On May 10, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Msalam, Andrew,
Msalam, Ghassan,
Msalam, Jamie,
Msalam, Jamilah,
Msalam, Jimilah,
Msalam, Jonathan,
Msalam, Julnar,
Msalam, Khalil,
and
Arellano, Fred,
Arellano, Freddie A., Jr,
Aria Sarbeland Trust,
Does 4-20 Individually And In Their Official Capacities,
Does 7-20, Individually And In Their Official Capacities,
Gonzalez, Miguel,
Martha Fabiola Sarbeland Trust,
Sarbeland, Aria,
Sarbeland, Martha,
Sarbeland Trust,
for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777)
araSarailaw.corn
LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C.
1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216
San Mateo, CA 94402
Telephone: (650) 437-6840
Facsimile: (650) 403-0909
Attorneys for Defendants
Aria Sarbeland, and
Martha Sarbeland
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
KHALIL MSALAM, JULNAR MSALAM, CASE NO. 19CIV02602
12 JIMILAH MSALAM, GHASSAN
MSALAM through her G.A.L. Jimilah
13 Msalam, JAMIE MSALAM through his REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA
SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL
14
G.A.L. Jimilah Msalam, JONATHAN DEPOSITIONS
MSALAM through his G.A.L. Jimilah
15 Msalam, ANDREW MSALAM through his Date: April 8, 2022
G.A.L. Jimilah Msalam Time: 9:00 a.m.
16 Judge: Honorable Robert D. Foiles
Plaintiffs, Dept: 21
17
18
19 ARIA SARBELAND, FREDDIE A.
ARELLANO. JR. MARTHA
20 SARBELAND, individually and in his
official capacity, and DOES 1-20
21
individually and in their official capacities.
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Offices of
Ara Iahagchourian, REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S iVIOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
P.C.
I. INTRODUCTION
Rather than provide objective information to this Court through a certified deposition
transcript, Plaintiff Khalil Msalam, ef aL's (collectively "Plaintiffs" ) attorney has chosen to
submit self-serving declarations to create a false history on what had transpired as it relates to
Julnar Msalam's (hereinafter "Julnar") deposition. Further, Plaintiffs'ounsel is completely
silent as to the sinking of the deposition of Andrew Msalam (hereinafter "Andrew" ), who
through her false representations (intentional or not) and trickery (intentional) seeks to avoid
having him deposed in any capacity.
As demonstrated by the short deposition taken of Julnar thus far, Plaintiffs'ounsel has
10
filed a complaint (and doubled down on it by filing an amended version of the same facts) that
clearly contradicts what her client has testified to under oath. In order to shield these false
12
allegations filed in this Court, Plaintiffs'ounsel sought to interfere with the deposition to coach
13
her witness. When the tactic was called out, Plaintiffs'ounsel unilaterally terminated the
14
deposition. Less than three hours later, Plaintiffs'ounsel employed the same tactic in the very
15
next deposition taken of her client, Khalil Msalam. Despite unilaterally terminating the
16
deposition and the false rationalization that Plaintiffs'ounsel had the immediate need to use the
17
restroom, she continued to engage for another six pages of deposition transcript.
18
Plaintiffs have filed a case that had six causes of action at the time this motion was filed.
19
Since that time, the case has ballooned up to fourteen causes of action. If anything, the need to
20
take the depositions of the Plaintiffs is more acute. Defendant Aria Sarbeland requests that
21
Julnar and Andrew be ordered back to deposition so that their allegations can be tested under oral
22
examination.
23
II. ARGUMENT
24
A. PLAINTIFFS'OUNSEL'S EFFORT SEEKING TO CREATE A FALSE
25
NARRATIVE SHOULD BE REJECTED
26
Given that the deposition transcript demonstrates the unilateral conduct of
27 Plaintiffs'ounsel
in seeking to interfere and then unilaterally terminate the deposition of Julnar,
Plaintiffs'EPLY
28
Law Offices of
Ara Iahagchouriaa, RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
P.C.
I counsel has sought to create a fictional account of what transpired by presenting to this Court
2 self-serving declarations and letters. When the actual deposition transcripts that were lodged by
3 Defendant are reviewed, several things are clear. First, Plaintiffs'ounsel interjected a need for
4 an immediate restroom break as her client, Julnar, began to contradict several allegations set
5 forth in the operative complaint. Second, the need for an immediate restroom break was a
6 pretext to stop the questioning, as Plaintiffs'ounsel continued to engage six pages of transcript
7 after the need was verbally raised. Third, it was not until the tactic was exposed that Plaintiffs'
counsel terminated the deposition, but then continued to engage despite the termination. Fourth,
9 Plaintiffs'ounsel is merely seeking to suppress the testimony of what appeared to be an honest
10 woman (based on her statements against self-interest), Julnar, as Plaintiffs'ounsel had no
11 problem going forward with the deposition of Julnar's husband, Khalil, immediately after
12 Julnar's deposition. Fifth, Plaintiffs'ounsel set up a 3:30 p.m. deposition of Andrew Msalam,
13 while the young man had to go to work for a 4:00 p.m. shift at Round Table. (See Declaration of
14 Ara Jabagchourian In Support of Motion To Compel Depositions, Exhibits A-C.)
15 These are facts that derive, not from self-serving declarations, but rather objective
16 certified deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs'ounsel's effort to shift the focus away from her
17 behavior and the merit-based need of taking these two depositions should be rejected.
