plaintiff’s counsel’s interpretation of the California Code of Civil Procedure runs
9 contrary to the holding found in Stewart and holdings found throughout California courts. As such,
10
Plaintiff should be compelled to appear for a second deposition session so as to allow Defendants
11
an opportunity to learn about Plaintiff’s full medical history. Plaintiff should also be ordered to pay
12
all reasonable costs affiliated with the second deposition and this proceeding.
13
14 VI. SANCTIONS MUST BE ISSUED AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:
Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.480, the court shall impose
15
16 monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
17 motion to compel.” Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned for
18 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to questions at his deposition. There is no substantial justification for
19
objecting and refusing to answer questions on grounds other than privilege.
20
Therefore, Defendants request that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel be ordered to pay
21
sanctions in the form of the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Defendants in
22
23 preparing this motion, equaling $3,978.00 and filing this motion, equaling $60.00 Further,
24 Defendants request that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel be ordered to pay the entire cost of the first
25 deposition, equaling $2,828.88, due to the cost of the court report, the transcript, the videographer,
26 the venue, and travel costs. In total, Defendants request that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel be
27
ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $6,868.88.
28
8
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 VII. CONCLUSION
As shown in this Memorandum, in the Declaration of Ryan Reza, and exhibits attached
2
3 thereto, Plaintiff has refused to comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure by refusing to
4 answer proper questions during examination. By reason of his failure to answer proper questioning
5 during this deposition and in view of the above facts and authorities, Defendants respectfully
6
request that the Court issue an Order directing Plaintiff to appear and answer the questions set forth
7
in the moving party’s separate statement, as well as pay all costs associated with Plaintiff’s first
8
deposition, and the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Defendants for this
9
proceeding.
10
11
Dated: November 22, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP
12
13
By:
14 Bradford G. Hughes
Ryan Reza
15 Attorneys for Defendants
FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC
16 and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
2 I, Ryan Reza, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of California.
4 I am a partner at the law firm of Clark Hill, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants Freedom
5 Medical Transportation and Gabriela Blas. (“Defendants”) in the above-captioned matter.
6 2. I have personal knowledge of all the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testify
7 to the same, I could and would do so competently testify thereto. This Declaration is offered in
8 support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony in the above referenced
9 matter.
10 3. Attempts were made to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel, who stood by the
11 improper instructions he gave his client during the first deposition without substantial justification,
12 thereby making this motion necessary.
13 4. Plaintiff claims that on November 17, 2020, he was on his bicycle when Defendant
14 Gabriela Blas allegedly struck Plaintiff with her car.
15 5. Plaintiff filed the instant matter on September 27, 2022, alleging a cause of action for
16 general negligence and a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence while making a claim for
17 general damages.
18 6. On November 18, 2022, Defendants answered the complaint by denying all
19 allegations in the complaint.
20 7. On September 6, 2023, Defendants served an amended notice of deposition on
21 Plaintiff.
22 8. On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, California, from
23 approximately 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
24 9. Defense counsel flew from Los Angeles to San Jose and spent one night in San Jose,
25 incurring a total travel cost of $758.41.
26 10. The cost of the reporter for Plaintiff’s deposition was $947.50, the cost of the venue
27 in which the deposition was held was $347.97, and the cost for the videographer was $775.00.
28 11. The cost of Plaintiff’s deposition, including travel costs incurred by Defense counsel,
10
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 totaled $2,828.88.
2 12. During the deposition, Defendants attempted to ask questions about Plaintiff’s
3 medical history, Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration, and whether Plaintiff has posted on social
4 media regarding the incident.
5 13. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Statement of Disputed
6 Questions and Answers.
7 14. In bringing this notice, the attached memorandum in support and declaration, the
8 accompanying Statement of Disputed Questions and Answers, and identifying the relevant portions
9 of the deposition proceedings, Defendants have incurred attorney’s fees of $3,978.00.
10 15. Defendants received a copy of the record of the deposition on Monday, October 23rd.
11 16. Under California Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants have until December 22nd,
12 2023, to timely file and serve its motion to compel.
13 17. On Monday, October 23rd, counsel for both parties met and conferred pursuant to
14 2016.040 via Zoom video conference.
15 18. Following the meet and confer, the parties were unable to find a resolution amongst
16 themselves, which has resulted in this motion to compel.
17 19. Given the date in which Defendants received the record of the deposition and met
18 and conferred with opposing counsel, this motion to compel is timely.
19 20. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Transcript of Plaintiff’s
20 Deposition.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing
22 is true and correct.
23 Executed on November 21, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
24
25 ____________________________
Ryan Reza
26
27
28
11
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS;
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Robert Mosqueda v. Gabriela Gonzalez Blas, et al.
2 Monterey Superior Court No. 22CV002878
3 I am employed in Los Angeles County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
My business address is 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.
4 in this action by placing
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’
5 DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF
RYAN REZA
6
the original of the document
7 true copies of the document
8 in separate sealed envelopes to the following addresses:
9 Amir Salehi, Esq.
Omega Law Group, PC
10 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
11 (310) 526-8383 / Fax (310) 526-8263
Email: ams@omegalaw.com
12 Email: dlc@omegalaw.com
Email: eservice@omegalaw.com
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert Mosqueda
14
BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The
15 envelopes were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
I am readily familiar with Clark Hill’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same
day which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in
17 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed
invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date
18 stated in this proof of service.
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing
19 correspondence for delivery via Federal Express. Under that practice, it would be picked up by
Federal Express on that same day at Los Angeles, California and delivered to the parties as listed
20 on this Proof of Service the following business morning.
BY E-MAIL TO COUNSEL: I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via e
21 mail from lcgarcia@clarkhill.com to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service.
BY FACSIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to
22 the parties as listed on this Proof of Service.
STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the
23 above is true and correct.
Executed on November 22, 2023 at Los Angeles, California.
