The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position during the early stages of litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025(o) and 2023 on the grounds that Defendant Doug Jeremy refuses to appear for his properly noticed deposition and continues to contend that he is unavailable for his deposition until August 2006 at the earliest. At this time, Defendant refuses to commit to a date for his deposition.
Plaintiff brings this Motion because Defendant Jeremy’s reasons for failing to make himself available for deposition are unreasonable and constitute a blatant attempt on Defendant’s part to impede Plaintiff’s right to conduct discovery in this matter. Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to meet and confer in order to avoid the need for court intervention to no avail.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant Doug Jeremy (hereinafter Defendant ) is accustomed to getting what he wants on his own terms. As the outspoken owner of Defendant Universal Design, Inc., Defendant sets his own rules. In fact, if one were to look at his behavior, he or she would conclude that Defendant answers to no one. Whether he is “playing with himself’ in front of a Jane magazine reporter, prancing around in his “dick and ball cover” in front of his employees, or walking around the office in his underwear, one thing remains clear: no one tells Defendant what he can or cannot do.
Unfortunately for Plaintiff Sally Brown (hereinafter Ms. Brown ), a former employee of Defendant Universal Design, Defendant thinks that he has the power to control discovery in this matter, just as he has the power to control the other aspects of his life. As will be further discussed below, Defendant refuses to make himself available for his deposition until August 2006 at the earliest because he is allegedly in New York on an extended business trip. When Ms. Brown’s counsel called Defendant’s bluff and offered to fly to New York to take Defendant’s deposition in order to accommodate Defendant, counsel’s offer was again refused. As it stands, Defendant refuses to commit to a date for the taking of his deposition despite the fact that Ms. Brown noticed Defendant’s deposition originally for June 24, 2006.
Defendant believes that he is the one who sets the pace of the instant litigation and therefore his dilatory tactics must be stopped. Ms. Brown sincerely believes that without court intervention, Defendant will continue to avoid his deposition and impede Ms. Brown’s right to conduct discovery in this matter. Accordingly, Ms. Brown requests that this Court grant this Motion to Compel and order Defendant to appear for his deposition immediately. (See Part 2 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.