18 B. PLAINTIFFS RAISE NO ISSUES ARISING BEFORE THE EFFORT TO
INTERRUPT THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING
20 Plaintiffs'ounsel takes from the Commissioner Halperin's comments regarding
21 alternative solutions and seeks to apply them in her disguised motion for a protective order. She
22 suggests a discovery referee as was discussed at the informal discovery conference. If she wants
23 one, Plaintiffs'ounsel can hire one. What is worth noting is that not one complaint is raised
24 regarding Defendant's counsel's conduct either before Plaintiffs'ounsel interrupted the
25 deposition or during the entirety of the deposition of Khalil which occurred just after Julnar's.
26 Rather, all the proposals being raised by Plaintiffs'ounsel stems from her efforts to interject a
27 break during a critical time of questioning. She can't do this in trial and there is no reason why
28 she should be allowed to do this during a deposition.
Law Offices of
Ara labagchonrian, REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
P.C.
Plaintiffs'ounsel also suggests that the deposition be conducted by written question.
2 Does she also intend that Defendants conduct their cross-examination at trial by prewritten
3 questions? Everyone knows that the attorney writes the responses to interrogatories and written
4 questions. And from what we saw in the short testimony of Julnar — the responses given by the
5 party are much more divergent than that written by her attorney.
A simple solution to solve the problem raised by Plaintiffs'ounsel's efforts is to hold
7 witnesses and attorneys to strict time segments of say fifty (50) minutes, where there is a hard
8 stop every 50 minutes where everyone can then take a ten (10) minute break and then resume the
9 deposition. Furthermore, a restriction on Plaintiffs'ounsel presenting speaking objections as a
10 way of coaching her clients during the deposition is also requested.
III. CONCLUSION
12 To sum up the depositions of Julnar and Andrew Msalam should be ordered compelled
13 so that Defendant can explore the claims brought against it. This need is further compounded by
14 the fact that the claims just swelled from six to fourteen causes of action. Plaintiffs* counsel's
15 use of interjecting breaks to rehabilitate her clients and raising speaking objections should be
16 prohibited as well.
17
18 Dated: March 31, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C.
19
20 By:
JABAGCHOURIAN
21 Itorneys for Defendants
Aria Sarbeland and Martha Sarbeland
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Offices of
Ara iahagchouriau, REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
P.C.
Preview
ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777) araSarailaw.corn LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 437-6840 Facsimile: (650) 403-0909 Attorneys for Defendants Aria Sarbeland, and Martha Sarbeland SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 KHALIL MSALAM, JULNAR MSALAM, CASE NO. 19CIV02602 12 JIMILAH MSALAM, GHASSAN MSALAM through her G.A.L. Jimilah 13 Msalam, JAMIE MSALAM through his REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 G.A.L. Jimilah Msalam, JONATHAN DEPOSITIONS MSALAM through his G.A.L. Jimilah 15 Msalam, ANDREW MSALAM through his Date: April 8, 2022 G.A.L. Jimilah Msalam Time: 9:00 a.m. 16 Judge: Honorable Robert D. Foiles Plaintiffs, Dept: 21 17 18 19 ARIA SARBELAND, FREDDIE A. ARELLANO. JR. MARTHA 20 SARBELAND, individually and in his official capacity, and DOES 1-20 21 individually and in their official capacities. 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of Ara Iahagchourian, REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S iVIOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS P.C. I. INTRODUCTION Rather than provide objective information to this Court through a certified deposition transcript, Plaintiff Khalil Msalam, ef aL's (collectively "Plaintiffs" ) attorney has chosen to submit self-serving declarations to create a false history on what had transpired as it relates to Julnar Msalam's (hereinafter "Julnar") deposition. Further, Plaintiffs'ounsel is completely silent as to the sinking of the deposition of Andrew Msalam (hereinafter "Andrew" ), who through her false representations (intentional or not) and trickery (intentional) seeks to avoid having him deposed in any capacity. As demonstrated by the short deposition taken of Julnar thus far, Plaintiffs'ounsel has 10 filed a complaint (and doubled down on it by filing an amended version of the same facts) that clearly contradicts what her client has testified to under oath. In order to shield these false 12 allegations filed in this Court, Plaintiffs'ounsel sought to interfere with the deposition to coach 13 her witness. When the tactic was called out, Plaintiffs'ounsel unilaterally terminated the 14 deposition. Less than three hours later, Plaintiffs'ounsel employed the same tactic in the very 15 next deposition taken of her client, Khalil Msalam. Despite unilaterally terminating the 16 deposition and the false rationalization that Plaintiffs'ounsel had the immediate need to use the 17 restroom, she continued to engage for another six pages of deposition transcript. 