Judge: David J. Cowan, Case: 22STUD00039, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STUD00039 Hearing Date: April 24, 2023 Dept: 200
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – WEST DISTRICT
BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE – DEPT. 200
JUDGE DAVID J. COWAN
TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Mark Rotenberg, et al. v. Joyce Steinberg Fickett, Case No. 22STUD00039 (related to 19STCV21680, 16STPB04520, 19STPB02719, 22STPB00218)
Hearing Date: April 24, 2023, 1:30 p.m.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2023, Rotenberg filed the above-referenced motion.
On April 20, 2023, Fickett filed opposition to the motion.
DISCUSSION
On March 8, 2023, the Court filed its Final Ruling on the motion of Fickett for a stay herein pending trial on the will contest and elder abuse action. The Court granted the motion. The issues in the related cases need to be determined prior to this UD case going forward. In view of the stay, this motion is premature. In the event Fickett were to prevail in those cases, for sake of argument, this deposition may become moot.
Moreover, the Court rejects Rotenberg’s argument that his having twice taken Fickett’s deposition in the related cases is “irrelevant” to his right to take her deposition in this case. These cases have overlapping issues. The Court needs to know what issues Rotenberg wishes to explore now that he did not explore previously. Absent such explanation, Fickett’s argument that he is seeking to harass her takes on greater weight.
If or when the deposition does go forward, counsel should meet and confer further as to either the deposition being by remote technology or for taking the deposition closer to Fickett’s home; perhaps at the office of her attorney – keeping in mind the August 9, 2021 order of Judge Luna as to the accommodations to be given for her deposition in the related cases. The Court expects the start time of the deposition to also be consistent with when Fickett will be at her best, given her health constraints. Finally, where Fickett’s health does not appear to be improving, Rotenberg may be well advised to also pursue less burdensome alternatives to the extent necessary to prepare for trial.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court denies the motion.