24
25
Lizabeth Garcia
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23
EXHIBIT A
1 Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., SBN 247141
Ryan Reza, Esq., SBN 349452
2 CLARK HILL LLP
555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 891-9100
4 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
BHughes@ClarkHill.com
5 RReza@ClarkHill.com
6 Attorneys for Defendants
FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA
7 GONZALEZ BLAS
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Case No. 22CV002878
12 Plaintiff, STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
13 v.
Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
14 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM Dept.: 14
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
15 Does 1 - 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 27, 2022
Trial Date: March 25, 2024
16 Defendants.
Date: February 2nd, 2024
17 Time: 8:30 am
Place: Department 14
18
ROBERT MOSQUEDA (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against GABRIELA GONZALEZ
19
BLAS and FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION (collectively, “Defendants”) for general
20
negligence and motor vehicle negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Gabriela
21
Gonzalez Blas struck Plaintiff with her vehicle while Plaintiff was halfway through a crosswalk on
22
his bicycle. Plaintiff alleges he suffered injuries to his neck and lower back as a result of the
23
incident and subsequently underwent lower back surgery. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff is
24
claiming general damages for medical expenses as well as pain and suffering.
25
26 QUESTIONS TO WHICH FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
27 On October 9, 2023, deponent Robert Mosqueda was asked certain questions, to which
28
1
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
1 objections were interposed or responses given as set forth below.
2
3 1. Question: (in reference to Plaintiff’s prior felony) “Monterey? And would it be possible
4 to walk me through, kind of, what happened in this situation? (Transcript 15:25-16:1).
5 Response/Objection: “No, I’m going to object.” (Transcript 16:2).
6 Question: “On what grounds?” (Transcript 16:3).
7 Response/Objection: “Same grounds. Prejudicial. Invasion of privacy. The specific basic
8 information that’s delineated in the form interrogatories, has been responded to. And any
9 additional information that you may need would most likely also be public record, but I
10 won’t get into that, so…” (Transcript 16:4-9).
11 Question: “But, as you know, you can’t instruct your client to not answer unless it’s under
12 privilege.” (Transcript 16:10-11).
13 Response/Objection: “I can instruct him not to answer on many grounds, not just attorney-
14 client. Subsequently, if the matter’s not resolved, you guys can make a motion and we’ll oppose
15 it, and ultimately the court will make a determination based upon the extent and nature of the
16 information and the balance test. And this is my practice in all of my cases.” (Transcript 16:12-
17 18).
18 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled:
19 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
20 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition
21 unless the matter is privileged.
22
23 2. Question: (in reference to Plaintiff’s stomach issues around 2001) “Do you remember what
24 your health insurance ID was at the time?” (Transcript 23:22-23)
25 Response/Objection: “Objection- stop. Objection. Invasion of privacy. Relevance. I’m just
26 going to instruct him not to answer, or if you want to tell me what the relevance would be.
27 (Transcript 23:24-24:2)
28
2
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
1 Question: Well, I still believe I’m entitled to an answer, even though you object to those
2 questions. Like, it’s my understanding the only time he’s unable to answer is if it’s under a
3 privilege claim, whether work product or attorney-client. (Transcript 24:3-7)
4 Response/Objection: “That’s what I used to think too, and I realize it’s not. It’s much broader
5 than that, or at least my experience personally.” (Transcript 24:8-24:10)
6 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled:
7 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
8 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition
9 unless the matter is privileged.
10
11 3. Question: (In reference to Plaintiff’s prior felony conviction) “Did you feel like you were
12 welcomed back into society pretty fully when you went to Cheesecake and started working?”
13 (Transcript 36:20-22).
14 Response/Objection: “Objection. Vague and ambiguous. You can answer.” (Transcript 36:23).
15 Plaintiff Responds: “Yes and no.” (Transcript 36:25)
16 Question: “Could you explain?” (Transcript 37:2)
17 Response/Objection: “Don’t answer that. I don’t see what the relevance of that has to do with
18 anything.” (Transcript 37:3-4).
19 Question: “We are entitled to his best testimony here today. We’re trying to learn a little bit
20 more just about…”(Transcript 37:5-37:7).
21 Response/Objection: “We’ve gone over this ten times, Counsel, I’m not going to keep repeating
22 it. The ability for counsel to instruct his client not to answer is not limited to attorney-client
23 privelege. That’s what I also thought for many years when I started practicing. That’s not to say
24 every objection I make may be correct, but there’s an analysis to see how it might be relevant.
25 I think the golden rule, like you said is, is it likely to lead to admissible evidence, and I don’t
26 really know how him feeling accepted in society is relevant to any issues in this case.”
27 (Transcript 37:10-37:18).
28
3
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
1 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial
2 Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent
3 not to answer a question during a deposition unless the matter is privileged.
4
5 4. Question: “Have you ever been in a motor vehicle accident where you were a driver and you
6 were – there was an incident?” (Transcript 45:14-16)
7 Response/Objection: “Don’t answer that as framed. I’m instructing him not to answer.”
8 (Transcript 45:17-18).
9 Question: “And could you just please restate the reasoning? The grounds?” (Transcript 45:19-
10 45:20)
11 Response/Objection: ”It’s harassing, invasion of privacy, and not likely to lead to admissible
12 evidence.” (Transcript 45:21-22).
13 Question: “Prior accidents is invasion of privacy?” (Transcript 45:23-45:24).
14 Response/Objection: “Yeah. When you do a balancing test, that’s where that kicks in. If you
15 got in a car accident 20 years before this incident, what’s the relevance? And it applies, by the
16 way, vice versa.” (Transcript 45:25-46:4).
17 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled:
18 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
19 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition
20 unless the matter is privileged.
21
22 5.Question: “Have you ever applied for disability insurance” (Transcript 47:18)
23 Response/Objection: “Ten years.” (Transcript 47:20).
24 Question: “This is not limited to ten years. This is the full scope of your life. Have you ever
25 applied for disability insurance?” (Transcript 47:22-24).