18 Plaintiffs have filed a case that had six causes of action at the time this motion was filed. 19 Since that time, the case has ballooned up to fourteen causes of action. If anything, the need to 20 take the depositions of the Plaintiffs is more acute. Defendant Aria Sarbeland requests that 21 Julnar and Andrew be ordered back to deposition so that their allegations can be tested under oral 22 examination. 23 II. ARGUMENT 24 A. PLAINTIFFS'OUNSEL'S EFFORT SEEKING TO CREATE A FALSE 25 NARRATIVE SHOULD BE REJECTED 26 Given that the deposition transcript demonstrates the unilateral conduct of 27 Plaintiffs'ounsel in seeking to interfere and then unilaterally terminate the deposition of Julnar, Plaintiffs'EPLY 28 Law Offices of Ara Iahagchouriaa, RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS P.C. I counsel has sought to create a fictional account of what transpired by presenting to this Court 2 self-serving declarations and letters. When the actual deposition transcripts that were lodged by 3 Defendant are reviewed, several things are clear. First, Plaintiffs'ounsel interjected a need for 4 an immediate restroom break as her client, Julnar, began to contradict several allegations set 5 forth in the operative complaint. Second, the need for an immediate restroom break was a 6 pretext to stop the questioning, as Plaintiffs'ounsel continued to engage six pages of transcript 7 after the need was verbally raised. Third, it was not until the tactic was exposed that Plaintiffs' counsel terminated the deposition, but then continued to engage despite the termination. Fourth, 9 Plaintiffs'ounsel is merely seeking to suppress the testimony of what appeared to be an honest 10 woman (based on her statements against self-interest), Julnar, as Plaintiffs'ounsel had no 11 problem going forward with the deposition of Julnar's husband, Khalil, immediately after 12 Julnar's deposition. Fifth, Plaintiffs'ounsel set up a 3:30 p.m. deposition of Andrew Msalam, 13 while the young man had to go to work for a 4:00 p.m. shift at Round Table. (See Declaration of 14 Ara Jabagchourian In Support of Motion To Compel Depositions, Exhibits A-C.) 15 These are facts that derive, not from self-serving declarations, but rather objective 16 certified deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs'ounsel's effort to shift the focus away from her 17 behavior and the merit-based need of taking these two depositions should be rejected. 18 B. PLAINTIFFS RAISE NO ISSUES ARISING BEFORE THE EFFORT TO INTERRUPT THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING 20 Plaintiffs'ounsel takes from the Commissioner Halperin's comments regarding 21 alternative solutions and seeks to apply them in her disguised motion for a protective order. She 22 suggests a discovery referee as was discussed at the informal discovery conference. If she wants 23 one, Plaintiffs'ounsel can hire one. What is worth noting is that not one complaint is raised 24 regarding Defendant's counsel's conduct either before Plaintiffs'ounsel interrupted the 25 deposition or during the entirety of the deposition of Khalil which occurred just after Julnar's. 26 Rather, all the proposals being raised by Plaintiffs'ounsel stems from her efforts to interject a 27 break during a critical time of questioning. She can't do this in trial and there is no reason why 28 she should be allowed to do this during a deposition. Law Offices of Ara labagchonrian, REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS P.C. Plaintiffs'ounsel also suggests that the deposition be conducted by written question. 2 Does she also intend that Defendants conduct their cross-examination at trial by prewritten 3 questions? Everyone knows that the attorney writes the responses to interrogatories and written 4 questions. And from what we saw in the short testimony of Julnar — the responses given by the 5 party are much more divergent than that written by her attorney. A simple solution to solve the problem raised by Plaintiffs'ounsel's efforts is to hold 7 witnesses and attorneys to strict time segments of say fifty (50) minutes, where there is a hard 8 stop every 50 minutes where everyone can then take a ten (10) minute break and then resume the 9 deposition. Furthermore, a restriction on Plaintiffs'ounsel presenting speaking objections as a 10 way of coaching her clients during the deposition is also requested. III. CONCLUSION 12 To sum up the depositions of Julnar and Andrew Msalam should be ordered compelled 13 so that Defendant can explore the claims brought against it. This need is further compounded by 14 the fact that the claims just swelled from six to fourteen causes of action. Plaintiffs* counsel's 15 use of interjecting breaks to rehabilitate her clients and raising speaking objections should be 16 prohibited as well. 17 18 Dated: March 31, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 19 20 By: JABAGCHOURIAN 21 Itorneys for Defendants Aria Sarbeland and Martha Sarbeland 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of Ara iahagchouriau, REPLY RE: DEFENDANT ARIA SARBELAND'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS P.C.