Slemaker v. Woolley

207 Cal.App.3d 1377 (1989) 255 Cal. Rptr. 532 C.M. SLEMAKER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

JOHN WOOLLEY et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. B033490. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

February 21, 1989. [1378] COUNSEL

Sanders, Barnet, Jacobson, Goldman & Mosk, Richard M. Mosk, Bernard P. Simons, Scott L. Zimmerman, Burkley, Moore, Greenberg & Lyman and Walter R. Burkley, Jr., for Defendants and Appellants.

Spierer, Woodward, Denis & Furstman and Stanley T. Denis, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

OPINION

ORTEGA, J. —

INTRODUCTION

This is a purported appeal from an order of the superior court imposing sanctions on counsel for improperly suspending the deposition of a witness. We hold that the order is not separately appealable and dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 15, 1988, plaintiffs C.M. Slemaker and Roberta Slemaker served notice by telecopy to defendants' counsel of depositions of two witnesses. The depositions were both noticed for January 25, 1988. Defense counsel claimed that since Monday January 18 was a holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, birthday) he was unaware of the notice until January 19.

Mr. Zimmerman, representing defendants John Woolley and Joan Woolley, attempted to reschedule the depositions, claiming that one of the defendants wanted to be present but couldn't do so on such short notice. Mr. Denis, counsel for plaintiffs, refused to reschedule the depositions but later [1379]