26 Response/Objection: “Stop. Don’t answer. He asks one thing, when I’m telling you ten years,
27 that’s my instruction to you, it’s not a suggestion…So let me finish. Don’t answer until I get
28
4
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
1 that in there. You can provide a response limited to ten years prior to the incident. (Transcript
2 48:4-48:7).
3 Question: “Counsel, do you have any authority that says that it’s –.” (Transcript 48:4-9)
4 Response/Objection: “Yeah, it’s overbroad. We keep coming back to this. I’ll whip out the form
5 rogs. Even the form rogs ask, ‘Have you filed a workers’ comp within the ten years prior to the
6 incident?’ Your question doesn’t ask that. Again, it goes back to relevance- how far back you’re
7 going, and what gets in. You don’t get to ask anybody anything ever again. If you’re taking the
8 deposition of an 18-year-old versus 98-year-old, when you have these broad questions, it makes
9 a difference. That’s where I’m getting my authority from. Balancing test- having the issues
10 come up hundreds of times in front of the judges. Probative value versus prejudicial value.”
11 (Transcript 48:10-22).
12 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled:
13 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
14 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition
15 unless the matter is privileged.
16
17 6. Question: “What’s your Facebook?” (Transcript 56:3)
18 Response/Objection: “Objection. Invasion of Privacy. Don’t provide that.” (Transcript 56:4-5).
19 Question: “Your Twitter?” (Transcript 56:7)
20 Response/Objection: “Same.” (Transcript 56:8)
21 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled:
22 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
23 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition
24 unless the matter is privileged.
25
26 7. Question: (In reference to Plaintiff’s previous shoulder surgery) “What was the nature of your
27 shoulder surgery?” (Transcript 151:12).
28
5
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
1 Response/Objection: “We’re not claiming shoulder injuries, are we?...Don’t answer that.
2 (Transcript 151:13-16).
3 Question: “On what grounds (Transcript 151:17)
4 Response/Objection: “Same as we’ve been going over, Counselor. If it’s not the subject body
5 parts at issue that we’re claiming damages for as a result of the incident. Invasion of privacy.
6 (Transcript 151:18-21)
7 Question: “Do you know when you received that surgery?” (Transcript 151:23)
8 Response/Objection: “Same thing. Don’t answer that.” (Transcript 151:25)
9 Question: “I think this is bearing on our, you know, to have another surgery-”. (Transcript
10 152:1-2)
11 Response/Objection: “Okay, fair enough. I got – hey, if he’s being fair, he’s being fair, but I’ve
12 got to gauge this right. If the surgery happened within the five years prior to the incident, prior
13 to the incident, provide the answer.” (152:3-8).
14 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled:
15 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
16 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition
17 unless the matter is privileged.
18
19 Dated: November 21, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP
20
21 By:
Bradford G. Hughes
22 Ryan Reza
Attorneys for Defendants
23 FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC
and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS
24
25
26
27
28
6
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Robert Mosqueda v. Gabriela Gonzalez Blas, et al.
2 Monterey Superior Court No. 22CV002878
3 I am employed in Los Angeles County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
My business address is 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.
4 On November 21, 2023, I served the foregoing document, described as STATEMENT OF
DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS in this action by placing
5
the original of the document
6 true copies of the document
7 in separate sealed envelopes to the following addresses:
8 Amir Salehi, Esq.
Omega Law Group, PC
9 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
10 (310) 526-8383 / Fax (310) 526-8263
Email: ams@omegalaw.com
11 Email: dlc@omegalaw.com
Email: eservice@omegalaw.com
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert Mosqueda
13
BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The
14 envelopes were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
I am readily familiar with Clark Hill’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
15 mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same
day which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in
16 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed
invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date
17 stated in this proof of service.
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing
18 correspondence for delivery via Federal Express. Under that practice, it would be picked up by
Federal Express on that same day at Los Angeles, California and delivered to the parties as listed
19 on this Proof of Service the following business morning.
BY E-MAIL TO COUNSEL: I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via e
20 mail from lcgarcia@clarkhill.com to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service.
BY FACSIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to
21 the parties as listed on this Proof of Service.
STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the
22 above is true and correct.
Executed on November 21, 2023 at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
Lizabeth Garcia
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23
EXHIBIT B
Page 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 22CV002878
GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
Zoom Videoconference
Deposition of
ROBERT MOSQUEDA
Monday, October 9, 2023
---oOo---
Magna Legal Services
866.624.6221
www.MagnaLS.com
Reported By: STACY L. LOZANO, CSR No. 12831
Page 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3 For the Plaintiff: ROBERT MOSQUEDA
