Case Number: BC517488    Hearing Date: August 05, 2014    Dept: 92

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

NAZANIN TURNBULL,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

KAMYA PASHAI, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC517488

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION WITH AN INTERPRETER OR FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #47
August 5, 2014

Defendant, Kamya Pashai’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Complete her Deposition with a Court Interpreter is Denied. The Alternative Motion for a Protective Order is Denied. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to choose a date to complete the deposition without an interpreter. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant’s attorney of record is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $2000.

Plaintiff, Nazanin Turnbull filed this action against Defendant, Kamya Pashai for damages arising out of an automobile accident. On 2/27/14, Defendant conducted Plaintiff’s deposition. The Court does not know what amount of time passed from commencement of the deposition to the incident at issue, but the incident commences on page 99 of the transcript. At that time, Defense Counsel asked Plaintiff if she lost consciousness during the accident. He then asked, “Do you know what that means, to lose consciousness?” Plaintiff replied, “You know, to faint? No, I didn’t faint.” Then a long discussion between Defense Counsel and Plaintiff’s Counsel ensued concerning Plaintiff’s proficiency in English, her native language of Farsi, and whether an interpreter was necessary.

Unfortunately, the Court does not have most of the transcript from the deposition. The rest of the transcript would be helpful to determine whether an interpreter is necessary. It appears, however, from the fact that 99 pages of testimony were taken without incident, that an interpreter is not necessary. As Plaintiff’s Counsel pointed out during the deposition, even a native English speaker sometimes loses the meaning of a word, or has to have something defined. Plaintiff has been a resident of the United States for twenty years and works as a nursing assistant in the United States. While she may occasionally need help remembering a word or defining a term, it is clear that she speaks English fluently. Notably, it is Defendant’s moving burden to show that the relief sought is warranted. Without providing more of the transcript, the Court cannot find that burden was met. The only portion of the transcript on point at all is a discussion between Defense Counsel and Plaintiff about the distinction between consciousness and fainting, and then there are many pages of argument between Counsel for both parties. Nothing in the argument of Counsel constitutes evidence on Plaintiff’s competency to testify in English or to be deposed on English.

Because Defendant failed to meet the moving burden to show an interpreter is necessary, the motion to compel her to complete her deposition with an interpreter present or for a protective order requiring an interpreter (the motion is phrased in the alternative, but really just seeks the same relief via two different avenues) is denied.

The more difficult issue before the Court is whether to order Plaintiff to complete her deposition without an interpreter present. As Plaintiff correctly notes in opposition, Defense Counsel was not entitled to suspend the deposition. CCP §2025.470 provides:
The deposition officer may not suspend the taking of testimony without the stipulation of all parties present unless any party attending the deposition, including the deponent, demands that the deposition officer suspend taking the testimony to enable that party or deponent to move for a protective order under Section 2025.420 on the ground that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses that deponent or party.

Defense Counsel unilaterally suspended the deposition in contravention of §2025.470. To completely disallow Defendant to complete the deposition, however, runs afoul to the interests of justice. Completion of the deposition is necessary to Defendant’s preparation of the case. The Court is, therefore, inclined to order the deposition to be completed, but without an interpreter present.

The Court notes that Plaintiff was cut off several times during the deposition, but that it appears she was trying to say that getting time off work for her deposition was difficult and she did not want to take another day off. Defense Counsel is ordered to work around Plaintiff’s schedule is choosing the second day for the deposition. If this means an evening or weekend session, Defense Counsel must comply with Plaintiff’s requirements.

Both parties seek sanctions in connection with their papers. The Court finds no sanctions should be imposed. Both parties acted in good faith in connection with this dispute. It does not appear the motion was brought for the purpose of harassment or any other improper purpose. It appears Defense Counsel had a good faith belief that an interpreter was necessary, but simply failed to meet his burden to show this to be true. The Court therefore declines to impose sanctions at this time.

Dated this 5th day of August, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court