Case Name: ?? Epic Communications, Inc., et al. v. ALI Corporation, et al.
Case No.:? 2006-1-CV-076689
Motion by Plaintiffs/Cross-defendants Epic Communications, Inc. and EpicCom, Inc. for Protective Order and for Monetary Sanctions
??????????? Plaintiffs seek an order limiting the scope of the deposition of non-party witness Dr. Yi-Ching Pao to testimony about the exhibits produced after Dr. Pao?s 2011 deposition.
The motion is based on the premise that ?Defendants were only granted an additional deposition session of Dr. Pao to ask about exhibits Epic produced after Dr. Pao?s original deposition? (Notice and Motion, at 1:14-15).? The order in question does not so state.? The moving papers did not include the order to which the premise refers, but they do include a letter from Plaintiffs? counsel stating that ?[t]he May 13, 2011 Order specifically compels the depositions of Yi-Ching Pao and Cindy Yuen.? That is the extent of the Court?s Order?.?? (Declaration of Chris Kao, at Exhibit B.)? The opposition papers include the May 13, 2011 Order which does not restrict the scope of the inquiry at the further deposition of Dr. Pao. ?(Declaration of Justin Hendrix at Exhibit A.)
Even considering the context of the motion which the May 13, 2011 Order resolved, that context is now five years remote.? Plaintiffs have provided no persuasive basis for precluding inquiry by Defendants into relevant intervening circumstances.
The motion is denied.
Defendants? request for monetary sanctions is denied, as Defendants have failed to provide the court with facts which would allow the court to determine the reasonableness of the fees requested.? (Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040; Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 65.)