4 OMEGA LAW GROUP, PC
5 BY: AMIR SALEHI, ESQ.
6 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor
7 Beverly Hills, California 90211
8 Phone: (310) 526-8383
9 Email: ams@omegalaw.com
10
11 For the Defendants: FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC
12 and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS
13 CLARK HILL, LLP
14 BY: RYAN REZA, ESQ.
15 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor
16 Los Angeles, California 90071
17 Phone: (213) 891-9100
18 Email: Rreza@clarkhill.com
19
20
21
22 ALSO PRESENT: Marcus Majers, Videographer, Magna Legal
23 Services
24
25
Page 3
1 I N D E X
2 PAGE
3 EXAMINATION BY RYAN REZA 5
4
5
6 E X H I B I T S
7 NUMBER PAGE
8 1 Page 15 of Plaintiff's responses to 42
Form interrogatories
9
10
11
Preview
1 Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., SBN 247141 Ryan Reza, Esq., SBN 349452 2 CLARK HILL LLP 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 4 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 BHughes@ClarkHill.com 5 RReza@ClarkHill.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA 7 GONZALEZ BLAS 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Case No. 22CV002878 12 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND 14 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and 15 Does 1 - 50, inclusive, Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta Dept.: 14 16 Defendants. Complaint Filed: September 27, 2022 17 Trial Date: March 25, 2024 18 Date: February 2nd, 2024 Time: 8:30 am 19 Place: Department 14 20 TO ALL PARTIES: 21 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 2nd, 2024, or as soon as the matter may 22 be heard, in Department 14 of the above-captioned court, located at 12000 Aguajito Road, 23 Monterey, California, 93940, FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION LLC and 24 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS (collectively, “Defendants”), will and hereby does move by for 25 an order compelling deponent ROBERT MOSQUEDA (“Plaintiff”) to answer certain questions 26 propounded at his deposition that the deponent refused to answer, all as shown in this 27 memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Ryan Reza, the transcript of Plaintiff’s 28 deposition, and the Statement of Disputed Questions and Answers filed with this motion. 1 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an Order directing Plaintiff to appear 2 and answer the questions set forth in the moving party’s separate statement, as well as order 3 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay sanctions in the form of the reasonable costs and attorney’s 4 fees incurred by Defendants in preparing and filing this motion, equaling $3,978.00, as well as the 5 filing fee of this motion equaling $60.00, as well as all costs associated with Plaintiff’s first 6 deposition, including the cost of the court reporter, the venue, the videographer, and Defense 7 counsel’s travel costs, equaling $2,828.88. In total, Defendants respectfully request the Court order 8 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Defendants sanctions in the amount of $6,866.88. 9 This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff refused to answer questions related to 10 Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration as the result of a felony conviction, Plaintiff’s medical 11 history, and Plaintiff’s social media during Plaintiff’s deposition held on Monday, October 9, 12 2023. This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2025.480, as attempts 13 were made to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel, who stood by the improper instructions he 14 gave his client during the first deposition without substantial justification, thereby making this 15 motion necessary. (See the Declaration of Ryan Reza “Reza Dec.” ¶¶ 2, 3). 16 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum in support and declaration, 17 the accompanying Statement of Disputed Questions and Answers, attached as Exhibit A to this motion, 18 the records and files in this action, and a certified copy of the relevant portions of the deposition 19 proceedings, attached to this motion as Exhibit B. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed Plaintiff not to answer proper questions asked by 4 Defendants during Plaintiff’s deposition on Monday, October 9, 2023, and should be ordered to 5 appear for a second deposition. Further, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel should be ordered to pay 6 all costs associated with Plaintiff’s first deposition, and the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees 7 incurred by Defendants for this proceeding. 8 During Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendants attempted to ask questions about Plaintiff’s 9 medical history, Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration as the result of a felony conviction, and 10 whether Plaintiff posted on social media regarding the incident, all so as to further assess 11 Plaintiff’s claim for damages in the subject lawsuit. However, Plaintiff’s counsel continually 12 instructed Plaintiff not to answer Defendants’ questions based on improper objections and an 13 improper understanding of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff fails to meet its burden 14 of justifying the refusal to answer such questions and fails to justify any objection to Defendants’ 15 line of questioning. As such, Defendants’ motion should be granted in its entirety. 16 II. RELEVANT FACTS Plaintiff claims that on November 17, 2020, he was on his bicycle when Defendant 17 18 Gabriela Blas allegedly struck Plaintiff with her car. (Reza Dec. ¶ 4). Plaintiff filed the instant 19 matter on September 27, 2022, alleging a cause of action for general negligence and a cause of 20 action for motor vehicle negligence while making a claim for general damages. (Reza Dec. ¶ 5). 21 On November 18, 2022, Defendants answered the complaint by denying all allegations in the 22 complaint. (Reza Dec. ¶ 6). On September 6, 2023, Defendants served an amended notice of 23 deposition on Plaintiff. (Reza Dec. ¶ 7). On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, 24 California, from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Reza Dec. ¶ 8). Defense counsel flew 25 26 from Los Angeles to San Jose and spent one night in San Jose, incurring a total travel cost of 27 $758.41. (Reza Dec. ¶ 9). The cost of the reporter for Plaintiff’s deposition was $947.50, the cost 28 3 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 of the venue in which the deposition was held was $347.97, and the cost for the videographer was 2 $775.00. (Reza Dec. ¶ 10). The cost of Plaintiff’s deposition, including travel costs incurred by 3 Defense counsel, totaled $2,828.88. (Reza Dec. ¶ 11). 4 5 During Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendants attempted to ask questions about Plaintiff’s medical 6 history, Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration as the result of a felony conviction, and whether Plaintiff 7 has posted on social media regarding the incident. (Reza Dec. ¶ 12). Defendants have provided Exhibit 8 A, a statement of disputed questions and answers to further illustrate the questions Plaintiff wrongfully 9 refused to answer. (Reza Dec. ¶ 13). (See Exhibit A for the Statement of Disputed Questions and 10 Answers). Due to Plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions related to his full medical history, his felony 11 conviction, and any social media posts made regarding the subject incident, Defendants bring this 12 motion to compel further deposition testimony from Plaintiff. In bringing this notice, the attached 13 memorandum in support and declaration, the accompanying Statement of Disputed Questions and 14 Answers, and identifying the relevant portions of the deposition proceedings, Defendants have incurred 15 attorney’s fees of $3,978.00. (Reza Dec. ¶ 14). 