Shoker v. Ghuman CA1/5

Filed 12/3/24 Shoker v. Ghuman CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

DEVINDER S. SHOKER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A167539 v. SUKHJINDER SINGH GHUMAN et (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. al., RG19036992) Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In this fraud action, defendants Sukhjinder Singh Ghuman and Jasbir S. Phangureh filed a motion for a discovery protective order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420,2 based on assertions that plaintiffs Devinder S. Shoker and

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 1

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule 19. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure. “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party[ or] any deponent . . . may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (§ 2025.420, subd. (a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party[ or] deponent . . . from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (§ 2025.420, subd. (b).) 1

Rajwant K. Shoker (along with their attorney) attempted to intimidate or bribe three third-party witnesses, who the Shokers sought to depose. The Shokers opposed the motion and flatly denied that they made any attempt to intimidate or bribe the three witnesses. After a hearing, the trial court signed a written order in which it stated that it was not resolving the factual conflict or finding that witness intimidation or bribery had occurred. But, nonetheless, it granted the motion “in part,” without specifying what restrictions it was granting or the reasons for granting them. On the same day, the trial court also granted the Shokers’ motions to compel the depositions (without limitation) of each of the three witnesses—who had previously failed to appear.