Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles County court records we believe plaintiff is represented by attorney George Shalhoub

Lawzilla Note:
Attorney George Shalhoub should have objected that a boilerplate deposition notice stating a videotape MAY occur does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.220(a)(5) and would not be allowed. That section requires an intent to videotape be stated. Not that a videotaping “may” occur. If Shalhoub would have done this it would have forced the other attorney to disclose beforehand if there was going to be videotaping and would have likely avoided sanctions. For some reason, the tentative order does not indicate that George Shalhoub even raised the issue.

Case Number: LC099580 Hearing Date: April 09, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

DANNY ZADOK,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

THE TARZANA SPRINGS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: LC099580

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #22
April 9, 2014

Defendants, Tarzana Springs and G&K Management Company, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Deposition is Granted. The Court will discuss a date and time for the deposition with the parties at the time of the hearing. The Court will also discuss whether the deposition will be videotaped with the parties at the time of the hearing.

Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is Granted. Plaintiff and his attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1465.

Defendants propounded a notice of deposition on Plaintiff, setting his deposition for 1/14/14. The notice included a provision indicating that Defendants “may” videotape the deposition. Notably, the deposition had been continued several times previously, and each notice of deposition included the same videotape language.

Plaintiff appeared at his deposition, but when the videographer appeared, Plaintiff objected to having his deposition videotaped on religious grounds. Defendants offered to permit the deposition to go forward without a videotape, but only if Plaintiff would pay the cost of the videographer. Plaintiff refused. Counsel met and conferred, but no resolution was reached. Defendants therefore filed this motion to compel.

The motion to compel the deposition is granted. Both parties agree that the deposition must go forward, and there is no disagreement about whether or not a deposition should be held. The Court will discuss a date and time for the deposition with the parties at the time of the hearing.

The more difficult issue is whether the deposition must be videotaped. The Court is faced with a number of factors to consider. Weighing in favor of requiring a videotape, Plaintiff failed to object to the notice of deposition, which clearly indicated that deposition might be videotaped. Additionally, Plaintiff provided photographs of his injuries, including a photograph showing the entirety of his body, to Defendants in connection with discovery.

Weighing against requiring a videotape, it makes sense that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to discuss the videotape requirement with Plaintiff prior to the deposition, as Counsel was not aware of the prohibition against being photographed in orthodox Judaism. Additionally, Plaintiff provides his own Declaration, wherein he indicates that he believes photographs are acceptable for identification purposes, but it is otherwise immodest to be videotaped simply for the purpose of looking at the image of a person. Plaintiff also submits a letter from his rabbi, who states that it is custom for some in the Jewish community to not be videotaped due to interpretations in the Bible against it.

The Court engaged in independent research on this subject, and read the Wikipedia entry on “Aniconism in Judaism,” which explains the reasons why Orthodox Jews believe they should not be photographed or videotaped. The page explains that the purpose of the practice is to ensure compliance with Ten Commandments and related Biblical passages, which prohibit idolatry.

The Court is having difficulty reconciling Plaintiff’s position that he can be photographed for purposes of “identification” in connection with litigation, but cannot be videotaped for purposes of a deposition. Plaintiff has not provided any religious authority for this distinction. It seems that, if photography is permitted for certain purposes so long as idolatry is clearly not involved, there is no reason that photography would not be permitted in the context of a deposition.

The Court, of course, is not an expert on the subject. The Court does not wish to order someone to violate a deeply-held religious belief. At the same time, Plaintiff chose to bring this litigation, and Defendants have the right to defend themselves to the best of their ability. The Court will discuss the videotaping of the deposition with the parties at the time of the hearing in an attempt to resolve the issue in a manner satisfactory to all parties.

The final issue before the Court is whether sanctions should be imposed. The Court finds this entire issue could have been avoided if Plaintiff had agreed, at the time of the deposition, to pay for the videographer. Defendants were willing to forego videotaping, but made the entirely reasonable request that Plaintiff pay for the videographer’s time. Plaintiff refused to do so, necessitating Court intervention in the matter. The Court therefore finds sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record are warranted. Plaintiff argues the meet and confer attempts were not sufficient and therefore sanctions should be denied. The Court has reviewed Defense Counsel’s declaration in this regard, and finds the meet and confer attempts were sufficient. Defense Counsel adequately sets forth each of the fees incurred in connection with this motion at ¶¶7-10 of his declaration. The request for fees is reasonable and is granted in full.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court