16 III. COUNSEL MAY NOT INSTRUCT A WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER A PROPER 17 QUESTION AT DEPOSITION Counsel may not instruct a witness not to answer proper questions asked during a witness’s 18 deposition because under the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, any party may 19 20 obtain discovery that is relevant “if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears 21 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” For discovery purposes, 22 admissibility is not the test and relevant information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might 23 reasonably lead to admissible evidence. Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 24 1546. “Information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing 25 for trial, or facilitating settlement.” Id. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery. 26 Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. 27 28 Furthermore, given that a party has a right to obtain relevant discovery, “it is established 4 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 that a litigant has the right to take a proper deposition, and to receive responsive answers to proper 2 questions for the purposes of discovery or for use of evidence, or for both purposes”. Beverly Hills 3 Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 4 861, 864-65. A proper deposition in California means an attorney may only instruct his or her 5 witness not to answer a question during a deposition when the information sought is privileged 6 7 (e.g., “attorney-client” (Evid. Code § 950-962) or ”work-product” (CCP §§2018.010-2018.080)). It 8 is well established in California that a witness to a deposition “must answer all questions seeking 9 nonprivileged information that is material to the subject matter of the pending action”. I. E. S. 10 Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1955) 44 Cal.2d 559, 563. Courts in California 11 have stated that “a deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is 12 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or 13 defense of the examining party, or to the claim or defense of any other party.” Kramer v. Superior 14 15 Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 756. 16 IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL IS TIMELY 17 Defendants maintain that its Motion to Compel is timely. Under Section 2025.480, if a 18 deponent fails to answer any question or produce any document, the party seeking discovery may 19 move the court for an order compelling the answer no later than 60 days after the completion of the 20 record of the deposition and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration pursuant to 21 Section 2016.040. 22 23 Here, Defendants received a copy of the record of the deposition on Monday, October 23rd. 24 (Reza Dec. ¶ 15). Under California Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants have until December 25 22nd, 2023, to timely file and serve its motion to compel. (Reza Dec. ¶ 16). On Monday, October 26 23rd, counsel for both parties met and conferred pursuant to 2016.040 via Zoom video conference. 27 (Reza Dec. ¶ 17). Following the meet and confer, the parties were unable to find a resolution 28 5 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 amongst themselves, which has resulted in this motion to compel. (Reza Dec. ¶ 18). As such, given 2 the date in which Defendants received the record of the deposition and met and conferred with 3 opposing counsel, this motion to compel is timely. (Reza Dec. ¶ 19). 4 5 V. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO 6 RESPOND TO PROPER QUESTIONING DURING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION 7 AND SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR FOR A SECOND DEPOSITION: In this action, good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ questioning 8 because Plaintiff is refusing to provide Defendants with Plaintiff’s full medical history, which 9 10 significantly impacts Defendants’ ability to assess Plaintiff’s claim for damages in the subject 11 lawsuit. In Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, the defense 12 attorney instructed his witness not to answer on the grounds that the information sought was not 13 relevant. The plaintiff brought a motion to compel. The court granted the motion, and ordered 14 defense counsel as follows: “you are ordered not to instruct the witness not to answer a question 15 during any deposition in this case unless the matter is privileged. The proper procedure is to 16 adjourn the deposition and move for protective order.” Id. at 1011. In granting the plaintiff’s 17 18 motion to compel, the court in Stewart further stated to the defense counsel that “you don’t assume 19 the role of judge and instruct a witness not to answer a question at a deposition. That is a big no- 20 no.” Id. 21 Here, Plaintiff’s counsel is attempting to assume the role of judge. Plaintiff is making a 22 claim for general damages after alleging a motor vehicle incident occurred with Defendant 23 Gabriela Blas and alleges to have suffered severe lower-back and neck injuries as the result of 24 25 being struck by Defendant’s vehicle. Given Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, Defendants attempted to 26 gather information from Plaintiff regarding his full medical history and any previous accidents in 27 which Plaintiff was involved. When Defendants tried asking Plaintiff questions about his medical 28 6 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 history, such as whether Plaintiff has previously made a claim for disability insurance or worker’s 2 compensation, Plaintiff’s counsel objected and instructed Plaintiff to provide a “a response limited 3 to ten years prior to the incident”. (Reza Dec. ¶ 20). (See Exhibit B for Plaintiff’s Deposition 4 Transcript; Exhibit B 48:4-48:7). Furthermore, when asked whether he was a driver in a motor 5 vehicle accident at any point prior to the subject incident, Plaintiff’s counsel again wrongly 6 7 instructed Plaintiff to limit his response to a timeframe of twenty years, citing invasion of privacy 8 as the basis for Plaintiff’s misinformed objection. (Exhibit B 45:21-22; Exhibit B 45:25-46:4). 9 Moreover, during the deposition, Defendants attempted to request information from Plaintiff 10 regarding Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration following a felony conviction as to determine 11 whether Plaintiff obtained any injuries while incarcerated that may impact Plaintiff’s claim for 12 damages in the subject incident, as Plaintiff was incarcerated for nearly a decade. Once again, 13 Plaintiff’s counsel wrongfully objected and instructed Plaintiff not to answer on improper grounds 14 15 of invasion of privacy. (Exhibit B 16:4-9). Furthermore, Defendants asked Plaintiff for his social 16 media information so as to determine whether Plaintiff has made any statements publicly regarding 17 the subject incident, but once again, Plaintiff’s counsel improperly instructed his client not to 18 answer questions related to Plaintiff’s social media on an improper basis of invasion of privacy. 19 (Exhibit B 56:3-8). 