Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV19934, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19934    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 29, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motions to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Defendant Michael Edward Bass

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Khaled J. Al-Sabah

Responding Party:  Defendant Michael Edward Bass in pro per

T/R:    AL-SABAH’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IS GRANTED. AL-SABAH’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE REDUCED TOTAL AMOUNT OF $3,185.00, PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

            AL-SABAH TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and the opposition.

            BACKGROUND

            On July 15, 2020, plaintiff Khaled J. Al-Sabah filed the operative first amended complaint against defendants Michael Edward Bass, Ronald Richards, and Usman Shaikh, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, theft, money had and received, conversion and accounting. Plaintiff alleges that Bass was to be Plaintiff’s “representative” in the United States. Plaintiff alleges he wired Bass $2.5 million to hire attorney defendant Shaikh to represent Plaintiff in an unrelated embezzlement lawsuit. Plaintiff alleges that Bass kept $2 million of his money.

            On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new action for fraudulent conveyance against Defendant, case no. 23STCV04590. That action was consolidated with 20STCV19934.

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further deposition of Defendant.

ANALYSIS

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).) 

            Generally, a person may only be deposed once. But CCP § 2025.610 allows the court to grant leave to take a subsequent deposition for good cause shown. (CCP § 2025.610, subd. (a) and (b).)

Plaintiff moves to compel a second deposition of Bass due to misconduct during the first deposition, on May 23, 2023, after a Court order compelling the deposition. Plaintiff alleges that Bass “repeatedly interrupted counsel, gave long, meandering, and non-responsive answers . . . stopped the deposition on two occasions due to technical difficulties (including one instance in which he went to his car for 30 minutes to get his iPad charger), and generally failed to observe deposition protocol.” (Motion, 3:7-11; see also Sadat Decl., ¶ 2 and Exh. A.) Plaintiff seeks additional deposition time to examine Bass regarding his transfer of real property to an entity he controls and nearly 100 pages of text messages between the parties concerning the subject matter of the lawsuit. (Sabat Decl., ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Bass argues that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to warrant a subsequent deposition because he answered Plaintiff’s questions during the initial deposition and no new facts have been uncovered.

In the 43 pages of deposition transcript provided by Plaintiff, the parties interrupted each other at least 17 times. (Sadat Decl., Exh. A.) Bass repeatedly answered yes-or-no questions with lengthy, irrelevant orations. For example, when asked what he did for work prior to working for Victorino Noval, Bass stated that he made films, and embarked on a discussion of all the work he did for Noval, which was not asked, before counsel interrupted him. Counsel asked if it was fair to say that most of Bass’s working career is in film production, a yes-or-no question. Bass answered with a lengthy yet vague statement, stating that this is a “difficult” question because he has also made a career of teaching people “how to maneuver with crooked lawyers”; that “what makes him good is probably that [he is] not a lawyer because [he] can understand common sense”; followed by other evasive musings. (Id., 42:22 – 45:16.)

Less than an hour into the deposition, the transcript records the court reporter utter “oh, my god.” Counsel’s remark in response provides helpful color:

Mr. Bass, we’re driving the court reporter insane . . . I want you to listen to the question and answer it. I asked you about other documents that you looked at, and you answered the question, and then you gave a bunch of additional information. So every time you do that, it's going to make this go longer and longer, and it's also important that we just try and not speak over one another. But that said, sometimes when you give an answer that's really long and -- and nonresponsive to the question that I ask, I'm trying to stop you, and the reason I'm doing that is just so we can save time and get through this faster. Okay?

(Id., 53:16 - 54:6.)

            Bass’s evasive answers during the deposition provide good cause for a subsequent deposition pursuant to CCP § 2025.610(b).

            They also constitute misuse of the discovery process under CCP § 2023.010, subd. (f) (“making an evasive response to discovery”). The Court may impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process under CCP § 2023.030. Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions amounting to nine hours of attorney time at $625.00 per hour, a $60.00 reservation fee and $627.20 paid to the court reporting company for the subsequent noticed deposition that Bass failed to attend. The fees for the second deposition are unwarranted because Plaintiff had not yet obtained the Court’s authorization for a subsequent deposition. Plaintiff was not required at the time to appear at a second deposition. Moreover, the requested nine hours of attorney time is excessive, especially because a reply brief was never submitted. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the reduced total amount of $3,185.00, consisting of five hours of attorney time plus a $60.00 reservation fee.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced, total amount of $3,185.00.