20 Throughout the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel continually provided improper instructions 21 22 to his client and instructed his client not to answer questions on a basis other than privilege, 23 thereby violating Stewart. Plaintiff’s counsel stated on the record that he believes he can instruct 24 his client “not to answer on many grounds, not just attorney client.” (Exhibit B 16:12-13). Despite 25 the continuous improper objections by Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants feel it is entitled to 26 responses from Plaintiff in these instances because “a deponent may be examined regarding any 27 matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” 28 7 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 Kramer v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 756. In this instance, 2 Defendants are not seeking privileged information from Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendants maintain 3 that questions regarding Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration, prior applications for disability 4 insurance, history of prior motor vehicle accidents, and public statements regarding the subject 5 incident are all clearly relevant to the subject matter because these questions allow Defendants to 6 7 fully assess Plaintiff’s claim for damages. 8 It is clear Plaintiff’s counsel’s interpretation of the California Code of Civil Procedure runs 9 contrary to the holding found in Stewart and holdings found throughout California courts. As such, 10 Plaintiff should be compelled to appear for a second deposition session so as to allow Defendants 11 an opportunity to learn about Plaintiff’s full medical history. Plaintiff should also be ordered to pay 12 all reasonable costs affiliated with the second deposition and this proceeding. 13 14 VI. SANCTIONS MUST BE ISSUED AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.480, the court shall impose 15 16 monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a 17 motion to compel.” Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned for 18 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to questions at his deposition. There is no substantial justification for 19 objecting and refusing to answer questions on grounds other than privilege. 20 Therefore, Defendants request that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel be ordered to pay 21 sanctions in the form of the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Defendants in 22 23 preparing this motion, equaling $3,978.00 and filing this motion, equaling $60.00 Further, 24 Defendants request that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel be ordered to pay the entire cost of the first 25 deposition, equaling $2,828.88, due to the cost of the court report, the transcript, the videographer, 26 the venue, and travel costs. In total, Defendants request that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel be 27 ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $6,868.88. 28 8 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 VII. CONCLUSION As shown in this Memorandum, in the Declaration of Ryan Reza, and exhibits attached 2 3 thereto, Plaintiff has refused to comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure by refusing to 4 answer proper questions during examination. By reason of his failure to answer proper questioning 5 during this deposition and in view of the above facts and authorities, Defendants respectfully 6 request that the Court issue an Order directing Plaintiff to appear and answer the questions set forth 7 in the moving party’s separate statement, as well as pay all costs associated with Plaintiff’s first 8 deposition, and the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Defendants for this 9 proceeding. 10 11 Dated: November 22, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP 12 13 By: 14 Bradford G. Hughes Ryan Reza 15 Attorneys for Defendants FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC 16 and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA 2 I, Ryan Reza, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of California. 4 I am a partner at the law firm of Clark Hill, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants Freedom 5 Medical Transportation and Gabriela Blas. (“Defendants”) in the above-captioned matter. 6 2. I have personal knowledge of all the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testify 7 to the same, I could and would do so competently testify thereto. This Declaration is offered in 8 support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony in the above referenced 9 matter. 10 3. Attempts were made to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s Counsel, who stood by the 11 improper instructions he gave his client during the first deposition without substantial justification, 12 thereby making this motion necessary. 13 4. Plaintiff claims that on November 17, 2020, he was on his bicycle when Defendant 14 Gabriela Blas allegedly struck Plaintiff with her car. 15 5. Plaintiff filed the instant matter on September 27, 2022, alleging a cause of action for 16 general negligence and a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence while making a claim for 17 general damages. 18 6. On November 18, 2022, Defendants answered the complaint by denying all 19 allegations in the complaint. 20 7. On September 6, 2023, Defendants served an amended notice of deposition on 21 Plaintiff. 22 8. On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff was deposed in San Jose, California, from 23 approximately 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 24 9. Defense counsel flew from Los Angeles to San Jose and spent one night in San Jose, 25 incurring a total travel cost of $758.41. 26 10. The cost of the reporter for Plaintiff’s deposition was $947.50, the cost of the venue 27 in which the deposition was held was $347.97, and the cost for the videographer was $775.00. 28 11. The cost of Plaintiff’s deposition, including travel costs incurred by Defense counsel, 10 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 totaled $2,828.88. 2 12. During the deposition, Defendants attempted to ask questions about Plaintiff’s 3 medical history, Plaintiff’s nine years of incarceration, and whether Plaintiff has posted on social 4 media regarding the incident. 5 13. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Statement of Disputed 6 Questions and Answers. 7 14. In bringing this notice, the attached memorandum in support and declaration, the 8 accompanying Statement of Disputed Questions and Answers, and identifying the relevant portions 9 of the deposition proceedings, Defendants have incurred attorney’s fees of $3,978.00. 10 15. Defendants received a copy of the record of the deposition on Monday, October 23rd. 11 16. Under California Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants have until December 22nd, 12 2023, to timely file and serve its motion to compel. 13 17. On Monday, October 23rd, counsel for both parties met and conferred pursuant to 14 2016.040 via Zoom video conference. 15 18. Following the meet and confer, the parties were unable to find a resolution amongst 16 themselves, which has resulted in this motion to compel. 17 19. Given the date in which Defendants received the record of the deposition and met 18 and conferred with opposing counsel, this motion to compel is timely. 19 20. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Transcript of Plaintiff’s 20 Deposition. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing 22 is true and correct. 23 Executed on November 21, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 24 25 ____________________________ Ryan Reza 26 27 28 11 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Robert Mosqueda v. Gabriela Gonzalez Blas, et al. 2 Monterey Superior Court No. 22CV002878 3 I am employed in Los Angeles County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. 4 in this action by placing NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ 5 DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; AND DECLARATION OF RYAN REZA 6 the original of the document 7 true copies of the document 8 in separate sealed envelopes to the following addresses: 9 Amir Salehi, Esq. Omega Law Group, PC 10 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 11 (310) 526-8383 / Fax (310) 526-8263 Email: ams@omegalaw.com 12 Email: dlc@omegalaw.com Email: eservice@omegalaw.com 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda 14 BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The 15 envelopes were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with Clark Hill’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for 16 mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in 17 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date 18 stated in this proof of service. BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing 19 correspondence for delivery via Federal Express. Under that practice, it would be picked up by Federal Express on that same day at Los Angeles, California and delivered to the parties as listed 20 on this Proof of Service the following business morning. BY E-MAIL TO COUNSEL: I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via e 21 mail from lcgarcia@clarkhill.com to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service. BY FACSIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to 22 the parties as listed on this Proof of Service. STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the 23 above is true and correct. Executed on November 22, 2023 at Los Angeles, California. 24 25 Lizabeth Garcia 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558663.v1-11/21/23 EXHIBIT A 1 Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., SBN 247141 Ryan Reza, Esq., SBN 349452 2 CLARK HILL LLP 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 4 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 BHughes@ClarkHill.com 5 RReza@ClarkHill.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA 7 GONZALEZ BLAS 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Case No. 22CV002878 12 Plaintiff, STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 13 v. Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta 14 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM Dept.: 14 MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and 15 Does 1 - 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 27, 2022 Trial Date: March 25, 2024 16 Defendants. Date: February 2nd, 2024 17 Time: 8:30 am Place: Department 14 18 ROBERT MOSQUEDA (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against GABRIELA GONZALEZ 19 BLAS and FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION (collectively, “Defendants”) for general 20 negligence and motor vehicle negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Gabriela 21 Gonzalez Blas struck Plaintiff with her vehicle while Plaintiff was halfway through a crosswalk on 22 his bicycle. Plaintiff alleges he suffered injuries to his neck and lower back as a result of the 23 incident and subsequently underwent lower back surgery. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff is 24 claiming general damages for medical expenses as well as pain and suffering. 25 26 QUESTIONS TO WHICH FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 27 On October 9, 2023, deponent Robert Mosqueda was asked certain questions, to which 28 1 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 1 objections were interposed or responses given as set forth below. 2 3 1. Question: (in reference to Plaintiff’s prior felony) “Monterey? And would it be possible 4 to walk me through, kind of, what happened in this situation? (Transcript 15:25-16:1). 5 Response/Objection: “No, I’m going to object.” (Transcript 16:2). 6 Question: “On what grounds?” (Transcript 16:3). 7 Response/Objection: “Same grounds. Prejudicial. Invasion of privacy. The specific basic 8 information that’s delineated in the form interrogatories, has been responded to. And any 9 additional information that you may need would most likely also be public record, but I 10 won’t get into that, so…” (Transcript 16:4-9). 11 Question: “But, as you know, you can’t instruct your client to not answer unless it’s under 12 privilege.” (Transcript 16:10-11). 13 Response/Objection: “I can instruct him not to answer on many grounds, not just attorney- 14 client. Subsequently, if the matter’s not resolved, you guys can make a motion and we’ll oppose 15 it, and ultimately the court will make a determination based upon the extent and nature of the 16 information and the balance test. And this is my practice in all of my cases.” (Transcript 16:12- 17 18). 18 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: 19 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 20 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition 21 unless the matter is privileged. 22 23 2. Question: (in reference to Plaintiff’s stomach issues around 2001) “Do you remember what 24 your health insurance ID was at the time?” (Transcript 23:22-23) 25 Response/Objection: “Objection- stop. Objection. Invasion of privacy. Relevance. I’m just 26 going to instruct him not to answer, or if you want to tell me what the relevance would be. 27 (Transcript 23:24-24:2) 28 2 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 1 Question: Well, I still believe I’m entitled to an answer, even though you object to those 2 questions. Like, it’s my understanding the only time he’s unable to answer is if it’s under a 3 privilege claim, whether work product or attorney-client. (Transcript 24:3-7) 4 Response/Objection: “That’s what I used to think too, and I realize it’s not. It’s much broader 5 than that, or at least my experience personally.” (Transcript 24:8-24:10) 6 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: 7 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 8 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition 9 unless the matter is privileged. 10 11 3. Question: (In reference to Plaintiff’s prior felony conviction) “Did you feel like you were 12 welcomed back into society pretty fully when you went to Cheesecake and started working?” 13 (Transcript 36:20-22). 14 Response/Objection: “Objection. Vague and ambiguous. You can answer.” (Transcript 36:23). 15 Plaintiff Responds: “Yes and no.” (Transcript 36:25) 16 Question: “Could you explain?” (Transcript 37:2) 17 Response/Objection: “Don’t answer that. I don’t see what the relevance of that has to do with 18 anything.” (Transcript 37:3-4). 19 Question: “We are entitled to his best testimony here today. We’re trying to learn a little bit 20 more just about…”(Transcript 37:5-37:7). 21 Response/Objection: “We’ve gone over this ten times, Counsel, I’m not going to keep repeating 22 it. The ability for counsel to instruct his client not to answer is not limited to attorney-client 23 privelege. That’s what I also thought for many years when I started practicing. That’s not to say 24 every objection I make may be correct, but there’s an analysis to see how it might be relevant. 25 I think the golden rule, like you said is, is it likely to lead to admissible evidence, and I don’t 26 really know how him feeling accepted in society is relevant to any issues in this case.” 27 (Transcript 37:10-37:18). 28 3 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 1 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial 2 Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent 3 not to answer a question during a deposition unless the matter is privileged. 4 5 4. Question: “Have you ever been in a motor vehicle accident where you were a driver and you 6 were – there was an incident?” (Transcript 45:14-16) 7 Response/Objection: “Don’t answer that as framed. I’m instructing him not to answer.” 8 (Transcript 45:17-18). 9 Question: “And could you just please restate the reasoning? The grounds?” (Transcript 45:19- 10 45:20) 11 Response/Objection: ”It’s harassing, invasion of privacy, and not likely to lead to admissible 12 evidence.” (Transcript 45:21-22). 13 Question: “Prior accidents is invasion of privacy?” (Transcript 45:23-45:24). 14 Response/Objection: “Yeah. When you do a balancing test, that’s where that kicks in. If you 15 got in a car accident 20 years before this incident, what’s the relevance? And it applies, by the 16 way, vice versa.” (Transcript 45:25-46:4). 17 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: 18 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 19 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition 20 unless the matter is privileged. 21 22 5.Question: “Have you ever applied for disability insurance” (Transcript 47:18) 23 Response/Objection: “Ten years.” (Transcript 47:20). 24 Question: “This is not limited to ten years. This is the full scope of your life. Have you ever 25 applied for disability insurance?” (Transcript 47:22-24). 26 Response/Objection: “Stop. Don’t answer. He asks one thing, when I’m telling you ten years, 27 that’s my instruction to you, it’s not a suggestion…So let me finish. Don’t answer until I get 28 4 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 1 that in there. You can provide a response limited to ten years prior to the incident. (Transcript 2 48:4-48:7). 3 Question: “Counsel, do you have any authority that says that it’s –.” (Transcript 48:4-9) 4 Response/Objection: “Yeah, it’s overbroad. We keep coming back to this. I’ll whip out the form 5 rogs. Even the form rogs ask, ‘Have you filed a workers’ comp within the ten years prior to the 6 incident?’ Your question doesn’t ask that. Again, it goes back to relevance- how far back you’re 7 going, and what gets in. You don’t get to ask anybody anything ever again. If you’re taking the 8 deposition of an 18-year-old versus 98-year-old, when you have these broad questions, it makes 9 a difference. That’s where I’m getting my authority from. Balancing test- having the issues 10 come up hundreds of times in front of the judges. Probative value versus prejudicial value.” 11 (Transcript 48:10-22). 12 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: 13 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 14 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition 15 unless the matter is privileged. 16 17 6. Question: “What’s your Facebook?” (Transcript 56:3) 18 Response/Objection: “Objection. Invasion of Privacy. Don’t provide that.” (Transcript 56:4-5). 19 Question: “Your Twitter?” (Transcript 56:7) 20 Response/Objection: “Same.” (Transcript 56:8) 21 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: 22 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 23 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition 24 unless the matter is privileged. 25 26 7. Question: (In reference to Plaintiff’s previous shoulder surgery) “What was the nature of your 27 shoulder surgery?” (Transcript 151:12). 28 5 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 1 Response/Objection: “We’re not claiming shoulder injuries, are we?...Don’t answer that. 2 (Transcript 151:13-16). 3 Question: “On what grounds (Transcript 151:17) 4 Response/Objection: “Same as we’ve been going over, Counselor. If it’s not the subject body 5 parts at issue that we’re claiming damages for as a result of the incident. Invasion of privacy. 6 (Transcript 151:18-21) 7 Question: “Do you know when you received that surgery?” (Transcript 151:23) 8 Response/Objection: “Same thing. Don’t answer that.” (Transcript 151:25) 9 Question: “I think this is bearing on our, you know, to have another surgery-”. (Transcript 10 152:1-2) 11 Response/Objection: “Okay, fair enough. I got – hey, if he’s being fair, he’s being fair, but I’ve 12 got to gauge this right. If the surgery happened within the five years prior to the incident, prior 13 to the incident, provide the answer.” (152:3-8). 14 Reason Further Answer Should Be Compelled: 15 As per the court’s ruling in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 16 1006, an attorney must not instruct a deponent not to answer a question during a deposition 17 unless the matter is privileged. 18 19 Dated: November 21, 2023 CLARK HILL LLP 20 21 By: Bradford G. Hughes 22 Ryan Reza Attorneys for Defendants 23 FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS 24 25 26 27 28 6 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Robert Mosqueda v. Gabriela Gonzalez Blas, et al. 2 Monterey Superior Court No. 22CV002878 3 I am employed in Los Angeles County. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. 4 On November 21, 2023, I served the foregoing document, described as STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS in this action by placing 5 the original of the document 6 true copies of the document 7 in separate sealed envelopes to the following addresses: 8 Amir Salehi, Esq. Omega Law Group, PC 9 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 10 (310) 526-8383 / Fax (310) 526-8263 Email: ams@omegalaw.com 11 Email: dlc@omegalaw.com Email: eservice@omegalaw.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Mosqueda 13 BY U.S. MAIL I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The 14 envelopes were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with Clark Hill’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for 15 mailing. Under that practice, documents are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day which is stated in the proof of service, with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in 16 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date 17 stated in this proof of service. BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I am familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing 18 correspondence for delivery via Federal Express. Under that practice, it would be picked up by Federal Express on that same day at Los Angeles, California and delivered to the parties as listed 19 on this Proof of Service the following business morning. BY E-MAIL TO COUNSEL: I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via e 20 mail from lcgarcia@clarkhill.com to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service. BY FACSIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to 21 the parties as listed on this Proof of Service. STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the 22 above is true and correct. Executed on November 21, 2023 at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 Lizabeth Garcia 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE CLARKHILL\69826\453828\274558646.v1-11/21/23 EXHIBIT B Page 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY ROBERT MOSQUEDA, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. No. 22CV002878 GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS; FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. _________________________________/ Zoom Videoconference Deposition of ROBERT MOSQUEDA Monday, October 9, 2023 ---oOo--- Magna Legal Services 866.624.6221 www.MagnaLS.com Reported By: STACY L. LOZANO, CSR No. 12831 Page 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 For the Plaintiff: ROBERT MOSQUEDA 4 OMEGA LAW GROUP, PC 5 BY: AMIR SALEHI, ESQ. 6 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor 7 Beverly Hills, California 90211 8 Phone: (310) 526-8383 9 Email: ams@omegalaw.com 10 11 For the Defendants: FREEDOM MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC 12 and GABRIELA GONZALEZ BLAS 13 CLARK HILL, LLP 14 BY: RYAN REZA, ESQ. 15 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor 16 Los Angeles, California 90071 17 Phone: (213) 891-9100 18 Email: Rreza@clarkhill.com 19 20 21 22 ALSO PRESENT: Marcus Majers, Videographer, Magna Legal 23 Services 24 25 Page 3 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 EXAMINATION BY RYAN REZA 5 4 5 6 E X H I B I T S 7 NUMBER PAGE 8 1 Page 15 of Plaintiff's responses to 42 Form interrogatories 9 10 11